Background of Previous Reunions

Introduction

There have been three essential elements of all the previous major re-unions in Christadelphia:

  • An agreement on the doctrinal aspects in dispute;
  • a statement on the on-going basis of fellowship; and
  • a transition period has occurred (whether implied or explicit), allowing the reunited parties to adjust to the new situation.

We will here deal with the last aspect of previous re-unions. In connection with this, we can re-capitulate the previous fellowship statements, as discussed in a previous (often cited) article in The Tidings, December 2008, entitled “Fellowship Practice of Central Ecclesias”.

Previous Fellowship Statements

1957 Central-Suffolk Street (United Kingdom) Final Statement GENERAL BELIEFS

“We agree that the doctrines to be believed and taught by us, without reservation, are the First Principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures, of which the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (with positive and negative clauses, and the Commandments of Christ) gives a true definition. It is agreed however, that ecclesias in both fellowships may continue to use such statements as are current among them, supplementing them where necessary with the Clauses herein set out.”

1958 Australian Unity Agreement “Basis of Fellowship

  • We agree that the doctrines to be believed and taught by us, without reserva­tion, are the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures, of which the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (with positive and negative clauses and the Commandments of Christ) gives a true definition. Clauses 5 and 12 are understood in harmony with the explanations provided by Brethren Carter and Cooper, reading: …
  • Acceptance of this basis would not preclude the use of any other adequate Statement of Faith by an ecclesia, provided this is in harmony with the B.A.S.F., understood in Clause 1 (a) above.”

1952 Berean-Central (North American) Reunion

The Berean-Central Reunion Agreement (“The Jersey City Resolution”) highlights the importance of both the inclusion of those who accept and the exclusion of those who depart from the basis of fellowship:

  • That we agree that the doctrines set forth in the Birmingham Amended State­ment of Faith are a true exposition of the first principles of the oracles of God as set forth in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and that therefore these doctrines are to be believed and taught by us without reservation: the doctrine of the Scriptures on sin and its effects and God’s salvation from sin and death in Christ Jesus being defined in the clauses three to twelve of the Statement of Faith.
  • That we recognize as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who have been immersed by whomsoever after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts, and that any brother departing from any element of the one Faith as defined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith is to be dealt with according to apostolic precept.
  • If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching false doctrines, or to retain in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming fellowship. (See The Christadelphian, 1952, p. 376).

PCCARC, (Central- Unamended on West Coast) 1994

(Note that the “their” is here referring to the former Belmont ecclesia):

  • The basis of their fellowship since uniting with the Central community is the doctrines and precepts embodied in the BASF.
  • No fellowship can exist where this basis is lacking.
  • When traveling, their members will attend and break bread at ecclesias which use this same basis: Central ecclesias.
  • They will welcome to participate in their breaking of bread service visitors from those Central ecclesias.

Note that the practice of the “Belmont” ecclesia was, and continues to be, to welcome to break bread occasional members of Un amended Community, but that teaching of error is not allowed. This is in conformity with the “exceptions” discussed in The Tidings article referred to above.

Cultural Changes in Biblical Times The Apostle Paul

The apostle Paul apparently spent three years in the desert of Arabia after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Some commentaries have called these the wilderness years and they have even been alluded to as the wasted years. However, the apostle never makes that assertion; rather he told the Galatians:

“[God] was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days” (Gal 1:16-18 ESV).

This passage reveals that between his vision on the road to Damascus, and his later intense preaching in the synagogue in that same city, he spent time in the wilderness of Arabia rather than immediately assuming the mission that God had intended for him. The Scriptures are replete with interim periods that seem to apparently interrupt the spiritual path that God ultimately planned for that person. Consider, for example, the forty years that Moses spent in Midian, or the years Joseph spent as Potiphar’s slave that accumulated with him languishing in prison for three years. Events in the lives of Jephthah and David provide similar instances of interim periods before they are fully prepared to accomplish what God had in store for them.

The case of the Apostle Paul, in particular, illustrates the fact that the Christians, and even the apostles in Jerusalem, would hardly have accepted him if he had immediately gone to that city and asserted his new status as an apostle. The time in the Arabian dessert, followed by his initial preaching in Damascus, not only prepared Paul for the tasks ahead, but also provided time for the main body of brethren in Jerusalem to begin to heal the memory of the havoc Paul had previously committed in that city. Then and only then were they willing to accept the fundamental change that Paul’s conversion had rendered. The situation was similar for Moses — without the forty years in Midian it is unlikely that the children of Israel would have accepted his leadership, given his prior status in the court of Pharaoh.

