In Last Month’s Editorial, we reviewed our basis of fellowship. Perhaps to the surprise of some, our historical Christadelphian basis of fellowship is not our common use of a specific statement of faith. Rather it is our common acceptance and profession of the doctrines and precepts of Christ, as taught in the apostolic writings, which are declared in the BASF, but which may be set forth in a number of other statements of faith, which all agree in declaring the same biblical principles.
We used a number of documents from our history to develop this point, two of which also included a guideline with respect to fellowship practice. These two were “A System of Rules Embodying the Foregoing Sug
gestions” found as part of the 1883 Ecclesial Guide by Bro. Robert Roberts, and the 1952 reunion agreement between the Central and Berean fellowships in North America.
Historical guidelines surprise us
In regard to fellowship practice, the Ecclesial Guide reads: “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.” This statement offers a guideline we no doubt all follow with respect to accepting new members into an ecclesia. If someone seeks to join our ecclesia, we welcome him/ her to membership after assuring that he/she was baptized with a belief in the same doctrines and precepts we hold as first principles of the faith.
However, this Ecclesial Guide statement is also applicable to those visitors whom we will welcome to participate in the breaking of bread. In this regard, we may be surprised because the guideline, when carefully read, can provide more flexibility than we may have expected or than our ecclesia may be exercising. The suggestion in the Ecclesial Guide does not require the visitor necessarily to be a member of our fellowship. It only requires that he/she has been immersed after his/her acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts which form our basis of fellowship. The historical guideline is thus belief-based rather than group-based.
From a practical point of view, this is very limiting — few people, if any, not of our faith will believe the same first principles. But most of us will recognize that it is at least possible for some, not in our Central fellowship, to meet this guideline set out in the Ecclesial Guide. Thus, our historical position is more flexible than our current ecclesial practice may be.
Having grown up in a Berean ecclesia, we expected the CentralBerean Reunion Agreement to be more restrictive than the Ecclesial Guide. We were therefore surprised to find this reunion agreement included the exact words on fellowship practice from the Guide. The two sections relating to fellowship in the reunion agreement are:
“2. 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.
“3. 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, pg. 376, 1952).
The additional wording in items 2 and 3 summarizes sections of the Ecclesial Guide (sections 32, 35-37) which were of particular importance to the Berean ecclesias uniting with Central Fellowship. But the language from the Guide respecting fellowship practice is retained intact at the start of item 2.
No cutting off
Why doesn’t this agreement limit fellowship only to those who would be members of ecclesias recognized as being in the Central Fellowship? We can be sure it was not a careless oversight. Having helped draft reunion documents, we’re well aware how every phrase is carefully examined by those involved in the effort both pro and con. Every attempt is made to be faithful to scripture and our history, and every consideration is given to including as many brothers and sisters as possible in the reunion. In such a critical context, the fellowship practice phrases would have been given very close attention.
Upon careful research, the reason for retaining the Guide wording is clear: The Berean ecclesias uniting with Central were not cutting off those members of the Berean Fellowship who chose not to make the same decision. Why should they refuse the emblems to brothers and sisters with whom they had been in fellowship for 30 years? This whole arrangement was to open the Berean brethren to wider fellowship association, not cut off those who stayed behind. Drawing on our own recollections and that of others contemporary with the reunion, the unity document would not have received as wide an acceptance as it did if the fellowship practice statement had read: That we recognize as brethren and welcome to our fellowship only those who are members of Central fellowship ecclesias.
The flexibility offered in the wording of this agreement was particularly useful in the early months of the unity arrangements. It allowed those who wanted to move forward to do so with a clear conscience they were not cutting off their brethren. It also allowed for the Possibility of some who felt they must stay behind in a non-participating Berean ecclesia for geographic, or other reasons, if they chose, to quietly and discreetly break bread with those who had moved ahead with reunion. In actual practice, this flexibility was seldom exercised, but it acted as a safety valve in some individual cases.
Past offers a solution to the present
While no two situations are exactly alike, there is a vital common element in today’s unity considerations. One of the roadblocks in the present unity effort is the reluctance of brethren to cut off those with whom they formerly broke bread. That is a perfectly understandable apprehension and mirrors reasonable concerns in similar situations in the past. In fact, if such an anxiety did not exist, it would reflect a very mechanical and unloving relationship between brethren.
While we may not have fully recognized it, the solution to such concerns exists in our historical guidelines for practicing fellowship. This approach was included in the Berean Central agreement which led to the unity that many of us have enjoyed for more than 50 years.
Too much autonomy?
If the flexibility allowed by the Ecclesial Guide and the Central Berean unity agreement is exercised, then some latitude is given for ecclesial decision-making. Of course, we already allow plenty of ecclesial latitude in matters of whom to baptize, to dis fellowship, and re fellowship, so ecclesial autonomy in fellowship matters is integral to our structure. In fact, no other authority for fellowship practice has ever been established in our community.
Some may be concerned, however, that if ecclesias are not restricted to allowing only visitors from Central Fellowship ecclesias to break bread, then any person who walks in off the street will be sharing the emblems. Surely we can trust each other to act responsibly.
Our whole system relies on ecclesias plainly declaring their fellowship position and exercising spiritual common sense as they follow agreed-upon principles for practicing fellowship; after 150 years of experience, we can see that such a policy works. Our historical practices certainly work better than having a central hierarchy dictating rules and regulations to all the ecclesias, a system which has led to atrocious abuses in the orthodox churches.
In our grasp
By thus considering the fellowship practice guidelines set forth in the Ecclesial Guide and the 1952 Central-Berean reunion agreement, we may be somewhat surprised at the potential for flexibility we see, but we should be relieved as well. Here, as part of our history, is a reasonable solution to one of the key problems blocking unity in North America on which so many have diligently labored and which so many have longed for. It is the fellowship grounds on which all past successful reunions have implicitly relied. Let us grasp hold of a solution that is part of our history.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One