Communications

Options to Ecclesial Elections

Dear Bro. Don,

I have read with interest your editorial in the March issue, “An Option to Ecclesial Elections” which canvasses different views on this question. Having considered this subject and having read many suggestions over many years, I would like to com­ment in the light of scriptural teaching.

The usual methods used by ecclesias are largely based on the sug­gestions of Bro. Robert Roberts in The Ecclesial Guide, sections 16 to 20. Bro. Roberts recognized that de­cisions by majority vote are, “doubtless a concession to the evil principle of democracy; but there is no other practicable alternative in the absence of the voice of authority.” Although Bro. John Thomas suggested a more authoritative method, Bro. Roberts felt this was unsuitable in the absence among us of the activity of the Spirit. Various alternatives have been dis­cussed over the years, such as appointment by rotation of “willing and able brothers,” as you suggest, or by casting lots. We would like to com­ment on these options in the light of the instructions of the New Testa­ment.

In regard to appointment by rota­tion, the problem arises as to whom are considered to be “able.” It is one thing for a brother to be “willing” but have we any inspired guidance re­garding the qualifications for ecclesial office? The answer of course is in the affirmative because in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, Paul gives very precise instructions on this matter. It is there­fore very important that every member of the ecclesia should carefully, and prayerfully, consider these scrip­tures before nomination and/or voting for any brother. It is for this rea­son that some ecclesias, including my own, attach to the nomination notice or voting paper all these inspired ap­ostolic instructions.

It has sometimes been argued that Paul’s instructions are not applicable to these days when there is no open vision. Such a view I would respect-filly suggest is beside the point. It was because the spirit gifts would soon be removed that these instruc­tions were given that generations of brethren might have inspired guidance in the absence of the Spirit. In­cidentally the terms “bishop or overseer” and “ruler” were never intended to convey “rulership” in the ecclesi­astical sense, but rather that of a faithful servant who, as Paul says, “must not strive, but be gentle to all men” (II Tim. 2:24).

It would appear, therefore, that our established procedure has apostolic warrant, for we select certain scripturally qualified brethren and submit their names for the approval or oth­erwise of ecclesial members, remembering we must make a choice on the basis of scriptural principles, not on that of personalities.

The use of lots

Concerning election by lot, we would submit the following com­ments which are partly based on an article, “The Choosing of Ecclesial Elders by Lot or Ballot,” by Bro. Ri­chard Mellowes, The Testimony, April, 1980.

Ecclesial appointment, some have suggested, should be by the drawing of lots, quoting the example of Acts 1:15-26 concerning the replacement of Judas. However, a careful analysis of this section may give a different explanation which may be helpful to our present discussion.

Firstly, we note that none of the 120 disciples at this time possessed the gift of the Holy Spirit, since it was not bestowed until the day of Pentecost. They were in a similar position, therefore, to ourselves. “They appointed two” and following prayer, “they gave forth their lots,” meaning each member gave his lot. What does this mean? Normally when “casting lots,” two pebbles different in color were placed in a bag which was shaken until one fell out. When Acts 1 is carefully read, however, this will be seen not to fit.

It is significant that the word “part” in verses 17 and 25 and the word “lot” in verse 26 are from the Greek kleros, which is translated “heritage” in I Peter 5:3 and “inherit­ance” in Col. 1:12. Therefore the lot, part or heritage is not a pebble but refers to the position or role of mem­bership of the ecclesia. The casting of the lot, therefore, is not in the form of pebbles but that of giving of apostleship to Matthias. Had they been “casting lots” as usually under­stood, each one of the company of 120 would not have given his lot but a single pebble would have been “cast into the lap” (Prov. 16:33). It there­fore appears that in giving “their lots,” they were indicating in some way their choice for the vacant apostleship: i.e. they gave their voice or voted. No doubt the whole procedure was overruled by divine provi­dence; but may we suggest the same thing applies in our day when we seek divine help in prayer and make our choice in accordance with divine principles?

In your article, Bro. Don, you men­tion sometimes feelings can be hurt by our system of voting. As one who on more than one occasion has had the experience of being rejected by a ballot, I would say this can, if accepted in the spirit of Christ, be a very humbling experience.

It is, I would submit, a mistaken view to describe our ecclesial elec­tions as an exercise in democracy where, by worldly standards, people who cannot get their own way leave in a huff and join the opposition. If majority voting causes bad feeling or division on non-fundamentals, we have failed to understand an elementary principle that at all times we should be in submission one to an­other. What we all need is a humble submission in word and action to the commandments of Christ. If we can develop the “mind of Christ” in ecclesial affairs, we shall see the end of all strife.

