Communications

Confessions of a Legalist

Dear Bro. Don,

I found Bro. Gary Burns article, “Confessions of a Legalist” (July-Aug., ’03, pg. 305) very interesting and helpful. Possibly most of us have the legalistic attitude where we become judges of our brethren according to law and we miss the spirit of the Lord’s teachings.

Jesus said in Luke 6:37: “Judge not and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned. Forgive and ye shall be forgiven.” Also, in Matthew 7:2, Jesus said, “For with what judgement ye judge ye shall be judged and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again.”

Maybe in our harsh judging of our brethren and sisters, we are not thinking of the consequences of our actions because it is by our judgmental attitude that we will be judged on the day of judgment. Jesus tells us how we shall be like our Father in heaven. Luke 6:36: “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is merciful.”

When I read in the article how Bro. Gary had “acute Myelogenous Leukemia” and he had been through many hours of chemotherapy and sickness, I could really feel for him.

In January, 2003, I was put in hospital and diagnosed with “multiple myeloma,” (bone marrow cancer). Like Bro. Gary, I went through many hours of chemotherapy and sickness. My doctor wanted me to go through a stem cell transplant, but after reading that Bro. Gary fell asleep after this because the immune system is brought down so low, and it is easy to get an infection, I have decided against it. I have changed my diet and at the moment feel quite well.

It is not until one gets very sick that you realize just how mortal we are. I was always quite fit and well and my only sickness before was the occasional cold or flu, which usually went away within a few weeks, but this one has not gone away.

When you contract a life threatening disease, you realize what is important and what is not. We can debate and argue over many unimportant things, but when one’s life is on the line, you can see just how unimportant this attitude is.

When brethren and sisters are faced with a crisis like Gary, they react differently. My physical life went down but my spiritual life went up. For me the most important thing was to be in God’s presence as much as I could.

Without my wife and family’s love, I don’t know how I would have coped. I had cards, letters, emails, phone calls and many visitors from around New Zealand and other countries. Many who communicated I have never heard of before, and they wrote saying how they are praying for my family and myself.

The brethren and sisters of my ecclesia came around and painted our house and garage, did our garden and mowed our lawn, which a brother is doing on a regular basis. I have been very moved by the love of God’s family for us, and in this I see what the truth is really about. Didn’t Jesus say: “When you did these things for my brethren you did it for me” (Matt. 25:34-46)?

When I was feeling so unwell, I read Bro. David Levin’s book Legalism vs. Faith. It was one of the most helpful books that I have read. My own opinion is that this book should be required reading for all Christadelphians. Like Bro. Gary, I would encourage all to read it.

Allan Taylor, Christchurch, New Zealand [While Bro. Gary wrote the article when ill, he had rejected legalism years before his illness.]

Considerations Regarding Dress

Dear Bro. Don,

I would like to make some comments on Bro. Clyde Snobelen’s article “Considerations Regarding Dress,” Nov., 2003. As he notes, it is a perennially thorny issue, and raises strong emotional responses.

As Bro. Clyde notes “…there is no biblical dress code….” This is most important to remember in our dealings with this issue, and our own efforts to enforce dress codes. Bro. Clyde uses the “eating meat” principle as a guideline to how we should deal with the issue of offence, and it is very important to note how Paul deals with this issue. He could easily have said: “In order to make sure that no-one is offended by someone else eating meat, I will make a rule that from now on no-one should eat it.” Instead he leaves it to the individual conscience.

Do we get upset over someone else’s dress because: a) our faith is weak, or b) because we understand that their faith may be weak, or c) because we think that person’s dress might affect someone else’s weak faith, or d) because they are not “conforming” to an unwritten dress code. I suspect we often (c), in order to put our motives in a good light, but I think that if we can each clarify this in our own minds, it will help us to deal with each situation.

We have to be careful when dealing with individual matters of dress that we don’t become guilty of discriminating according to the outward appearance, as condemned by James. Do we say to the brother/ young person/visitor to the meeting, who is wearing a suit and tie: “Welcome, let me find you a seat,” but to the one dressed in jeans and sporting pink, spiky hair: “Are you sure you’ve come to the right place? Next time please wear more appropriate clothing!”

