Recently the writer, due to keep a Sunday appointment at an ecclesia, was contacted by the recording brother with a message from the Arranging brethren to the effect that the speaker be asked not to deal with any controversial subject during his ministrations. No doubt they were acting out of concern for the welfare of members of the ecclesia, but the attitude was felt to be contrary to the interests of the Truth. Since, in the current ecclesial climate, it is possible that this attitude will find expression elsewhere, a note of caution needs to be sounded.
Arranging bretheren have a responsibilty to safeguard the ecclesial platform, and if more ecclesias insisted on a sound and faithful witness the body would be in a much healthier condition. It is right – it is desirable – that visiting speakers should be directed by the ecclesia being served to uphold the truth faithfully, abiding by the word of God.
However, to instruct speakers not to deal with topics which have become the subjects of controversy will not contribute to the upholding of the truth, neither in the ecclesia concerned, nor in the body as a whole. For such an attitude means that whenever fundamental topic becomes matter of controversy, discussion of the bible teaching on that subject is forbidden. Thus, because some brethren (to the consternation of many) now teach that the Kingdom of God has begun with the rule of Christ in the heart, it has become a matter of controversy, and so bible teaching about the Kingdom cannot be presented. Similarly, since it is maintained by some that we can receive the gift of the holy spirit today, then because it has become the subject of controversy, the truth about it cannot be taught. Thus the areas of the Truth which can be discussed will gradually be whittled away as a new controversies arise. Such an attitude will help further apostasy, not prevent it, by limiting the proclamation of the truth.
The message of an ecclesia to its ministering brethren should be unequivocal: speak the truth or shut up! If the speaker fails to do this, then the ecclesia should act by refusing any further help from that brother. But to limit the areas of the truth upon which he is permitted to speak will contribute to the decline of the truth in our days.
Dear Brethren Geoff and John,
I have read with interest the comments of Brother John Allfree (Jan-Feb issue) under the heading “The Ecclesial Platform?’ in which he refers to speakers being asked not to deal with any controversial matters when visiting ecclesias, and I would like to associate myself with the points which have been made. No one wishes to raise controversial matters unnecessarily, or to provoke tensions from the platform. Indeed, some of our problems at the present time stem from the fact that established Christadelphian beliefs are questioned, if not repudiated in such a manner as to stir up controversy which is potentially divisive. All of us, no doubt, have our viewpoints on certain non-fundamental matters. The expression of these viewpoints can be an offence to others particularly if it is done in an aggressive or dogmatic manner, which can provoke unnecessary controversy and offence. An ecclesia would, in such circumstances, be justified in asking a speaker to refrain. Our work as speakers is to “provoke one another to love and good works”, not the provocation of wrath by insisting upon any particular interpretation of non-fundamentals.
But, having made this statement, it must be said that, like the Apostle, we just not shun to declare “ALL the counsel of God”. We must preach doctrinal and moral principles, whether they will hear or forbear, because if we present, either to the Brotherhood or the world, a specious or watered-down Gospel, we are preaching “another gospel” and will be accursed. It is an indication of a decline in our spiritual standards that Truth can create discord within the Household. Brethren, this should not be As you have rightly indicated, if controversy stems from the preaching of Sound Doctrine it is evidence that Truth is no longer forthrightly held – if it is held at all.
In conclusion I would make the further point that those ecclesias which are determined to uphold sound Chrisadelphian teaching have a duty to maintain a sound ecclesial platform. They should be careful to ensure that brethren who occupy that platform only speak that “wisdom which is from above” and that they “avoid”, without respect of persons, those who might compromise or who are uncertain in regard to doctrine and morals. The responsibility which ecclesial elders have toward those who are “babes” in their midst should exclude any suggestion of a lowering of standards. We cannot afford a “milk and water” platform; the issues before us are too vital – issues of life and death. A continuation of laxity, compromise and toleration of plausible but unscriptural reasoning (sermonisings is what Bro. J.Thomas described it) will ultimately mean a return to the apostasy of Christendom from whence we have been called out.
Sincerely your brother in faithful waiting for the Lord from heaven,
Prophecy is not an end unto itself