If there is the need for a time to heal and allow cultural change for one man, the situation becomes enormously more complex for large groups of people. The forty years that the Israelite spent in the wilderness of Sinai was designed to create a new culture for the nation — one of humble obedience and dependence on the LORD God (e.g. Josh 5:6).

The Jews in the time of Christ

Perhaps the most relevant transition in the household of God was the period of time God gave to the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and to drop observance of the “Law of Moses.” The Jews in the first century fell into three categories;

  • Jews that accepted Jesus as Messiah and also recognized the Gentiles as fellow heirs of the promises (Gal 3:28).
  • Jews that accepted Jesus as Messiah but held that circumcision of Gentile converts and observance of the Law was still required by Jewish converts and Gentile converts. (Col 2:10 to 17, Acts 21:18 to 21).
  • Jews that did not accept Jesus and viewed the Gentiles as unclean.

God showed great forbearance with the Jewish people. The Hebrews had been God’s “chosen people” since the time of Abraham. When Jesus came 2000 years later the old covenant and “the Law” were fulfilled and the Jews needed to now accept the long promised Messiah. During his ministry, some believed that Jesus was the Son of God and thousands after his resurrection believed. But many still did not believe particularly among the religious leadership of the Jewish nation. God was patient. For the period from the ministry of Jesus until the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews had opportunity to believe and abandon the ritual service in the Temple and observance of the Law. This was a very painful transition and caused the Apostle Paul and Jewish and Gentile converts much grief for many years.

The transition period was not negotiated, it was ended by God. Roman forces surrounded Jerusalem and eventually destroyed the city, leveling the Temple as Jesus had foretold.1

The reality of transition periods

There is sometimes a tendency among us to refuse to recognize the need for an interim period in implementing unity agreements. We resort to thinking that signing an agreement on a piece of paper automatically guarantees that everyone involved will adjust to the new situation the minute the ink is dry! A compact between two large groups of people is far different from a decision that has been made between two individuals. One might argue that one should abstain from sexual relations prior to marriage and set a specific date when the couple will officially be joined and the union fully implemented, but the analogy does not carry over to blending large groups of people that come from different cultures. Consultants who deal in corporate organizational change that might come about from a merger, for example, have found that this blending can take a considerable amount of time and forbearance. The new culture can eventually emerge only if there is a serious effort to work together project by project on a presumed equal basis from the very beginning. When blending two diverse cultures into a new united community it takes time for the values of the new situation to diffuse through the whole body. Some individuals will perceive immediately the values of the blended community and embrace them, while others will need more time to adjust, but will eventually become loyally committed after a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, some may also stubbornly cling to past values until it is overwhelming obvious to them that the new path is going to be successful — then and only then will they cooperate. Finally, a few may never adjust and will simply opt out of the new arrangement of their own accord. Obviously, this spread in the rate and degree of acceptance of a new situation, which is typical in trying to merge large groups of people, is a fact that needs to be fully understood in terms of creating a successful reunion effort.

Experiences in our community

Our Christadelphian Community has faced challenges of this sort in trying to blend different fellowships in the past when reunions were achieved in the United Kingdom, Australia/New Zealand and North America. In every case in the past history of reunions in Christadelphia, interim periods, formally or informally, hap­pened that allowed the unity process to eventually reach closure. We will examine the history each of these prior successful efforts in turn, as follows:

  • Suffolk Street/Central in UK
  • Berean/Central in North America
  • Shield/Central Australian Reunion
  • Central-Unamended reunion on the West Coast of North America

Suffolk Street – Central Christadelphian reunion in the UK

The general impression in North America about the reunion between the Suffolk Street and Central Fellowships that took place in the United Kingdom in 1957 is that it was implemented on a fixed date that was set by a joint agreement of the two Committees, each representing their respective fellowship.2This idea comes from the first paragraph of the note published in The Christadelphian magazine,3under the heading “Reunion” which we quote:

“A CIRCULAR is being issued by the two Committees of the Central and Suffolk Street fellowships, to all ecclesias in Great Britain, recommending that Reunion shall take effect from February 17, 1957.”

However, continuing in the same article the following should be also noted:

“It should be that there are still a very few who will be reluctant to fall in with the majority. May we ask that the wishes of the majority be given a trial; and it may be with experience, reluctance will give place to satisfaction that the step taken is the right one.”