However we choose to dress, there is always a group in the world to which we are conforming, whether it is the formal attire of suits, or the more casual attire of jeans and T-shirts. What about the consistency between what we wear during the rest of the week, and what we wear on Sundays? Does God not look at our hearts or hear our prayers when we are wearing jeans on Tuesday? Who are we changing our dress for on Sunday? When we say that we wouldn’t dress “like that” to meet the Queen, why are we comparing God, who looks beyond the outward appearance, to a human ruler, who probably does not?

Bro. Clyde addresses the issue of modesty, which is an important one, but one which has to be seen in the context of the age in which we have each grown up. For older brethren and sisters, what was their attitude when skirts shortened and it was “daring” to show the ankles? Or what about swimsuits — a full-piece swimsuit is today seen as more modest than a bikini, but what about when it was seen as more daring and immodest than what had gone before? In other words, there shouldn’t be a blanket condemnation for today’s dress vs. a blanket approval for what was worn 100 years ago.

Yes, the principle of modesty is important, but look at it carefully. The same arguments apply to men’s and women’s clothing, which has varied widely throughout history. Today’s clothing should be seen in its context, and not judged by what was in vogue 50-100 years ago.

In all this a most vital point to remember is that the person who is wearing the controversial clothing may need to have their spirituality and faith nurtured to grow to a point where they agree that perhaps they should change. We have to be careful not to destroy their faith by insensitively trampling over it in our desire for outward conformity (see Rom. 14:1; 15:1)

So, no, I’m not saying that “anything goes,” but I am saying that we have to look carefully at principles and motives in dealing with a matter which is “disputable” (Rom. 14:1 NIV), and that our desire should be to build each other up in love (Eph. 4:16).

Wendy Johnsen, Port Alberni, BC

Recent Editorials

Dear Bro. Don,

These editorials on “A right Attitude to Reconciliation,” “Our Basis of Fellowship,” and “Historical Guidelines to Fellowship Practice” (Sept., Oct., Nov., 2003) are must-reads as we consider “A Basis for Christadelphian Unity in North America” sent to all Christadelphians by the brethren of the Christadelphian NASU Steering Committee.

Now we have a document outlining clear doctrinal statements and principles upon which fellowship can be based. As its opening letter states, no human document will be perfect or satisfy every individual’s preference of expression. However, our brothers have, in a process conducted in the spirit of our Lord and with mutual respect for one another and faithfulness to fundamental scriptural doctrines, given us a very scriptural “basis for Christadelphian Unity.” Some of us know a little of their heart searching, patient labor for us. We should all thank God and our Lord Jesus for helping them to give us this basis for reconciliation.

Although the NASU committee continues to extend an invitation to those who still have concerns to meet and talk with the committee, surely the time for adding and deleting words is over. It is time for decisive action by individual ecclesias. The pattern followed in the 1952 reunion between Central and Berean ecclesias (which has borne such good fruit for so many of us, as your November editorial points out), is a scripturally sound course for individual ecclesias to follow. “Our whole system relies on ecclesias declaring their fellowship position and exercising spiritual common sense as they follow agreed-upon principles for practicing fellowship,” as your editorial says.

In Matthew 5:9, 23-26, the Lord Jesus clearly lays the onus on us to be reconciled to our brothers and to do so without delay.

Yes, it requires us to show trust toward our brothers from whom we have been separated at the Lord’s table for so long. However, trust is an essential element of love that brings out the best in those trusted, as the Apostle Paul shows in I Corinthians 13:7 and in Philemon. We do not need to fear that the Lord Jesus will disapprove of brothers and sisters who trust one another. The only New Testament reference to refusing fellowship at the breaking of bread to a faithful brother is in III John’s reproof of Diotrephes for doing just that.

What are we waiting for? Let ecclesias actively seek reconciliation by affirming their support for the NASU basis of unity and welcoming to the Lord’s table all the brothers and sisters formerly separated from them who are now united with them in support of this basis of unity — as some ecclesias have already done.