Many years ago Bro. Robert Roberts in his wisdom wrote “A Guide to the formation and conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias. It is amazing how timely and upto date it is in helping us deal with matters that constantly come before ecclesial arranging brethren.
Perhaps like many other good Christadelphian works, it is all too often left on the bookshelf when it would pay us to take it down and re-read it again. In these last days before the coming of Christ it is wise to read again his words of wisdom when it comes to difficult matters of ecclesial concern.
Every ecclesia recognizes that we have what we call Ecclesial Autonomy but some times we may think that autonomy means that you can run your ecclesia as you see fit so long as I agree with what you are doing. Autonomy means allowing the other ecclesia to make its own decisions even when we do not agree with what they are doing.
Bro. Roberts on page 27 of The Ecclesial Guide says “There ought to be no murmurings and disputing’s among the brethren of Christ. It is forbidden. Nevertheless, in the mixed state allowed to prevail in all ecclesias during probation, they are sure to arise. Wisdom, therefore, requires that we be prepared to deal with them in a proper manner when they arise. There is a way of dealing with them that heals them, and a way that has just the opposite effect. There is no more dangerous and prolific cause of distress and ruin in an ecclesia than the wrong treatment of causes of dispute. This must be the excuse for giving the subject lengthy attention.” On page 33 Brother Roberts goes on to say, “If a careful attention is given to these reasonable rules of procedure between one ecclesia and another, there will be little danger of disagreement. The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist. It is not only calamitous, but sinful somewhere.”
“There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time, they have reciprocal rights. Ecclesial independence is a principle essential to be maintained. But it is no part of that independence to say that no ecclesia shall consider a matter that another has decided upon, if that matter comes before the first ecclesia, and challenges their judgment, and, in fact, requires a decision. In the example already discussed, if a brother withdrawn from by one ecclesia applies for the fellowship of another, that other ecclesia is bound to consider the application, and it is no infringement of the independence of the first ecclesia that it should be so, subject to the rules and attitudes indicated.”
We skip down to the middle of page 34 where Bro. Roberts continues “An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with; but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere. In the majority of cases the withdrawal of one ecclesia is practically the withdrawal of all, since all will respect it till set aside, and since, in most cases, a concurrent investigation would lead to its ratification. But there may be cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first. What is to be done then ? Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgment on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result—a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgment: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot . . . Are they to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person ? . . . The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ.”
There are some questions that face the brotherhood which sincere and dedicated brethren after studying all the scriptures they can bring to bear on the subject, still come up with different viewpoints. Many times it is not a question of what is right or wrong but what to do with a person after the wrong has been committed. It is easy enough to condemn a wrong but how do we apply the commands of Christ afterwards ? We do not have the ability to shut up the offender in ward that the mind of the LORD might be showed us. Lev. 24:12. We are well advised to be slow to act when we are so unsure as to what the Lord would have done in such a case. Jesus certainly surprised the Pharisees with his answer of “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
King David would not be welcome at many Christadelphian Ecclesias if he were alive today. Nathan told the king, “The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” If we had the power to execute offenders we could no doubt solve a lot of our problems but as Jesus explained to James and John when they wanted to command fire to come down from heaven and consume their enemies, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”
When another ecclesia deals with a problem in a different manner than we would have done, let us follow the wise advice of Bro. Roberts who was endeavoring to make practical rules to live by in the light of Christ’s teachings. “The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ.”
Brother Roberts in dealing with the subject The True Secret of Success in The Ecclesial Guide says, “This lies in the rich indwelling of the word of Christ in each individual member of an ecclesia —a state to be attained in our day only by the daily and systematic reading of the Scriptures. When every mind is influenced by the word, the worst rules work smoothly. When it is otherwise, the best will miscarry.”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One