Perhaps the following words from the pen of Bro. John Thomas may be helpful to all of us:

“No organization, not even an ap­ostolic one, can work well, that is scripturally, which is not composed of elements more zealous for the ad­vancement of the Truth, and the pro­motion of the glory of its divine au­thor, than of their own notions and exaltation …The members must all re­spect the apostolic teaching if they would have an organization that would be scriptural and satisfactory to all good men… ‘Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in low­liness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves’ …A people imbued with such doctrine as this would make almost any organization work well: and indeed would get along peaceably together without any written constitution at all; because peace, and righteousness, and the law of the spirit of life, would be written in their hearts and minds” (Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Vol. 4, pp. 3-13 with J.T.’s emphasis).

With kind regards in Christ Jesus,

Hubert E. Taylor,
Launceston, Tasmania

Christadelphian Fellowships

Dear Bro. Don,

The letters in your April issue in regard to fellowship (Tidings, 4/98, pp. 145-148) created memories in my mind of the difficulties that existed in Australia more than 40 years ago. By the grace of God, they were resolved. As I look back on the lessons learned over that period, it seems to me that our concept of fellowship often suffers from “tunnel vision.” How true it is that there can be no fellow­ship between light and darkness (II Cor. 6:14), but we somehow think that same principle applies between breth­ren who have found some cause for disagreement with one another. There is no scripture that even re­motely suggests this. There can be some who have “defiled their gar­ments,” but that does not contaminate those who are in the same ecclesia (Rev. 3:4).

Australia in the 1950s

Fifty years ago in Melbourne [Aus­tralia], there were ecclesias that were both recognized by Birmingham Central, in the U.K., but who for years had not had fellowship with each other. It seems they viewed certain scriptures from slightly different perspec­tives. Brethren arriving from the U.K. helped to reconcile them.

In the early 1950s, new ecclesias were formed from the large main city ecclesia [Central Fellowship] which at that time had about 350 members. One of these, Balwyn (now called Canterbury) soon took the initiative of talking to the two ecclesias in the city that were not in fellowship because they belonged to what was then called The Shield Fellowship. [In the early 50s, the Australian Shield Fellowship, the British Suffolk St. Fellowship and the North American Un­amended Fellowship were all in fel­lowship with each other. By 1958, the Shield and Suffolk St. fellowships had united with the Central Fellow­ship, leaving the Unamended Fellowship on its own, which is the case to­day. ed.] The statement was made to them, “If you accept the BASF we will extend fellowship to you.” They adopted the BASF as their basis. The Balwyn Ecclesia kept its word more importantly no requirement was made regarding other fellowship connec­tions, as they felt that such could not be justified from Scripture. In that period, news in The Christadelphian from Australia appeared with the note “The ecclesial position in Australia is at present confused…” It was not an ideal situation in the judgment of many, but it was difficult to prove it was unscriptural.

In 1958, this unity spread to all Australia and the position and fellow­ship basis as it exists today was established; this was the BASF together with an “Addendum” amplifying the meaning of Clauses 5 and 12.

Care in applying Bible principles

Now we can all see the desirabil­ity of coming “together in an orderly way,” as Bro. Walker [Bro. Andrew Walker in a letter April, ’98, referring to recent movement of Dawn Fellow­ship members to Central] puts it, but we must beware lest our desire for orderliness overrides Scriptural prin­ciples, or includes principles (e.g. avoidance of contamination with “er­ror”) which cannot be sustained by the scriptural evidence of first-century practice. The first generation of con­verts were certainly called to be “separate” (II Cor.6:17), but it was a separation from unbelievers. There is no justification to take this and other similar Scriptural language and apply it to our fellowship separations. The believers at Corinth had many problems in their midst, such as the wrong use of Spirit gifts (I Cor.14:20) and a rejection of the resurrection (15:12). Other ecclesias had those who advocated circumcision and the keeping of the Law (Gal. 4:21). Now if there had existed the same fellow­ship approach in those days as has been practiced among us for the last 125 years and this had really been the way Christ expected his ecclesias to operate — how different Paul’s let­ters would have been!! He would have set out to advocate that they had to have a “pure” fellowship and there would need to be withdrawal from a wider range of erring members and from ecclesias which harbored them.

Instead the approach is all posi­tive, aimed at healing, building up. Of course, where necessary it could be a case of silencing and rebuking sharply (Titus 1:11,13). There is no hint of instruction that we should not attend for fellowship at any ecclesia, for ex­ample, the Laodecian ecclesia. How can you strengthen the weak if you avoid them?