Note the bold lettered portion — clearly this call is for reluctant ecclesias to use a “trial period” to work together in full fellowship to see if the new arrangement would eventually be acceptable. Hence, while not formally declared as an interim or transition period in so many words, this was what nevertheless actually transpired. It is hard to pin this down specifically in written sources how long this “trial period” lasted, but the nature of the culture in Great Britain enabled it to be done discreetly and locally. Indeed, some ecclesias needed only a short time, but others took several years. There was no rush to judgment and no ecclesia that didn’t accept the reunion agreement by the suggested February 17, 1957 was automatically put out of fellowship.

Consideration was also given to how the reunion in Great Britain would affect overseas ecclesias.

“The situation that the reunion in Great Britain placed overseas ecclesias also was addressed in this article — please note: ‘There are questions affecting overseas ecclesias. In Australia brethren are discussing the question of reunion, as we have reported some months ago. Until these discussions end, and as an interim measure, the Committees have made recommendations in their circular which it is hoped all ecclesias in Great Britain will follow…’ ”

Here the words “interim measure” are specifically used. The Brethren on the re­union committees in the United Kingdom did not wish to interfere with reunion efforts in other areas of the world. They urged ecclesias in the Great Britain to accept an “interim period” where they would retain their overseas relationships, as in the past, on an interim basis until the situations overseas came to a conclusion. That is why, in effect, visitors from North America are still often accepted by many ecclesias in Great Britain, regardless of their fellowship affiliation back home, as long as they themselves are found to be sound in believing the inter-ecclesial standard of the Biblical principles conveniently summarized in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF). Since these visitors nominally constitute a very small minority of the worldwide fellowship, treating them as exceptions is viewed as the reasonable way to proceed. Such acceptance should not be regarded as recognition of the North American situation since it should be obvious that as the article states: “…that there have been no Advocate ecclesias in Great Britain for thirty years…” (as of 1957). Furthermore, this article also pointed out that the reunion expressly required that the British reunion was based on the understanding that – “those doctrines are not being countenanced which led to the denial of resurrection responsibility of enlightened respecters…”

Hence, the “interim period” or “trial period”, whether inside the United Kingdom or with respect to relationships between ecclesias in that country and the rest of the Christadelphian world, did not apply to those ecclesias that outright rejected the basis of fellowship specified in the principles summarized in the BASF. Individuals coming from such ecclesias would thereby still be willing to countenance the er­rors that caused the original division and this was clearly labeled as unacceptable.

Also apparent was that all ecclesias in Great Britain who eventually participated in the Suffolk Street/Central Unity agreement, would acknowledge the same ecclesially (or community) based fellowship standard with respect to the agreed principles stated in the “Final Statement” (which did not require ALL Ecclesias to adopt the BASF, but only to recognize its principles as a basis for inter-ecclesial cooperation). This can be seen from the following quote in the same article:

“The two other ecclesias are, we believe, prepared to accept the Final Statement as such, but they are not willing to accept its terms as a basis of fellowship. They wish to exercise an ecclesial autonomy which would enable them to treat as “in fellowship” another ecclesia which does not regard itself as in association with either the Suffolk Street or Central fellowship, and which has not, of course, ac­cepted the terms upon which agreement is based. This is a point of view which the Suffolk Street Committee cannot accept. During the discussions leading up to the preparation of the Final Statement, the Joint Committee found it necessary to exclude certain extreme views before they could arrive at an agreed position. Is it not, then, a point of simple logic that recognition can be extended only to those ecclesias who accept the agreed basis? This is the unanimous view of the Suffolk Street Committee, who feel that a little quiet, clear thinking on the point should convince all our brethren and sisters of the correctness and reasonableness of their view. An article contributed in this issue by bro. Leslie Jennings, at the request of the Suffolk Street Committee, has a bearing on this subject.”4

Central-Berean Reunion in North America.

The reunion between the Central and Berean fellowship in North America is based on a document commonly known as the Jersey City agreement made on September 20, 1952. In giving consideration to how to implement this agreement throughout the continent several insights can be gathered from correspondence published in The Christadelphian magazine. Under the heading “The general plan of implementation,” we read the following:

“Discussion then took place as to the method which should be followed to imple­ment the decision reached. Many spoke in favour of prompt effect being given to the decision and it was decided unanimously that a report of the meeting and its decisions should be circulated without delay to all Berean Ecclesias in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia, and to all Central Ecclesias in the United States and Canada… Each ecclesia has to make its own decision. It is hoped that all will give a favorable response. In order that all ecclesias should know the results of the appeal, it was agreed that brethren Ashley and Twelves should jointly publish a report of the decision reached to ecclesias concerned of both fellowships.”5

