“Central” Christadelphians

Our heritage

It is a fact that of all the groups, divisions, and fellowships that are known as Christadelphian, or closely associated, the “Central”, commonly called “Amended” in North America, is by far the largest group, with more than 90% of the total. It has not suffered a major division since 1923, and God willing this will continue.

This has not always been the case, at least outside Great Britain. For many years after the turn of the 19th century, in both North America and Australia, the majority was not associated with “Central”. In Australia, the “Shield” group dominated, while in North America Christadelphians were very roughly split into thirds between Central, Berean (from 1923), and Unamended. In the UK, Central were in the majority, but the “Suffolk Street” group were a significant, active minority, and it was in fellowship with the Shield Group in Australia and the Unamended in North America. In the UK, most Bereans divided in the 1940’s to form the Dawn fellowship, which only a few in North America joined. So from about 1923 to the mid 1950’s, the Christadelphians were divided, separated not only by distance but also by affiliation. Except for the Unamended, all subscribed to the Biblical principles of the BASF (Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith), but all accused each other of various infractions, both doctrinal and moral.

Everything changed in the 1950’s when Bro. John Carter, then editor of The Christadelphian magazine, used his position to orchestrate the re-union, first of the Bereans in North America, then of the complex situation in Australia, and finally with the Suffolk Street group in the UK. Not included were the Unamended in North America and the Dawn fellowship, and this has remained essentially the status to date. There has been some successes in further uniting of factions, but only locally. However, for the past sixty years the Central Fellowship has remained united, at least on the surface: in most of the world, the existence of other “Christadelphian” fellowships is almost unknown. Members regard themselves as “Christadelphians”, and even the term “Central” is falling out of use.

Central

It is interesting that the word “Central” reflects a connection that no longer exists. In fact, up until 1932 the largest segment of the community was known as the “Temperance Hall” fellowship, after the name of the meeting place in the center of Birmingham. This was where the largest ecclesia had met since 1872, and where successive editors of The Christadelphian from Robert Roberts on were members. In fact the term did not come into use as a designator of a fellowship until after about 1885, for although there were some disputes, none produced a large enough number of ecclesias to require a distinctive name. The Temperance Hall was a rented property, and when it was sold in 1932 the ecclesia moved to another rented property, the Midland Institute. By this time, other ecclesias had sprung up around Birmingham, so the ecclesia, still over 1,000 members strong, took up the designation of “Birmingham Central Ecclesia”. And so the term “Central Fellowship” came into being. (The term “Amended Fellowship” is little used outside of North America.)

It is somewhat sad that the Birmingham Central Ecclesia closed in December 2007, when the Midland Institute was sold: by that time it had dwindled to a handful. I have memories of it in the 1970’s, when over 1,500 members filled a large, ornate hall with hymns that seemed to lift the rafters.

Until the 1970’s, because of its size and because of the fact that the editors of the main magazine of its community were members, the Birmingham Central Ecclesia had a great deal of influence over Christadelphians worldwide. With the reduction in size, and the fact that after LG Sargent the editors belonged to other ecclesias, its influence, and to some extent that of the editors, has disappeared. Many sections of the community look elsewhere for guidance, and sometimes even object to the fact that the editors of The Christadelphian offer guidance and counsel at all. No other magazine, or even any particular individual, commands respect in all quarters, at least in North America.

The glue

So what is the glue that holds our community together? Why has the Central Fellowship managed to avoid the divisions that plagued its first sixty years? After all, there have been no split since 1923, and that split has been resolved to a large extent (although remnants still exist.) There is no centralized authority: each ecclesia is a legal as well as a practical self-governing entity. Along with no paid ministry, there is no formal instruction of any of our teachers, and even the Mutual Improvement classes that used to exist seemed to have died out in the 1960’s, with very rare exceptions.

The normal answer, of course, is “The BASF.” This indeed is the doctrinal glue, which all Central Ecclesias accept as a true definition of our beliefs: but if you just glance at the discussion boards on the Internet, many of our young people either are ignorant of its contents, or are quite happy to disregard it. And remaining on the same theme, if you just collect a random sample of twenty “Beliefs” from the websites of ecclesias and some of our organizations, none include the actual BASF, and only one refers to it. (Of course, looking for the term “Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith” produces the desired result: the abbreviation “BASF” usually returns what is a large chemical company.)

So what is the practical glue? It could be:

  • Family ties
  • Bible Schools, Fraternals, and Youth Weekends
  • The magazines and literature of the community
  • The ALS diary and, in North America, the various address lists

The common thread is due in some part to all of these, but I believe it is due in a large part to the heritage of a simple document, written by a wise brother in 1883, which has changed little through numerous printings. It contains, not only the forerunner of our statement of faith, later modified somewhat to counter some errant beliefs, but a “Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Ecclesias”.

The Guide

The Guide to me is quite amazing: I have had many occasions to consult it for guidance in difficult areas of ecclesial affairs, both internal and external, and its sound words continue to be relevant. Whether dealing with individual problems, or relationships between ecclesias, its advice has more often than not helped, if not to solve problems, at least reduce their impact. There is a tendency to speak words in public that are unwise: its counsel is that such words should not be considered before the subject and accuser have sat down and talked face to face, and this has often solved the problem then and there. The situation where a topic is brought up by an individual at a meeting, perhaps an arranging meeting, regarding another member and dealt with then and there should never happen. Sometimes the wise advice is ignored, and the outcome is then almost never good.

Another principle of the ecclesial guide is that the decision of the majority should, in general, be adhered to. There has been a tendency to declare:

  • The majority is usually wrong — after all, we as Christadelphians are a small minority among Christian denominations. But any other way, except in rare cases, is neither practical nor desirable. As Bro. Roberts points out, in his section on “A Time to Separate, and How to go about it”, there is the right way to handle the case of a departure from the Truth, or a disavowal of the commandments of Christ. His advice has largely been followed, with the result that true dis-fellowship of an ecclesia is extremely rare.
  • Unanimity in all things is the only Christian way: “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Phil 2:2). The NET Bible reads “complete my joy and be of the same mind, by having the same love, being united in spirit, and having one purpose”, with the note to “same mind” being properly “feel the same way”. It is not a command to agree in all things, but to have the same Christ-like approach.

I must say that some ecclesias have declared themselves out of fellowship with other local ecclesias over perceived problems with doctrine, fellowship, or the perennial disagreements over divorce: but such declarations have, almost always, not been recognized by the larger community. Perhaps we should regard ourselves as a confederation of ecclesias joined together by a common set of beliefs, but allowed internal freedom to govern themselves, subject to only limited community oversight, and an agreement on both doctrines and rules.