Communications

Fellowship Practice

Dear Bro. Don,

For many years our ecclesias in Jamaica and the Caribbean have had visits from brothers and sisters, some of whom are called Unamended and some just ordinary Christadelphians. There are some visiting us right now and assisting our preaching. We are being told by some who call themselves Amended or Central that we must refuse to share the sacred fellowship of the bread and wine with them, sending them away empty from the Lord’s table, and that if we fellowship with them in this way we will not be recognized or accepted any more by others who assist us.

We feel that we are being forced to commit a grave sin, because we have found them to be faithful. We have heard them preach and exhort and we have never heard any heresy. Although we have repeatedly asked, we have never been given any sound scriptural reason why we must treat faithful brethren as “unbelievers” or “heathens and publicans” (Matt. 18:17).

We have been told that the great-great-grandfathers of some of the visitors could not agree on a few words in a sentence more than a hundred years ago, but what is that to us now?

Please explain very clearly from the Scriptures why these visitors are not brothers and sisters, even though they love the truth and encourage us, and why we are not to be accepted any more if we fellowship with them.

Surely you must realize that we find it hard to respect elders who “war and fight” and “speak evil one of another” (James 4:1,11). We are told to follow their example, but we do not feel that we can follow them in such ways.

Signed by eight elders of Jamaican ecclesias

We are very sorry indeed that you have imposed on you such a dilemma from outside your own ecclesias. Surely none involved want you to feel compelled to do what you are convinced is sin. Our suggestion would be to make very clear the basis of your own fellowship at the table of the Lord and let your visiting Christadelphians examine their own conscience as to whether or not they should participate with you on that basis.

Please note the subsequent letters and the editorial which are related to this matter.

Dear Bro. Don,

[Re: the issue of division in current Christadelphian fellowship practice: pp 79-83, February, 2006, Tidings]

Grace and peace to you. I am grateful both for Bro. Philip’s courageous recall to attention of the serious division in community fellowship and for your historical recap, presented in a characteristically conciliatory style. Yet despite your excellent reply, Bro. Don, I feel I must corroborate Bro. Philip’s heartfelt appeal to end the ongoing division. I offer three short points in recommendation of a reunion principle and practice.

First, we try to identify the ideal scripture desires. The division between light and darkness forms one definition of God’s family (II Cor. 6:14-18), a separation which is mandated from the most ancient of precedents (Gen. 1:4). It is also the only division that is permitted: scripture insists that, within the ‘light,’ there is only one faith and one body (Eph. 4:4-6). Interestingly, even the history you cite, Bro. Don, shows that 19th century brethren recognized fellowship boundaries should only exist where there are differences in fundamental doctrine, not in organizational affiliation. (But 19th century brethren’s behaviour must never be our authority; we must follow the scriptures irrespective of their choices – I feel sometimes we miss this point.) What a brother believes, and ‘lives,’ must be the sole determinant of his fellowship within the body of Jesus Christ. If we can make this scriptural definition of fellowship practice a reality in our community, we will finally put behind us our ongoing sins of brethren’s exclusion.

Secondly, we try to identify the reason for our shortcoming in realizing this ideal. I start by noting the scriptures nowhere suggest – or even allow! – forming authoritative documents of our own authorship. Whether or not the Statement(s) of Faith were ever intended to form the defining boundaries of fellowship, that is what they have become. They are of human and not divine construction, so perhaps it’s not surprising that division, and not unity, has resulted. In fact, if one is to read I Samuel 8 in a modern context, by substituting the Statement of Faith (~19thC AD) for the human king desired by God’s children (~11thC BC), one notes an extensive number of parallels, both of process and of consequence. Knowing that ‘there is no new thing under the sun’ (Eccl. 1:9), this should not surprise us, however, to see scriptures of old maintaining stark pertinence to the present day.

