banner

Last Updated on : November 23, 2014

sp spacer

 

spacer

Raising Serious Issues
Letter to the Editor
The Christadelphian Commentary, Oct. 1981

 


spacer
spacer

 

Introduction:

Interestingly enough this article appeared in the October 1981 issue of the Christadelphian Commentary, whereas the article by Bro. Harry Tennant, A Time To Be Honest, appeared in Oct. 1984, which is exactly three years later. These two articles are very much connected in regards to subject matter. Bro. Fred Pearce is describing a meeting he attended, uninvited, that was made up of those members of a very erroneous outlook. He describes very accurately what he witnessed and very clearly states that these people were going to do their best to undermine the Central Christadelphian community, particularly as it regards the young members. In other words, they would be a very very insidious influence in the Central fellowship. We hope and pray that between these two articles the effected brethren will stand up and take notice and will do what is Scripturally correct. -- J.B. Scaramastro

Raising Serious Issues

Dear Brother Editor,

Insofar as it is true that "our brotherhood is in a bit of a turmoil at the present time" -- a judgement I believe to apply only to a minority, though an important one -- then its perplexity is likely to be markedly increased by the two recent letters from Brethren Richardson and Smart. Their often admirable sentiments conceal serious issues; about these it is essential that we should clear our minds.

The general complaint of both writers is of a spirit of "unpleasant recrimination and witch-hunting", "self-righteousness and bigotry". Now no-one who has the spiritual welfare of our community at heart can approve such attitudes, and through human frailty they are sometimes manifested; but to level such general charges is to misunderstand the reason why some of our members react as they do. They are not reacting out of a spirit of self-righteousness or bigotry, but from their genuine concern and distress that the Scriptural foundations of our Christadelphian understanding of the Gospel are being subtly eroded and in fact abandoned. Much of what is written in these two letters ignores this vital point.

To say that nowadays "few will assert that only Christadelphians will be saved" is to cloud the issue. We must all reverently agree that final judgement upon individuals is the sole prerogative of God and we must not seek to usurp it. But where does that leave us? As a result of prolonged conscientious study of the Scriptures we have come to recognise the essential Gospel as "the good concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" and requiring obedience in baptism as a result of that understanding (Acts 8:12, R.V.; 28:23,31). Those "good tidings" are amplified throughout the New Testament in the writings of the apostles and formed the foundation of the earliest communities of believers established under their instruction. This has been our foundation too from our commencement, for we do not believe you can edify a community in the right spirit of devotion to God and the Lord Jesus Christ unless its members are agreed upon the essential teachings of the Word of God. We say therefore to our enquiring friends, "This is the Gospel which the Scriptures show the apostles to be upholding in their preaching and exhortation; it is upon this foundation that the right spirit of Christ must be based. We wish you would join us in this; but if you cannot, with deep regret we must confine our membership to those who can, leaving God to be the final judge". The issue is therefore seen to be not just one of a general tolerant attitude towards all, but one of fellowship. That is the real issue which lies behind some of the controversy lately.

With the above in mind perhaps there could be a better understanding of the viewpoint and motive of one of your correspondents who urged that those who could not agree with us should "go", all the more in view of what follows. At least twice in the last few years (one of them within the last twelve months) private meetings have been called by individuals -- that is, attendance, which has been considerable, has been by personal invitation only. At those meetings the Christadelphian position on fellowship has been attacked and the suggestion openly made that the foundation of the community is mistaken and that fellowship with other (usually evangelical) bodies is to be advocated. The question having been explicitly raised, "Shall we advise members to leave the Christadelphian community or to stay?", the clear answer has been that they should stay and seek to propagate their views secretly, especially among younger members -- the older members being regarded as beyond conversion -- so subverting the community from within. There can be no doubt that this process has been going on and that the developments we have seen quite recently are some of its effects. The attitude advocated may fairly be called devious, if not downright dishonest, and does something to explain the conviction of many of our members that those who disagree with our foundations should very seriously consider their position and not continue to claim the benefits of fellowship in a community whose basic principles they can no longer endorse.

There is much quotation these days of Jesus' saying, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one toward another" (John 13:35). This is a very important saying which must be taken very earnestly by every follower of Christ, but it needs some comment on its application to our day. When Jesus uttered those words, the common attitude in the pagan Roman world had little use for mercy and compassion; forgiveness and humility were regarded as weaknesses, not virtues. In that harsh world the teaching of Christ shone like a light in a dark place; so a Roman official, observing the attitude of persecuted and imprisoned believers to one another, exclaimed: "How these Christians love one another". Today the situation is vastly changed. The views of men have been influenced over the centuries by the example of Christ (though his precise teachings on other matters have usually been ignored) and in addition a refined humanism has come to advocate a similar attitude. So today people who love their fellows may be members of any religious group whatever, holding the most diverse and contradictory opinions about the teaching of the Bible, or be frank atheists with no religion at all.

It is clear that this saying of Jesus, while providing grave cause for concern if its fruit is not found among those who profess to be followers of Christ, is not the sole test. That test is their attitude to God and the teaching of His Word in reverence and humble faith, out of which gratitude for His mercy in their redemption in Christ should engender a like mercy in their attitude to others. If some of our members, observing the faults in our attitudes to one another arising from human weakness, are led to "question the validity of our position" and to "seek elsewhere a truer spirit of Christian fellowship", perhaps they have never properly understood what our position is and what is involved in our fellowship.

The counsel of the apostle Paul that the members should show "mutual respect and not censorious judgement", and the observation frequently made that there were differences of opinion in the early ecclesias, both need to be understood in their true contexts. In Romans 14 the apostle was not referring to doctrinal differences but to matters of conscience, such as whether certain foods should be banned as unclean and whether certain days should be compulsorily observed as holy. He classes as "strong" those whose understanding enabled them to see that these matters were not of vital importance for salvation, and lays upon them very largely the responsibility for ensuring that their "knowledge" did not destroy the faith of those whose understanding was not so well advanced ("the weak"). The differences of opinion which had arisen in the ecclesia at Corinth were not treated as unimportant, for the apostle dealt with them with a very firm hand and required assent to his conclusions. When serious doctrinal divergences arose, he was quite outspoken. The ecclesias of Galatia and the apostle Peter himself were firmly "withstood"; the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus he compares to "gangrene" (R.V.), asserting that in teaching the resurrection as "past already" they have "erred concerning the truth . . . and overthrow the faith of some"; and he says of some "vain talkers and deceivers" that their "mouths must be stopped" (Tit. 1:10,11). Now no doubt the apostle Paul conducted his discussions in the right spirit, and equally none of us has his authority to make similar firm pronouncements, though we do have the Word of God and should make that our authority. It is clear, however, that to imagine the apostle Paul as dealing tolerantly with divergent views and encouraging general discussion in the believing community as a means of arriving at a consensus is quite a false picture.

There are many good things in the two major letters you reproduce; to them all of us will say, Amen. We do indeed need to keep ever before us "the kind of spirit we are of". No doubt their authors would say they were concerned with matters of interpretation, not of vital truth. The two so easily mingle, however, and the spiritual ideals both your correspondents advocate can so easily be pursued without reference to firm Scriptural principles, that their letters will give as much cause for serious concern as they do for needed exhortation.

Sincerely your brother in the Lord Jesus,
FRED PEARCE

 

 

 

 

 

spacer