Note that no fixed implementation date was planned with the actual rate of ac­ceptance being left to the actions of individual ecclesias. That the Berean/Central reunion had an interim period is clearly documented in various correspondences published in The Christadelphian during that period; for example, in a letter from the Secretaries of the reunion conference to the magazine in May, 1953:

“A further report from brethren W. J. Ashley and E. Twelves (secretaries to the Jer­sey City Conference) has been received in which they say: ‘The last report revealed that all of the Central Ecclesias in the United States and Canada were unanimous in their approval of the resolution (approved by the Jersey City Conference). We are pleased to report that the following Berean Ecclesias, having unanimously adopted the resolution, have also by recent ecclesial action now extended their fellowship circle to include the Central Brethren. They are as follows: Glendale, Hollywood, Los Angeles, Pomona and Santa Barbara, all California. A notice of similar action by the Sarasota (Florida) Ecclesia has been received; their reunion with the Central Fellowship is to become effective May 17, 1953. Further reports will be issued as replies are received.’ ”6

Further evidence of a prolonged interim period being employed can be seen in a letter from Brother John Carter answering a query from the Newark, New Jersey Berean Ecclesia that was sent to British ecclesias, he wrote:

“The Newark circular rightly says that all Central Ecclesias in the U.S.A. and Canada have approved the recommendations of the Jersey City Conference. Already a number of Berean ecclesias have not only approved them, but have resumed fellowship with Central ecclesias.”7

This was in the July 1953 issue of the magazine some 10 months since the resolu­tion was passed in Jersey City and it is abundantly clear that fellowship was being phased in between Berean and Central over an extended period of time.

Further evidence of the extended interim period that was involved in the Ber­ean/Central reunion can be culled by reading a number of The Christadelphian magazine issues in 1953 and 1954. The reunion secretaries dutifully reported to the magazine month after month as groups of ecclesia joined into the reunion agreement. Reports of ecclesias implementing the reunion appear in the follow­ing issues: October 1953, November 1953, January 1954, March 1954, and as late as December 1954 approximately 27 months since the Jersey City agreement in September 1952. The mode of implementation of the Berean/Central reunion was previously summarized in this magazine in a November 2003 editorial.8(The editorial is available online on the website noted in reference 8). This editorial reviewed the historical evidence that the Berean/Central reunion was actually phased in over an roughly a 27 month period. Implementing unity in practice was left to individual ecclesias to work out in their own way on their own time table. This meant the whole period was a transitional time. The content of The Tidings and conclusions drawn in the November 2003 editorial were verified in a private correspondence with the late Brother Ernest Twelves who was one of the secretaries of the Jersey City conference. His reply is reproduced unabridged below:

“It was nice to hear from you on Tuesday evening particularly as it relates to a subject very close to my heart. You have very well captured the spiritual as well as the practical aspects of the issue of fellowship which emerged from the Central Berean Union Agreement in 1952.

“It has been cause for rejoicing for over 50 years that we can fellowship in love those from whom we had been separated in the past. We hold in loving memory Bro. John Carter whose labors along with brethren now long since deceased, both Central and Berean, provided the impetus to move forward to a very joyful and just reunion all to the Glory of God.

Your brother by Grace, Ernest Twelves”

Central-Shield fellowship reunion in Australia/New Zealand

Next we will consider the reunion in Australia/New Zealand, which took place over a number of years in the 1950s. Reunion began in one Australian state (Victoria, the city of Melbourne being the capital) in 1953 and developed over a six-year period to eventually reach a continent-wide closure in 1959. Details on this are supplied below in an abstract from an article by Brother John Carter in The Christadelphian, July 1958, from a cooperating group of ecclesias in Australia9, as follows:

“For some time we have had a note at the head of Australian intelligence items that the position was confused. A word of explanation may be here added. As reported in The Christadelphian, 1956, page 189, the Victorian ecclesias (that is in Melbourne and the vicinity) had agreed in 1953 on a basis for reunion, and with the exception of two ecclesias (one of which has since joined in), were cooperating together. This left somewhat undefined their position with regard to the ecclesias elsewhere in Australia and throughout the world.”

