I should not be accepting the invitation to write this article were I not convinced that there is a real danger to be faced, and were it not my sincere conviction that it could be faced in the wrong way. What I write is intended as a warning of the danger to those readers of the “Endeavour Magazine” who may not have perceived the danger, may be contemplating drastic remedies. I have written to the producers of the magazine also, asking them to discontinue their activities for our common good, and it is only the fact that they apparently do not yet intend to do so which makes this further reference necessary.
The “Endeavour Magazine” is issued by a group of brethren and sisters who came together because of common concern over various matters, and have now formed themselves into an incorporated trust. It is mainly devoted to: (1) The promotion of good causes whereby we may help our neighbours in the world; (2) Articles opening up subjects which are not often discussed in other publications in the Christadelphian community; (3) Articles on scientific matters and other subjects involving modern knowledge; besides exhortational matter and book review paragraphs.
It would be foolish and uncharitable to offer a blanket condemnation of the magazine and its contents. It is possible, for example, that the brotherhood may have been too little conscious of the practical lesson of the Good Samaritan, in which case we ought not to resent being reminded of our duty. It is possible that some matters of modern knowledge have been overlooked, with the danger that we have spoken uninformatively of matters where it is important that we should know our facts; in which case we ought to be ready to be corrected. It is possible that we have sometimes been unwarrantably harsh in our expressions regarding other communities; in which case we ought to learn a more excellent way. It is possible that we have sometimes closed our minds to other points of view which could legitimately be held within the framework of a complete trust in the Bible and a complete acceptance of our basis of faith; in which case it will do us no harm to discuss such matters more freely.
If this were all that was involved, not only would there be far less peril in the situation than there really is, but it would also be very difficult to understand why the promoters of the magazine thought it necessary to promote it, for they would have found plenty of scope for their zeal within the existing framework, and provoked far less concern had they done so.
What is it, then, which we find perilous in the appearance of this magazine? Why, in the first place have they lost three of their original promoters by withdrawal or resignation ? The view of the editors is that the two withdrawals represent an injustice by the ecclesia concerned, and it is not for an outside party to pass a final judgment; but when a caricature in the issue of Summer 1963 is used to scorn the very idea of withdrawal from “heretics” (the word is used by the magazine, not by me), it would seem that the very processes of discipline are being mocked. And when a so-called “Meditation in the Lake District” in the issue of Autumn 1963 compares the movement of a river (hemmed in by banks) to the shoreless sea with our own progress to a state where we shall not wish to be guided by “limitations and law”, the same disquieting drift toward anarchy seems to appear.
In the second place, while it is possible that we should learn a greater kindness to others of different persuasions (though I think we are learning this already), is it not carrying kindness a little too far when the emptiness of Methodist sermons has been criticized by one contributor, to offer hospitality to a letter written by an ex-brother turned Methodist, and cap it with the unsatisfactory comment that most Christadelphians lack the knowledge with which to make such a pronouncement? An ex-Methodist turned Christadelphian, whom I know, was indignant in his affirmation that the criticism of Methodist sermons was entirely correct. This has since been confirmed by an ex-Methodist scientist turned sister! When it is now added that the writer of the Methodist letter has now forsaken his ministerial vocation because of ever-rising doubts, our feelings of the downward trend of the magazine are not assuaged.
In the third place, the policy of “open house” pursued by the editors is not as gratifying as might seem. It is perfectly true that when they have given publicity to an article by an ex-Christadelphian’s non-Christadelphian son on the antiquity of man, they publish an article by a brother affirming confident belief in the Adam-and-Eve record. But the appearance of both, side by side with an editorial comment, leaves one in no doubt that the editors wish it to be understood that they do not regard the choice of the Adam-and-Eve side of the matter as of prime importance, while there is more than a hint that their own sympathies lie on the other side.
In the fourth place, we are being given a serialized life of Christ, based on the Gospel of Mark. In an earlier issue we were given to understand that the author preferred the view that Jesus did not know, when He sent His disciples preaching, that the kingdom was not to be brought about with crucifixion. In the issue of Autumn 1963 we are told categorically that the first nine chapters of Mark have shown that Jesus and His disciples left Galilee for Jerusalem with an outlook which they did not have earlier, for Jesus had learned by His own experience that the purpose of God could not be advanced without His crucifixion. This seems to me both bad exposition and bad theology. It is bad exposition because it implies that the disciples themselves now understood that crucifixion was necessary, which they assuredly did not (Mark 9:10, 30-32; Mark 10:22-45; Luke 24:25,26). It is bad exposition because it implies that Jesus had no knowledge of His impending crucifixion before the Galilean experiences, which is quite contrary to Mark 2:19-20, as well as to John’s announcement (John 1:29), Simeon’s forebodings (Luke 2:34,35) and Jesus’ knowledge from the beginning “who it was that should betray Him” (John 6:64). It is bad theology because it sets Jesus on His mission with a mistaken idea of His errand, which is surely also most un-Christadelphian thinking, which accepts the judgment of Hebrews that when the First-Begotten came into the world He said, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not . . . I come to do thy will, 0 God”, linking it with our sanctification with the body of Christ’s offering, once and for all (Hebrews 10: 5-10; Psalms 40:6-8). It is not a matter of indifference to the present reviewer that we should be thought free to choose between a Jesus who made His mistakes as to what God intended Him to do, and a Jesus who knew from the beginning what the purpose of God in Him was. I do not think it should be a matter of indifference to any of us.
There is much more in the same vein, and unless the editors of the “Endeavour Magazine” learn in time the consequences of the policies which they are pursuing, I fear that they are offering us a bleak prospect for the future.
That having been said, and even taking due account of the fact that their activities are already (understandably) being exploited against our community in at least one other journal, I must urge on your readers that this is a problem which we must be given the opportunity to solve in the best possible way, with prayer and supplication, and if possible without sorrow or schism. I would not even have mentioned the word had it not been implied in letters to me (of the contents of which the editors have been apprised). However little the editors would recognize themselves under this title, the magazine reveals them to be from a Christadelphian standpoint weak in the faith; and the greatest misfortune is that they should have chosen to make their doubtful disputations public in the way they have. But these are angry young men, in the current phrase, whose understandable anxiety about recent losses in the brotherhood, and whose honest desire to see the situation remedied, has led them into distortions and excesses into which we need not follow them, and from which we must hope and strive that they may be reclaimed.
We must not forget that we live in an age when a Church of England bishop can write a book advocating the abolition of the word “God”, and when another official of that church can say in effect, “I will say I accept the thirty-nine Articles because you expect it of me, but I don’t really believe them.” In such a climate, standards of truth and loyalty are apt to decline unrecognized, and the language of the world’s diplomacy has accustomed us to hearing words which have no meaning such as the common man would give to them. This infection is hard to avoid, and can be caught without being recognized by the victim. The age of interchurch tolerance in which we find ourselves makes the situation even harder for those who truly wish to show a becoming charity.
While we are doing all we can to remedy the situation, let the rest of us meditate on this: If any unkindness of ours, if any lack of charity, if any undue dogmatism on unessential matters, if any indifference to the needs around us, has contributed to the situation, then let us, too, take our steps for personal reform, so that the brotherhood may be better, in spite of all, for the incidence of this present problem.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One