Finally, we must implement our understanding immediately. As intentional provocation to genuine reunion, I compel myself to remember that the impending judgment is personal, not communal. The Master will look me in the eye, with the same gentle power he once looked at Peter (Lk. 22:61), and ask me: “Why would you not break bread with my brother and yours, John?” Will he be satisfied by the answer so many of us are left with, (I suggest here a generic): “Well, that’s just the way it was at the time, Lord. I wanted to break bread with Bro. X, since I knew we were both your brothers, Lord, but circumstances just really didn’t allow for it. In fact, my ecclesial board said they would be much more comfortable if I didn’t. So if it’s anyone’s fault, Lord, I guess, um, it’s theirs…?” Though I would not presume (nor desire!) the responsibility of judgment, I have grave doubts concerning one left with only this response. I believe my personal justification will never be able to be smuggled past the Lord in the behaviour of the community. The scripture says: “Do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd” (Ex. 23:2). I personally suspect reunion will never be achieved by writing another document – especially if it is true that the composition of authoritative human documents is a source-mechanism of division itself, even if an unintended one. Reunion is achieved by reuniting. Every brother and sister bears the personal responsibility to welcome in fellowship those of like faith. I am aware that today I can shirk my responsibility by hiding in the crowd; acquiescing to the general mandate of ‘central’ fellowship to which I belong (and it matters not whether the ‘unamended’ fellowship commit the same wrongs or not) and refusing bread and wine to some of my brethren. But since I believe a Day is coming when I won’t be able to hide in the crowd any longer, why would I even try to hide now?

Present work of Christ

Dear Bro. Don,

I avidly read the excellent exposition in the Tidings magazine, “The Present Work of Christ” (Jan, 2006, by Bro. John Launchbury and editorial), but why the hesitation on the part of the writers as to how God works in our lives?

It is my experience that the Father leads, guides and strengthens us by the Spirit in our work for the Truth, as the following passages show:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom. 8:13,14).

So I say live by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature…They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law (Gal. 5:16­ 18).

I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through the Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Eph. 3:16).

As a brother in his late seventies preaching and doing pastoral work in Israel (supporting poor Russian Jewish Christadelphian families), I could not possibly do this if I were

not blessed and strengthened by our Father through the Spirit. I work out of Tel Aviv with an outreach to Kiryatshmona on the Lebanese border and Beersheva to the south. I rejoice that I am able to proclaim the Glad Tidings that Yeshua (Jesus) is HaMashiach (the Messiah).

May I show how the Spirit works in my life? As I write (January 19, 2006), a terrorist bomber has blown himself up at the old bus station in Tel Aviv, killing one person and injuring thirty others. This is the place where, from a makeshift kitchen, I help Messianic Jews to dish out hot food to the destitute and homeless. I had planned to be there this current week, but various obstacles were placed in my way, and I was hindered from going (note Acts 16:7). Undoubtedly this is an example of our Heavenly Father’s care and protection through the working of the spirit.

Sincerely your brother,

Bill Davison, Nottingham, UK

Thank you for your example of the Lord at work, and we join you in thanks for his continued involvement in our lives. Bro. Launchbury touched on this in recounting the Lord interceding on behalf of Peter in a variety of ways, both before the Lord’s crucifixion and after the Lord had been given all power in heaven and earth.

As you will know, however, the matters expounded regarding the present position and work of the Lord Jesus Christ were themselves quite challenging. And you will also know that just how the Father and the Son work in our lives, particularly in respect to the exercise of our own free will, has been a subject of vigorous discussion in the community. Accordingly, it was decided to leave any detailed consideration of this latter topic to another time and concentrate, for the moment, on the present work of Christ as mediator of the new covenant and a great helper in our struggle with the power of sin.

Plight of divorced Sisters

Dear Bro. Don,

I have been following with great interest the responses to the sister who wrote about divorce and remarriage (Tidings Communication, Nov. & Dec., 2005, Jan, 2006).

This is what I saw in the original story, reading between the lines perhaps. We have a sister who was married to an unbeliever. She became a sister years after their marriage, probably already after children were born. Like some non-believing husbands, including my own, the husband is in no way interested. Her husband took it a step further, and if she continued to believe, he left, he filed for divorce, against her will.

Where does this leave her? In this situation consider the following: “And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, IF he is willing to live with her [and he wasn’t], let her not divorce him [she didn’t]…But IF the unbeliever departs [and he did], let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace” (I Cor. 7:13,15).

So, if the sister is not under bondage, she has the right to remarry. She is not like the sister who married a non-believer. All of this happened afterwards, and as he left, and he filed for divorce, this has freed her to marry again, in the truth.