In an earlier “Intelligence” from the Launceston (Tasmania) Ecclesia10we get an inside view of how one ecclesia was handling fellowship issues that confronted it during the interim multi-year period while reunion was diffusing throughout the Australian/New Zealand body of ecclesias. Citing from their December 1957 letter:

“The following five point resolution is now adopted as our stand in relation to all ecclesias in Australia. This was passed at a special business meeting on Aug. 31, 1957: (1) That this ecclesia desires to make its position clear in the present confused state of the Christadelphian body. We stand firm on the wholehearted acceptance of the B.A.S.F. as always. (2) That we extend fellowship to any brother or sister who does so without deviation, condition or reservation. (3) That we withhold fellowship from any ecclesia tolerating false doctrine in their own ranks upon proof of such being brought to our notice. (4) That we do not extend this ban to any other ecclesia who if sound in themselves, extend fellowship to an ecclesia where heresy exists. That we deplore the principle of chain reaction in the matter of disfellowship as making for greater and more harmful division. (5) That the above resolutions are purely temporary and transitional until a more stable base of unity may be found. — W. T. Case (rec. bro.).”

It is clear from this and the above note from Brother Carter that a rather long tran­sition period occurred in the Central/Shield reunion in Australia/New Zealand. The correspondence from the Launceston ecclesia contributes to the verification of this fact and also provides some other points that ecclesias in North America should ponder that might be helpful in rendering a more peaceful and orderly transition to a final closure of the unity efforts on this continent.

Finally, some six years after Central/Shield Ecclesias in the state of Victoria, Aus­tralia had started cooperating in fellowship a date for closure to the Unity process was announced in a report from the N.S.W. Christadelphian Unity Committee published in September, 1959:

“N.S.W. CHRISTADELPHIAN UNITY COMMITTEE: Report on Unity in Australia.

“After months of endeavour for the consolidation of the valuable work of bro. John Carter and the publication of the reports of his findings in Australia, the Unity Committee meeting in Sydney feel that reasonable time has now elapsed to enable ecclesias in what were once the Shield groups, to make their decisions as to whether or not they wish to participate in the Unity arrangement. Consequently, Feb. 28, 1959, was fixed, by which date any organized ecclesia could say yea or nay.”11

Central-Unamended reunion on the West Coast of North America

Finally, since it is probably already well-known to our readers, we will consider only briefly the reunion process which transpired on the West Coast of North America some twenty years ago.12This reunion had a transition period that initially was proposed to last eighteen months, but as progress was made forbearance extended the time to roughly three years. As with the other cases illustrated above in Great Britain (Central/Suffolk Street), North America (Central/Berean) and Australia/ New Zealand (Central/Shield) at the time there were strong voices of dissent from a minority of ecclesias, but there can be no argument today that all these reunions have been successful and have provided great benefits to the ecclesias involved.

Conclusion

In conclusion we will sum up the key points that this historical review has revealed:

Central-Suffolk 1957. The UK ecclesias agreed, in principle, on a start date at which point all ecclesias involved would recognize each other in fellowship. In practice there were local transitions in the UK both with respect to Unamended overseas and with some UK ecclesias that were reluctant to move on the “official” start date recommended by the reunion committees. In addition, in some areas of Great Britain ecclesias in both fellowships had been fully cooperating for some years before the “official” reunion closure date.

Central-Berean 1952. This reunion was actually phased in over approximately a two year period. Implementing unity in practice was left to individual ecclesias to work out fellowship in their own way and on their own time table.

Central-Shield 1958. This reunion actually started in the state of Victoria (where Melbourne is the primary city). Some Victoria Central and Shield ecclesias were breaking bread together as early as 1953. Reunion gradually spread from there in fits and starts until it basically culminated in 1959 throughout Australia/New Zealand.

Central-Unamended 1992, (West Coast of North America). An approximately three year transitional fellowship period led to a successful reunion.

Finally, all four of these successful reunions had three things in common:

  • The desire and commitment on both sides to reach closure with uniform doctrinal believes and a fellowship practice in the united community,
  • A plan to support and achieve unity, eventually reaching closure, and
  • Patience and forbearance of the preponderant majority involved on both sides during the transition period.
  1. It is stated in many ancient sources that the Jewish Christians fled Jerusalem before the siege, many settling in Pella — across the Jordan in modern Jordan.
  2. Of course, the agreement had previously been ratified in principle by the overwhelming majority of both sets of ecclesias.
  3. The Christadelphian, V. 94, p. 26, (1957).
  4. Ibid.
  5. The Christadelphian, 89, p. 375, (1952).
  6. The Christadelphian, 90, p. 185, (1953).
  7. The Christadelphian, 90, p. 216, (1953).
  8. http://www.tidings.org/2003/11/historical-guidelines-to-fellowship-practice-3/
  9. The Christadelphian, 95, p. 324, (1958).
  10.  The Christadelphian, 94, p. 475, (1957).
  11. The Christadelphian, V. 96, p. 405, (1959).
  12. The Christadelphian, 129, p.80, (1992).