Communications

Military Service

Dear Bro. Don,

Several have expressed some interest in a written history of our Christadelphian activities in the area of conscientious objection, and I am considering writing such an account. I am therefore appealing to any who might have verbal or written records, or other relevant information in the area to contact me. I am particularly interested in:

Accounts of experiences in the Second World War, Korean, and Vietnam conflicts either in the camps or with the boards.

Any accounts in local newspapers that you might have.

Pictures from the camps of WWII (especially if the people in them are identified).

Any copies of the Bible Truth or the Faith Magazine that might survive.

Any other relevant information.

I do have a complete set of the “bulletins” from the Amended military affairs committee, and information from the “Berean” and “Christ-adelphian” magazines. Unfortunately, I do not have more than a few issues of the “Bible Truth,” and the “Faith” magazine is extremely rare. If anyone has any other relevant magazines, I would be most interested to know about them. I do not need originals, and if any have photos, a tip I have found useful is that “Kinko’s,” can use their (or anyone else’s) color laser copier to take excellent copies of black and white pictures.

Any information would be promptly returned, if you send me originals, and I can be contacted as below: Peter Hemingray, 3079 Kilburn Rd. W, Rochester Hills MI 48306 phemingray@comcast.net 248-373-4791

Peter Hemingray

Confessions of a Legalist

Dear Bro. Don,

The article entitled “Confessions of a Legalist” by our late Bro. Gary Burns was a useful and instructive “confession.” It is a poignant exhortation for all Christadelphians, which brings me to my point.

In the introduction, the mention that both Bro. Gary and Bro. David Levin were formerly Unamended, in the context of this article on legalism may inadvertently infer that legalism is uniquely an Unamended problem, which is simply not the case. In my experience, there is plenty of legalism to go around. I have found it (and have engaged in it) in the context of both communities. It can be a mindset problem for any of Christ’s brethren and is as natural a temptation as any of the lusts specifically nominated in scripture. The desire of man to codify and quantify his way to salvation is the same “falling away” (from faith) that has always plagued groups and systems that at least initially strove to follow God.

My experience in both communities over the years has me convinced that legalism is not a bigger problem in one community over another, but it is a problem of humanity — period. It is a ruinous (lack of) faith problem whenever it thrives in a community.

We let down our guard if we inadvertently place the problem of legalism ‘over there’ — in the other camp. (This is itself a legalistic perspective, as it infers that it isn’t a problem ‘over here,’ therefore we’re justified by virtue of our association with a particular community.)

Bro. Gary Burns was an example of a man of God who evidently continued to think and learn and grow spiritually throughout his life. He has left us with a lesson of considerable value here. I trust we will not be distracted by the irrelevant fact that he started life in the Unamended community and ended it in the Amended community. The real point is that this brother of Christ, this Christadelphian, identified the insidious problem of legalism, wrestled with it and helped all his brethren by sharing his personal experience.

Doug Finlay, Guelph, ON

Dear Bro. Don,

The article by Brother Gary called “Confessions of a Legalist” was very moving, especially when we are filled with sadness over the loss of this brother who was taken from us all too soon. Bro. Gary’s story reminds us of his unique set of circumstances and his real conversion of the spirit. It may well provide inspiration for others who are also feeling a real need to be truly renewed in the spirit of their minds.

Unfortunately, as I read this article, it occurred to me that its presentation provides a great potential for misunderstanding on the part of your readers. It would be a sad thing for anyone to conclude from Gary’s confession that there is apparently something about being “Unamended” that is inherently “legalistic.”

As the result of Bro. David Levin’s work on this subject, the word “legalism” has taken on new meaning for many Christadelphians. It now describes a system of religion that is hypocritical and misguided, and the way of “faith” is to be sought after as the proper approach to “pure religion.” From a scriptural standpoint, there is nothing wrong in recognizing these characteristics of religious service. However, I doubt very much that David and/or Gary ever intended their references to “legalism” as a way to encourage us to forget our obligation to the laws of God, or as a convenient way to label any group of Christadelphians. In fact, Bro. Gary wisely observed in his article that “we all struggle with this to some extent because it is a product of our nature.” We will honor the memory of his conversion and life of service far better when we are inspired by his example to all take a look at ourselves for those legalistic characteristics that may be interfering with our own spiritual development.