Caribbean Personality Dear Bro. Don,

I read the article on a “Caribbean Personality,” (pg. 471, November Tidings) with interest. The article states that it was a puzzle as to what Bro. Charles C. Walker was doing in Haworth, England.

This is not a puzzle as he was visiting relatives in Haworth. Bro. Charles Sutcliffe was his first cousin, as was Edith Sutcliffe, whom he later married.

Bro. C.C. Walker was born in Norfolk, England, and grew up there. As a young man, he went to Australia with his father.

When visiting Haworth, Charles Sutcliffe took him to Keighley meeting and Charles Walker took leaflets to study on his journey back to Australia. As the article states, he was later baptized in Melbourne, Australia.

His cousins, Edith and Ellen, were both baptized in Keighley, Yorkshire, and later both went to Australia where Edith married Charles Walker. Later, Edith, Charles and Ellen returned to England and lived in Birmingham.

I learned all this from my mother who was daughter to Philip Sutcliffe, another brother of Edith.

Jennifer Rimmer, UK

Tidings Policy on
News and Notices

Dear Bro. Don,

As editor of the Tidings Magazine, you decline to publish news from Christadelphian ecclesias whose formal definition of “the first principles of the gospel” does not include the specific 18-word phrase: “namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it.”

The stated policy is: “We welcome news and notices from those ecclesias and organizations which base their belief, teaching, and fellowship on the first principles of the gospel as set forth in the BASF.” The implicit message continues: “But not from those which base their belief, teaching, and fellowship on the first principles of the gospel as set forth in the BUSF.”

Eighteen words

What is the difference between the BASF (Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith) and the BUSF (Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith)? These 18 words, added in 1898. With them, we are “Amended;” without them we are “Unamended.” With them, our news is published; without them, it is rejected.

Do you believe it will be this way at the judgment seat of Christ? For those who are otherwise acceptable to the Judge, will these 18 words be the deciding factor? With them, you’re in; without them, you’re out? If this is not your belief, how can you possibly justify this policy of deliberate exclusion?

Your policy not only condones, it actively endorses the widespread view that tearing apart the body of the Lord Jesus Christ is really not that bad.

Your policy condones and endorses a scripturally-illegitimate division that has inflicted incalculable damage on the brotherhood and brought immeasurable heartache into countless homes.

Your policy places a heavy burden of personal responsibility on your own shoulders.

A brotherhood divided

“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:35, RSV). Sadly, the most distinctive feature of the Christadelphian community in North America has long been its relentless habit of denying fellowship to other Christadelphians. We thereby proclaim that we are not Christ’s disciples, except in name alone.

If you consider this an exaggeration, try identifying the second most distinctive feature. See if it comes anywhere close to being the dominant characteristic.

Most of us don’t have a clue about the theological intricacies of the dispute that split the brotherhood 108 years ago. The recent NASU effort led more than a thousand people painstakingly through the legalistic complexities of this controversy. Many participants were not even sure what their own beliefs were supposed to be on these matters, never mind those of the other faction.

The North American continent is vast; its Christadelphians are few; its ecclesias are scattered. Consequently, this magazine plays a vital role in the reality of continental fellowship in Christ. But it does so selectively.

In many “Amended” ecclesias, formal fellowship is routinely denied to brethren in Christ who belong to ecclesias that decline to make the 18- word amendment a condition of acceptance in fellowship. “Fellowship” goes far beyond the confines of the memorial table. By its policy of selective exclusion, this magazine also habitually denies fellowship to Christ’s brethren.

In this regard, the most fearfully underrated passage in Scripture begins with “Inasmuch… ” (Mt. 25:45). To deny any form of fellowship to even one of the least of Christ’s brethren is to deny fellowship to the Lord Jesus himself. We then stand in fearful isolation, even among a crowd of devout worshipers. Who is more devout than the smugly dedicated Pharisee?

On this continent, for more than a century, the sacred concept of fellowship in the ecclesia of Christ has been degraded and debased to the contentious issue of membership in competing organizations, each one feeling free to make and enforce its own rules.

Our sense of shock has long since been numbed. Outrage melts softly into acquiescence. Indignation becomes both inconvenient and impolite. While enjoying communal benefits, we can each of us readily deny personal accountability.

