There is one matter on which considerable misunderstanding exists abroad. It concerns the proposed liberty [speaking of the 1957 Central-Suffolk St. reunion in Britain] for an ecclesia to retain its own Statement of Faith, while accepting the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith as a correct definition of the First Principles to be believed. The existence of different Statements has come as a surprise to some, but the history of the Truth’s revival makes it plain.
History of statements of faith
Dr. Thomas never drew up a formal Statement — he published a synopsis of Truth, but of all his writings, The Revealed Mystery comes nearest to a doctrinal definition of our faith. This, however, was in the first instance an article in the Herald. Dr. Thomas looked for the Lord’s return in 1870; and this influenced his attitude to ecclesial developments; and the work of ecclesial organization fell upon the shoulders of Bro. Roberts.
But small ecclesias had been formed in Great Britain as the result of Dr. Thomas’s first visit in 1848. We have before us a “constitution of the London ecclesia of Immersed Believers,” the third edition, which bears the date 1870…We cannot trace the beginnings of the first Birmingham Statement of Faith. We have before us a copy of “The Record of the Birmingham Christadelphian Ecclesia” for 1868 which contains a statement of the One Faith. This was evidently modified and slightly expanded between 1871 and 1875, “The Record” of 1875 containing the newer edition. In 1877 this enlarged Statement was published jointly by the London (Islington) ecclesia and Bro. Roberts…After the division of 1884, Bro. Roberts revised the Statement, and in 1886 the revised form became The Statement of the Birmingham [Temperance Hall] Christadelphian Ecclesia…
After the 1884 division, the Suffolk Street ecclesias continued for many years to use the Statement of 1877. After the trouble on Adamic Condemnation raised by J.J. Andrew, Clause 24 of the Temperance Hall Statement was amended in 1898, and hence this Statement is generally described as the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith [BASF]. In 1916, a Clause was added on police service.
Of overseas definitions of the Faith, we cannot say much. We have an old Australian Statement which is much simpler than the current Statement and which must belong to the earliest days of the Truth in that Continent.
Purpose of a statement of faith
What is the purpose of a Statement? It is to define the doctrines believed by a community. We speak of it as a basis of faith, but in so doing we are in danger of obscuring a vital truth.
The first principles of Bible teaching are the basis upon which brethren and sisters have fellowship with each other; and it is important that this be kept firmly in mind.
A Statement is necessary to set forth those first principles as commonly understood by the members of the community, in order that the conditions of association are well defined and that the testimony to those truths may be consistently exhibited to others. But just as two lecturers can proclaim the same truths in different words, so two Statements can define the same truths in different words. One lecturer may be more clear and precise than the other, and the same might be true also for the Statements. The inherent difficulty of defining doctrine briefly and unambiguously makes it desirable that brethren without much experience or aptitude should not essay the task: and many brethren mighty in the Word and with long practice of setting forth the Truth would doubtless hesitate about attempting it.
Defects exist in BASF
A comparison of the various Statements reveals defects here or there, either in the way of omission or in the form of words used. The present Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, for example, contains a clause on Inspiration. When we remember that there had been, at the time it was framed, prolonged controversy on this subject, it is surprising that this is not better stated. The definition of “the book currently known as the Bible” as “consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets and the apostles” either excludes some writers (e.g. Solomon, James and Jude) or it is defective in its definition of “the book.” To say “we know what it means” is not a good apology for what defines an essential article of faith. But if we insist that “what we know it means” is to be the way it must be understood, then we must be careful that we concede others the same right of explanation of what they mean.
Other matters could be mentioned, but this is sufficient to illustrate our point that the task of drawing up a Statement above criticism is well nigh beyond human power…
Some would insist on all ecclesias using the same Statement. There may be good arguments for this, but they are not conclusive. For one thing, we cannot maintain ecclesial autonomy and at the same time demand the adoption of a particular Statement. In any case, who has the right to demand it?…
It is desirable in such discussions for Reunion as those which have led to these remarks, to have one widely recognized Statement established as a touchstone, and the statement for Reunion before the English ecclesias makes, for the first time, the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith to be such a touchstone.
We should, however, always remember that it is the gospel that is the power of God to salvation. Those who believe the gospel in its various elements find in the gospel itself the basis upon which they share in the hope of salvation. A Statement of Faith, absolutely essential in a religious group whether large or small as a definition of things believed, is not the gospel but the gospel defined in a particular way for a particular purpose.
We feel that there is a danger of exalting a Statement of Faith above the gospel itself: it is the Truth that makes free, and only when statements are recognized as defining that truth are they being rightly used.
(From the Christadelphian, November, 1955, pg. 425.)
The reason for reproducing these comments is twofold. The response to an issue raised in the August magazine has been particularly vigorous (cp. “Discussion Correspondence” and “Letters to the Editor”). From the varied remarks, we sense that, in Bro. Carter’s words, “there is a danger of exalting a Statement of Faith above the gospel itself.” If we are to continue as a people of the book and not become a church of creeds, we must examine our attitudes, giving heed to Bro. Carter’s advice in this regard.
Second, by not personally and congregationally assenting to the BASF, hundreds of recipients of this magazine are depriving themselves of much spiritual benefit. They are on the sidelines in regard to missionary activity and on contributions to written expositions of the Truth. In many cases, they live in personal or ecclesial isolation; in other situations, they are not fully experiencing the benefits that come from wider interecclesial association.
We have in mind specifically those who are not part of the Christadelphian Central Fellowship because of difficulties occurring between Benjamin Wilson and John Thomas in the 1860’s and between Thomas Williams and the Christadelphian office in the 1890’s.
It is unprofitable to say the fault lies with those who erect the barrier of the BASF against them. The doctrines defined by this statement are correct.
Tinkering with the wording is pointless, as no humanly-written document will ever be free of defects. Perhaps some things should be included, possibly some specific phrases should be excluded, but that will always be the case with anything we come up with. The important thing is that it adequately expresses the first principles.
Furthermore, it works! For over a century, it has effectively helped preserve the Truth in these last days. A few using the BASF have gone to extremes on some points, but have found themselves constrained by its limits and have corrected themselves or eventually left us. In practice, the Statement has worked to allow for a reasonable latitude of views without tolerating outright departure from the Truth. Accordingly, changing or abandoning it for something that would itself be imperfect offers no gain, with great danger of loss.
As noted by Bro. Carter, ecclesias are free to have their own statement of faith while using the BASF as the touchstone for purposes of interecclesial fellowship. Much good could be accomplished throughout North America if those who are separate because of difficulties that occurred long ago, could join us in a common endeavor in these last hours before the coming of our Lord.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One