Do we not show the weakness of the stand we take when we acknowl­edge that our salvation does not de­pend on which fellowship we belong to? We further “prove” this by rarely if ever requiring re-baptism when someone transfers from another fel­lowship.

The sharing of the bread and the wine is the evidence that “we who are many, are one body” (1 Cor. 10:17). This is the step which follows bap­tism when we showed evidence that we are individually in Christ. Wher­ever there is a failure to show that we are one body which fellowships to­gether — then the situation should trouble our consciences greatly – and so much the more as we see the day approaching.

Your fellow-servant in His name,

David Caudery,
Canterbury, Australia

We greatly appreciate your his­torical review and forthright comments on a matter of current concern in many North American ecclesias. We find most insightful your intimation that doing “all things decently and in order” is not the royal law to which every other consideration must give way.

Your emphasis that the separation to which we are called is from unbelievers, not believers who differ slightly from us on a point or two, is well taken. Sometimes we become so entangled in intricate doctrinal dis­cussions that we can see the forest for the trees. Furthermore, we need to be sensitive that views tend to change over the years and, in some cases, come back closer to a point of agreement.

Unfortunately, the “guilt by asso­ciation” idea, which, as you say, is an unscriptural teaching, lurks in the background of some discussions over here, clouding issues and preventing reasonable solutions from being implemented

We can only pray that as the “con­fused” state of affairs in Australia was eventually rectified so, too, the developing situation here will ulti­mately result in true unity of like-minded brethren throughout the land.

Proof Texts for Clause 24

Readers will have noted frequent references to reunion activities, par­ticularly in Ontario. A brother from that area has noted that when the Bir­mingham Statement of Faith was amended in 1898, no additional proof texts were added to support the amendment to clause 24. (The amendment consisted of adding to that clause the parenthetical expres­sion: “namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it” as a defi­nition of those responsible to appear before Christ’s judgment-seat.) He suggests the time has come to add the following texts as proof of the amend­ment: 1) Luke 7:28-30+13:28; 2) John 12:48; 3) John 9:39-41; 4) John 15:22,23,24; 5) Mark 16:15-16; 6) Matt. 26:62-65; 7) Rom. 2:5-16.

Editorial Response

These are good proof texts bearing directly on the point at issue.

Why no proof texts were added

Information from 1899-1900 explains why no texts were added at that time.

“There is no ‘amended’ Birmingham Statement of the faith in the proper sense of the term. The exist­ing one is the same as that of 1886 to which you refer [Bro. Walker is an­swering a correspondent]. The only difference is in the wording of Propo­sition 24 which is briefly amplified by defining ‘the responsible’ in this bracketed description (namely those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it). You will perceive therefore that the report that ‘brother Walker had issued an amended statement’ is with­out foundation. As a matter of fact, he is not even responsible for the few words introduced. They first ap­peared in Bro. F.G. Jannaway’s book­let, Why I am a Christadelphian, hav­ing been suggested in revision of proof by Bro. Roberts. They were afterwards incorporated in the State­ment by the Birmingham ecclesia” (C.C. Walker, The Christadelphian, November, 1899, inside front cover).

“The recent change…consists in 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 re-affirma­tion in amplified terms. The Scriptures relied upon to prove it remain unchanged.

“Why was it made? Because a prominent brother [J.J. Andrew], sup­ported by the Advocate [this is a re­sponse to allegations in the Advocate, September, 1900] 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 (Jesus Christ and Him Crucified later changed to The Real Christ, pages 115 and 148). He changed his mind and taught that men were not liable to the resurrection of condemnation, no matter what their knowledge, unless they had been baptized. This being a subversion 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” (C.C. Walker, The Christadelphian, 1900, p. 463).

Birmingham’s statement

From the above, it is evident the BASF is the statement of faith of the ecclesia now meeting in the Midland Institute near the center of Birmingham (commonly known as the Bir­mingham Central Ecclesia). In order for it to be changed in any “official” manner, presumably they would have to make the addition of the recommended proof texts. However, any given ecclesia using the BASF as their ecclesial statement of faith could add the proof texts themselves thus modifying their own version of the BASF. It may surprise brethren to realize this is a not uncommon practice. (Note, for example, the BASF at the back of the “Preparing for Baptism” booklet published by the CSSS of Adelaide, Australia, where a couple of items are added to the “Doctrines to be Rejected” section.)