The darkness deepens

Magazine policy adds: “We pray that shortly this notice will be expanded to include those ecclesias accepting the North American Statement of Understanding (NASU).” Translation: “We will still refuse to publish news and notices from those ecclesias and organizations which base their belief, teaching, and fellowship on the first principles of the gospel as set forth in the BUSF without clarification by the NASU.”

Your divisive magazine policy was erected on the 18 words assembled by a committee in 19th century Britain. Do you really pray that this policy will shortly be further governed by hundreds more words, composed by a 21st century committee? With this additional stipulation, will your guilt be any the less? “Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17, RSV). Among the very first of the divinely revealed “first principles of the gospel” is the separation between light and darkness, the distinction between good and evil, between right and wrong, between man’s willfulness and God’s wisdom. It is always prudent to position ourselves on the right side of this divide. Try it Brother Don… in your role as Editor, try it. Let there be light!

Sincerely, your brother in Christ, Philip Jones,Calgary, Alberta

You are correct that unity of the body of Christ is a first principle and that denying the emblems to those who are Christ’s is denying them to the Lord himself. And if this vexing division could be solved by some unilateral change on the part of the Tidings magazine, we would vigorously press for such action. The matter is not so easily resolved, however, since the problem started with, and is continued by, brethren on both sides, not just on one side, refusing to fellowship other Christadelphians. (By the way, Tidings policy in respect to the News and Notices section is established by the Tidings Committee and reflects the generally accepted practice in the community. While the editor obviously has input into such decisions, he does not have sole control of the policy.)

You make much reference to the 18-word amendment as the cause of all the trouble. In saying this, you have greatly over-simplified the situation. A little history may be helpful. The following are cited from The Christadelphian Magazine during the period the words to which you object were added to the Birmingham Statement of Faith: “The question [the basis of resurrectional responsibility] was then [in 1893] debated on its own merits. It is now made the basis of ecclesial action in a circular sent round, intimating that the brethren in question ‘have come to the conclusion’ that they cannot receive  in fellowship those who differ from them on the questions in debate.

“This is only in logical sequence to the notice of [change] of the constitution given by Bro. J. J. Andrew over three years ago, which would have had the precise effect of the action now taken. Well, it is better perhaps that we be free from the hurtful friction caused by the strife of words which has ensued,” Robert Roberts, 1896, pg. 396.

“It is the aggressive opposition to  the doctrine of the resurrection of enlightened rejecters of the Gospel – declaring it a thing untrue and to be  rejected in fellowship – that has created the difficulty in some quarters” RR, Inside Front Cover, July, 1897.

Those having the CD of the Christadelphian Magazine can readily access the extensive material of the period which will confirm that the problem started with the action taken by Bro. J. J. Andrew of London, UK.

Of course, the situation did not end there and agitation ensued which resulted in the amplification of the Birmingham Statement of Faith. Note the following comments: “The continuation of controversy concerning the Responsibility Question, and the wide spread circulation of grave charges against the Birmingham ecclesia, of sheltering error, and suppressing or hindering the truth, have induced the arranging brethren to recommend the ecclesia to define its position on the matter” (Christadelphian, 1897, pg. 506). The proposition presented to the ecclesia was “that we reaffirm Proposition 24 of the Statement of Faith in the following amplified terms  [what we call the amendment ed.], and that we fellowship those only who hold the same doctrine…” (same page in the Christadelphian).

Two years later, Bro. C.C. Walker comments: “The recent change… consists in a change of words, but not of doctrine. It was rightly described at the time it was made, in the resolution which made it, as a reaffirmation in amplified terms. The Scriptures relied upon to prove it remain unchanged.

“Why was it made? Because a prominent brother [Bro. Andrew], supported by the Advocate Magazine, receded or retrograded from the position he took. He did not belong to Birmingham, but the statement of faith of his ecclesia contained a proposition in precisely equivalent terms, and his published writing definitely taught the same. He changed his mind and taught that men are not liable to the resurrection of condemnation, no matter what their knowledge, unless they had been baptized. This being a subversion of a first principle of the truth, and it having been alleged that the Birmingham ecclesia was guilty of complicity with it, they re-affirmed their belief, as above recorded” (Christadelphian, 1900, pg. 463).

