To the Christadelphian Tidings:
(As noted in the footnotes certain parts of this correspondence have been redacted to preserve the privacy of the parties involved)
I had an interesting visit this week that reminded me of your September editorial in the Tidings. As a member of a UA081, meeting (Chicago), I travel a bit for work and do get to visit different churches and experience the differences. Last year my family visited a mid-size East Coast Central meeting and was pleasantly surprised to be welcomed in fellowship, for our home church is part of UA08. That was a positive change from what I expected, as normally larger churches haven’t taken that stand.
Anyway, today I was in another larger Central meeting2, and one brother gave me a Freudian slip when he asked, “if I am in the Truth, or am I Unamended.” I didn’t realize that there is a difference, and responded that I think I am part of both. I found this comment partly unsettling and partly humorous, and am still not sure what to make of it. I already knew about 1/4 of that meeting personally, having grown up with a few, fellowshipped with some for years elsewhere and others being relatives. Anyway, I found it equally curious when the recording brother announced my wife and I as visiting “Brother and Sister” – although we were not welcome in fellowship. It was nice to be announced as Brother and Sister, but striking that fellowship didn’t follow. Isn’t that a conundrum and problem in much of our community? How can it be that we consider each other to be “brethren in Christ” and yet not be in fellowship? One would think a person is either “in Christ” or not, but some fellowship policies don’t seem to follow that.
I talked about our situation this summer with a Brother from overseas3, and asked how they conduct fellowship there. He said it’s pretty simple: they welcome in fellowship all who have a valid baptism, meaning all those in our entire community and related ones such as Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. I found this answer simple and satisfying. It seems to follow the Biblical model and also seems to fit much of what we try to follow from the Ecclesial Guide. Anyway, I thought you might find this example useful for your future articles, so feel free to use any of this as an example.
Your brother,
Dan Richard (Chicago, IL: Unamended)
Response from The Tidings
Dear Brother Richard:
Your letter raises a number of commonly misunderstood situations that unfortunately arise because of the unique fellowship conditions that exist in North America. These conditions arose due to the division that happened in the late 19th Century. Let us address each of the points your refer to in your letter.
First, while you may have been surprised by being welcomed at the memorial table at a mid-sized Amended Ecclesia on the East Coast. Here are some possible reasons: a) That ecclesia treated you as an exception for that particular Sunday in order not to cause offense since you were well known to them personally, b) That ecclesia may be unaware of the general communally accepted Central Fellowship practices, c) Some small minority of Central ecclesias are not familiar with the issues that have caused, and are causing, the division and therefore do not take that into account in welcoming visitors. Unfortunately, the fellowship situation in North America is at present inconsistent and Ecclesias are choosing to welcome visitors, as they best understand their Scriptural responsibilities to be. The Tidings Committee, along with other Brethren and Ecclesias, are currently working to promote a unified approach to Fellowship.
As far as being recognized as a Brother at a particular ecclesia, but not being offered the emblems, we might note that this is most assuredly the procedure that the overwhelming majority of Central ecclesias would have followed. If someone in your home ecclesia is put out of fellowship, whether by ecclesial action or resignation, it does not stop that person from being a brother or sister, yet you would not normally offer them the emblems until the issues that resulted in the separation were resolved. The same analogy applies here — you are a brother by virtue of a legitimate baptism, but since you come from an ecclesia that is not presently in fellowship with the Central Community at large (because an unresolved separation still exists), there would be a barrier to offering you the emblems. Until the issues for the separation have been resolved, similar to the above ecclesial situation involving an individual, offering the emblems would only create confusion and discord, and, would not respect the Scriptural basis of oneness on which our community is based.
Finally, citing the fellowship situation overseas does not constitute a valid argument that the same conditions apply here in North America. The extreme “Advocate” view on resurrectional responsibility being limited only to those in covenant relationship is virtually unknown outside of North America. For example, when the English Reunion was accomplished in 1957 there had been no “Advocate” ecclesias in the United Kingdom for almost two generations. We doubt that there are any “Advocate” ecclesias anywhere else either. Therefore, you could be welcomed as an exception at places overseas that do not have the issue that exists in North America. With regard to the situation here in North America, the fellowship practice of Amended community of ecclesias is well summarized in a December 2008 article in the Christadelphian Tidings and deviations from that practice make many in the Central Fellowship uncomfortable.
Your brethren in Christ,
Christadelphian Tidings
Since the letter from Brother Richard mentioned specifically a second larger Central ecclesia we invited comment from them, which follows:
Response from Central Ecclesia
To the Christadelphian Tidings:
Because Bro. Dan Richard referenced his recent visit to our4. Ecclesia, the Tidings has provided me, as recording brother, an opportunity to comment. I appreciate both Bro. Dan’s candid account and this opportunity to offer my perspective. In my opinion, Bro. Dan’s experience is well worth discussing as a community and should not be ignored because it touches upon issues often viewed as controversial.
Before addressing the issues raised by Bro. Dan, let me share a little background our Ecclesia. Our Ecclesia has concluded every Memorial Service for close to four decades with what we term the “Special Prayer.” This part of our worship is dedicated to seeking the Lord’s assistance in bringing unity to the household of faith. The focus of the Special Prayer has sometimes varied based upon a current issue or distress faced by the membership. However, over the years this prayer has served to keep the need for unity ever close to our hearts. Our ecclesia counts among its ecclesial members some who were baptized in different Christadelphian fellowships, some with family experience of the pain caused by division, and many who simply yearn for a united community in these last days. It is in this context that I make these comments.
First, on behalf of our ecclesia let me apologize that Bro. Dan was questioned whether he was “in the Truth or Unamended.” I have no idea which brother said that, but I have no doubt — knowing the character and spirit of the brethren in our ecclesia — that no disrespect was intended. It is quite possible that the tongue-tied brother made an awkward attempt at small talk and nothing more. However, the experience does illustrate how easily our choice of words can be misunderstood or cause uncertainty. With more consistent interaction we can better interpret the intent and spirit of our fellow brethren.
Second, Bro. Dan is correct in describing the conflict between recognizing a visitor as a brother or sister in Christ yet not offering the emblems. In fact, I purposely referred to the Richard’s as “Brother and Sister” when formally welcoming them to our ecclesia during the Memorial Service. It had been recently brought to my attention that I had not done that when another brother and sister from a non-Central ecclesia had visited not too long ago. In that instance, the omission of “Brother and Sister” was completely unintentional and I was disappointed to learn that my inattentiveness sent the wrong message. Mindful of that lesson, I very much wanted the Richard’s to know that they were considered brethren in Christ in the our Ecclesia.
At the same time, our ecclesia is part of the Central Community. We cherish those relationships as well. There are practical barriers to fellowship that are not of our making. While we wish those barriers did not exist, and pray consistently that they be removed, we do not want to cause further problems by not respecting the fellowship practice of the larger community.
I do not have the answer to resolving this conflict. Our ecclesia readily acknowledges that all is not right within the household. We pray that the Lord will provide us the wisdom needed to change the situation. In the meantime, we also hope that likeminded brethren will be patient and understanding of these circumstances.
Yours in Christ,
Recording Secretary
Strong’s Concordance