Jim Millay (Editor of the Unamended Christadelphian Advocate magazine)

In Defense of Christadelphians

see May, 2003, p. 217

Dear Bro. Don,

I would like to comment on a thought presented by the Trinidadian critic who objected to the confidence Christadelphians have in the exclusivity of their understanding of the saving gospel. The foundation thought for all the correspondent’s conclusions appears to be the misconception that the true gospel would have been presented by Jesus as clearly and unmistakably as could possibly be done. This is an instinctive conclusion, presuming that God and Christ would never construct any barrier to approaching them with understanding. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is not only true but easily proven again and again. The divine teaching method is consistently presented in a veiled fashion designed to act as a mental obstacle course. God uses visions, dreams, parables, and dark sayings.

A perfect example of this is recorded in John 6 when Jesus was pressured to repeat his miracle of the previous day. He had fed thousands of people. Some of these people who had eaten the bread and the fish from the day before hunted him down in Capernaum, baiting him with the challenge of how Moses had fed their ancestors in the wilderness with manna. Jesus went on to tell them that if they wanted to be saved they would be required to eat his flesh and drink his blood. This concept naturally appalled the Jewish thought process. God forbade the eating of any blood under any condition and this Jesus of Nazareth was claiming that a condition of eternal life would be the drinking of human blood. The point I am making is that Jesus never explained to them he was speaking metaphorically. He didn’t explain about the broken bread that would represent his body where the power of sin would be broken. He did not explain how the wine would represent his blood. Verse 66 tells us that Jesus actually allowed disciples to walk away confused rather than explain what he meant.

The presumption that the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ would always speak as clearly and plainly as possible is not demonstrated in scripture.

Jim Dillingham, Dunbarton, NH

Dear Bro. Don,

Surely you have more worthwhile material to publish than the emotive attack that appeared under the heading `In defense of Christadelphians’ (May). The anonymous attack was emotional not logical, based on falsehood and assumptions rather than facts, and without any supporting argument. We are accused of being a `product of human vanity,’ preying on people’s desire.. to belong to an exclusive club’, wanting to ‘appear superior’ to our peers, Pharisaical doctrines, distorting the truth, and more. Yet these statements were made with no evidence whatsoever to support them! Anyone can take cheap shots like these at another religion, basing his/her finding on so-called careful research!

The first accusation against us is that we are an exclusive club. In fact, we are the exact opposite – completely inclusive – because anyone can become a Christadelphian. We have members of our ‘club’ from all backgrounds in most countries of the world, and I have never heard a Christadelphian say that anyone would receive superior treatment on judgement day.

Another accusation is that we attempt to discredit any evidence presented against our beliefs. Our accuser has failed to understand one of the greatest strengths of our community. We do not have a central organisation responsible for telling us what we should believe. The Catholics have the Pope, the Anglicans have the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the JW’s have their central publishing organisation, the Watchtower. All of our congregations are independent. We do not have a paid ministry, and encourage each member to study the Bible for him/herself. No ‘majority’ religion does so…Christadelphians publish more religious writings per head than any other religious group in the world, and one of the reasons for this is our openness to the study of God’s word.

A further related accusation is that we have introduced private doctrines that are not necessary for salvation. True doctrine of the devil, Satan, the soul and hell are clear from scripture, and it is other churches, such as the Catholic Church who have introduced false doctrines. For example, where is the Trinity, immortal soul, or eternal torment in the gospel of Christ?…

The only evidence presented by our accuser is from the so-called Book of Enoch, which does not even belong to the canon of scripture! The Book of Enoch that exists today as apocryphal writings is of highly dubious worth. Christ did mention a Book of Enoch, but there is no evidence that it is the same book as the apocryphal book, or even that Jesus regarded such writings as scripture. I could quote from the writings of Josephus as a historical source, but that does not mean I regard his writings as scripture.

As a Christadelphian I am open to reasoned criticism, but let’s not waste time and editorial space on such worthless attacks from people who are not interested in reasoned debate. It spoils an excellent publication.