Today we may feel the amplification is not well worded, or that the matter should have been covered under the “Doctrines to be Rejected” section of the statement of faith. Further, we may feel the Birmingham ecclesia should not have made their amplification a test of fellowship. Reasonable brethren in both fellowships have long recognized the legitimacy of such complaints. That’s why, during the past 50 years, there have been so many efforts to find more acceptable wording on the issue. But to suggest the problem belongs entirely to one fellowship or the other is not historically factual.

Coming up to our present situation, as revealed in recent polling of the ecclesias by the NASU committee, there remains an element which holds a position virtually identical to that of Bro. J. J. Andrew in the 1890’s. They will not fellowship those holding the teaching expressed in the amplified Birmingham statement of faith because they feel the amendment reflects serious doctrinal error. In fact, they will not fellowship those of their own community who disagree with them on this position. So today, as in the 1890’s, the problem is not one-sided.

Everywhere else in the ecclesial world, this matter has been resolved. We feel the NASU is a good and faithful effort to settle the issue in North America. Nothing is perfect, but it seems to us to be fair and scriptural. Accordingly, we would be pleased to receive comment on this matter especially from ecclesias which base their belief, teaching and fellowship on the basis of the biblical principles of the one faith as expressed in the NASU.

University Students

Dear Bro. Don,

Over the last few years, I have been privileged to teach a number of active teenagers and became very close to them. All too soon, the time came for these lovely youngsters to leave home and attend various universities. I observed both excitement and apprehension as they prepared for the great upheaval in their lives and prayed that our Heavenly Father would watch over them.

University life has always been a challenge for our young people but perhaps the dangers have never been greater. Moral decline and the absence of Godly values are rampant. It is so easy for young students, feeling lost and lonely, to be negatively influenced. They are so vulnerable!

I would like to remind brothers and sisters that it is not enough to say: ”Hello, how are you?” When students arrive at your ecclesia, take a genuine interest; invite them home for Sunday lunch; give them a call and see how they are doing; do they need a ride to and from the meeting?

I am aware that some ecclesias in university towns have a policy to ensure the welfare of students but some have not, as yet, addressed the issue. My plea is that they will do so. Our young people whether baptized or not, are a valuable commodity. Your sister in the hope we share,

Patricia Bartle, Picton, Ontario

Correct use of “Christian” Dear Bro. Don,

I would like to comment on a growing use in our community of the term “Christians” when referring to evangelical/protestant churches. Our young people in particular tend to use it in a positive way to refer to non-Catholic churches. In reality, the difference between Catholic and evangelical/protestant beliefs is very small. Bible teaching has little in common with either, unfortunately.

We offer Bible correspondence courses and get a lot of phone requests and are often asked (in a very aggressive way) if we are “Christians.” I hesitate to answer believing, of course, that we really are Christians, but know that is not the intent of the question. For the evangelical community, a “Christian” is defined as someone who believes the trinity. If you read the statements of faith of these churches, you find that is virtually the only essential doctrine for salvation.

It might be helpful to our young people to do a detailed analysis of the differences between Bible teaching and traditional church teaching, to show that we aren’t part of the traditional “Christian” world. I don’t know if that is done now as much as it was in the past.

Years ago, we heard Bro. Harry Tennant give a lecture on “Who is a true Christian?” He said a true Christian is one who believes what Jesus taught. He then went on to show all our basic doctrines using only the words of Jesus. People who believe in the trinity, immortal soul, heaven-going, the devil, etc. are not Biblical Christians.

Secrets of the Mustard Seed

Sis. Ann Crouse received some responses to her article from personal correspondents. She has extracted the highlights of their comments and asked for our reaction.

Dear Tidings,

I read with interest the article in the Tidings (November, 2005) about the application of the teachings of the parable of the mustard seed. I have an alternative interpretation and would like your comments.

Mustard seeds do not produce ‘trees.’ In Luke 13:19, the mustard plant is called a “great tree” but the largest mustard bushes we have seen were about 15’ tall.

I think birds or fowls have a negative connotation. In Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar was likened to the “great tree” for the fowls of the heavens to lodge in it. These were the heathen nations dependant on Nebuchadnezzar for protection. Perhaps the “great tree” of the mustard seed parable is world-wide Christianity which claims to have grown from the pure seed of the word.

Additionally, the kingdom of God does not grow like a ‘tree’ that fills the whole earth. In Daniel 2, the little stone becomes a great mountain, which is Christ establishing the kingdom at his return.

The three parables in Matthew 13 also appear to have a negative aspect to them:

  1. The interpretation of the parable of the tares explains that weed seed (false doctrine) is sown among good seed in the field and the product is destroyed at harvest.
  1. The parable of the mustard seed shows how the ‘great tree’ (churches full of false doctrine) claim they have grown from the good mustard seed.
  2. The parable of the leaven (again false doctrine) permeates the whole three measures of meal (the beliefs of Christianity). Incidentally, in Zechariah 5, wickedness is in the ephah (three measures equal an ephah) and the ephah is deposited in Shinar (Babylon), the source of much false teaching.

The statement that the kingdom of God is within us is a main-line church doctrine. There has only been one kingdom of God on earth, that of the nation of Israel. We look for the return of Christ to establish the kingdom of God again on the earth with Christ as the king. The kingdom of God is something that is future, not something we have now. The only thing within us is the hope of that kingdom.

Please clarify these matters for your readers.

A composite of several comments to Sis. Ann

In “Parables” by Bro. John C. Bilello, published by Tidings Publishing Inc., there is excellent exposition on the Lord’s parables recorded in Matthew 13. There he notes that the phrase “kingdom of heaven” is not always used the way we might expect. For instance, in the parable of the wheat and tares, instead of telling us what life might be like in the kingdom age, the parable “focuses on how God is working with men and women to create the children of the kingdom.”

Throughout the New Testament, the idea of the “kingdom of God” (“kingdom of heaven” in Matthew) is used more broadly than the coming political, religious, economic order to be established on the earth. Some examples are: Col. 1:13, God “hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son,” which refers to our inclusion in the ecclesia; Rom. 14:17, “for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace…” referring to the right priorities of those seeking to be part of the kingdom and Luke 10:9, “…and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you,” meaning they’d had a taste of the teaching, power and blessings that will dominate the kingdom of God.

When confronted with the wrong church teaching that the church is the fulfillment of the kingdom of God, our right response is not to insist the phrase only applies to the nation of Israel and the coming kingdom on the earth. The right response is to acknowledge the various applications of the phrase and then explain the myriad verses where the “kingdom of God” clearly applies to the coming kingdom on earth (Matt. 8:11; 26:29; Lk. 22:30, etc.).

In his book, Bro. John also notes the various anomalies in the parables. Many of them have at least one feature not true to life. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is the most obvious, but one does not leave 99 sheep unguarded to look for one

stray; and as is pointed out above, the mustard plant is not a “great tree” but a sizeable bush. So we ought not to be thrown off when we see something not literally true. (Incidentally, mountains, as in Daniel 2, do not grow to fill a vast area.)

Bro. John comments on the various interpretations that can be applied to the parables in Matthew 13. It is true that leaven (v. 33) can have a negative connotation. Yet it is also true that the kingdom started small with the work of Christ and will eventually fill the whole world; and it is true that the word of truth starts small in our thinking and should grow to dominate our entire life. Unless the Lord specifically interprets a parable, we can often see a variety of possible understandings which are compatible with the general teaching of scripture. It would appear some of those corresponding with Sis. Ann seek to emphasize the danger of false teaching. This is helpful but we greatly enjoy Sis. Ann’s positive emphasis on the benefits of right behavior.

Echoes of Calvinism

Dear Bro. Don,

I wish to commend, and comment on, three splendid items in your November issue. All three, although on quite different topics, are linked in that they are all striving to free the Christadelphians from the dead hand of puritanical Calvinism which infiltrated our brotherhood in the late nineteenth century and is still evident in the twenty first.

Item one. Your editorial bears the refreshing scent of Bible truth. John Cennick, the 18th century writer of hymn 258, like many other hymn writers of his time, was strongly influenced by Calvinist theology. This emphasizes the unapproachable majesty and absolute sovereignty of God, and that the best of us are worms. “Because of God’s awesome majesty Jesus is the perfect mediator because he is at one and the same time fully God and fully human.” The scripture has a different gospel: we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory (II Cor. 3:18); since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith (Heb. 10:19­ 20). The veil between God and man has been torn, and Jesus has opened a living way directly to the Father.

Item two. The plight of divorced sisters among us (Pg. 485) is a scandal. Once again, this is a plea for the spirit of Christ to break the cruel and rigid Calvinist mould (Matt. 23:4). Because of its belief in the doctrine of “utter and total depravity of all men,” Calvinism demands terrible religious sanctions against ‘fleshly’ sins of weakness, and makes divorce one of the most heinous of all sins. At the same time, deliberate sins of the spirit such as pride, fraud, libel and evil speaking are excused because they are committed by the ‘righteous elect.’ The Bible teaches exactly the opposite, and all of this is foreign to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

Item three. The third item is a blessed surprise. Apart from one aged brother who is no longer active, I am the last surviving brother of those who founded the Bible mission around half a century ago. Bro. Ken Sommer­ville’s “Special Consideration” (pg. 488) clearly and appealingly expresses the spirit in which we sought to establish an organization which would further world evangelism of the truth of the gospel. I urge everyone to read this appeal and act upon it according to our means and conscience. My long experience confirms fully almost everything Bro. Ken writes.

I would underline his comment that appeals for assistance are always  better received if they come from the  ecclesia of the person in need than if they come directly from the person. It is a sad fact in today’s world that there are many nasty criminals eager to extort money from Christians (including us) who are known to be receiving help from their churches. The Karolyn Andrews Memorial Fund has years of experience in trying to ensure that money intended to help the persecuted does not fall into wicked hands.

A check sent directly from North  America can undermine the decision and position of the local elders in the  eyes of the recipient, the rest of the  ecclesial members, and even the  community at large. Very true.

The one demur I have is the following: The CBM’s try to follow the guideline of not giving welfare that will elevate a person’s condition above that which is usual and customary. This policy has been taken on board from incorrect thinking. For example, by Calvinist standards, poverty and sickness are considered to be self-inflicted sins, because God invariably blesses with material wealth the prudent, the hard working and the thrifty. Because the common condition of billions of people over vast areas of the planet is one of utter desperation, squalor, deprivation, chronic malnutrition, disease and despair, refusal to “elevate a person’s condition above that which is usual and customary” where that person is a beloved, converted, faithful member of the household of faith is tantamount to a death sentence. Thankfully, the Bible Mission has not in fact always followed its own policy. I can only speak for my own country of Jamaica, but with “welfare” over-seers such as Bro. Martin Shirley, Sis. Dorothy Isaacs, and for 40 years my own late wife, Sis. Mary, the Bible Mission has brought, and continues to bring, blessed relief to many desperately needy brothers and sisters. In a few remarkable cases, recipients have been enabled to turn around their lives and become generous givers to the mission, just as in the apostolic church.

The following is from a historian commenting on the apostolic church:

“The hallmarks of apostolic Christianity were simplicity, community, evangelism and love. It was simple because it had little or no formal organization, maintained no church buildings or membership rolls, taught easy-to-understand doctrines, and followed a plan of financing activities by personal giving. This simplicity appealed especially to the poor and oppressed classes which could understand and participate without difficulty in the new faith. In addition, the Christian emphasis on a community of love sealed by baptism appealed to many people who were otherwise without hope and desperately lonely. Many felt themselves adrift in a world grown too large, and they craved the type of intimate fellowship offered by the Christian congregations. The Christian community made no distinctions based upon race, nation, cultural status, slavery, freedom or sex. The Christian church was to be gathered from every nation, all tribes, people, and language-groups. They wanted to spread to the entire world the good news of new life in Christ. They were certain that they were right and were convinced that they had found ultimate truth and values in Jesus and his teachings.”

Alan Eyre, Kingston, Jamaica

Plight of divorced sisters

Dear Bro. Don,

After reading the letter regarding the plight of divorced sisters, I am compelled to write. The sister’s life, who submitted the article, is very much like my own. I was married three times and divorced three times…none were in the truth. I was truly miserable with each one.

I was called to the truth at the age of 24. I remarried twice, both out of the truth. Since my third divorce in 1983, I have turned all my attention to God, and have given Him all my love and devotion. The last 22 years have been the very best years of my life. I am now 74 years old, but I was still pretty young when I decided that there would be no more men in my life (except for the Lord Jesus). I am very happy now, and have absolutely no regrets. I am very grateful that God has given me 22 years to straighten my life out, and to serve him with all my heart.

My point is this: To be unequally yoked with an unbeliever invites great dissention.