The Fellowship Debate Material

 

Closing Statement (draft)

I believe it would be best to contrast the two positions in table format allowing the reader to see where the two positions differ.

The Truth — Christadelphians Bereans et al.
Christadelphians did and still do recognize the difference in a mortal ecclesia (1st Cor. 3:10-13) and the One Body of Christ. Many are called but few will be chosen.
Because advocates of Unionized Ecclesias declared that such unions would purify the body, they began to mistake the mortal ecclesia for the One Christ Body. As the years passed the confusion grew, so that today Unionized Ecclesias are often spoken of, by their advocates, as interchangeable with The One Body of Christ.

Christadelphians have never claimed to be in fellowship with everyone who breaks bread, without exception.The apostles never asserted it, the pioneer Christadelphians explicitly denied it.

"Would you have any fellowship with those who believe or teach these things? Answer: 'My fellowship is with the apostles; they had many brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth.'" (Answer by John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1870, 155).

Advocates of Unionism needed to assert that if you were not in their Union, or Fellowship, you were in another Union, and therefore you were, of necessity, in fellowship with all those of that particular Union. You therefore, of necessity, are in "fellowship with errorists".

Advocates of Unionism had to apply their own principle to themselves. Therefore they claim to be in fellowship with everyone in their community with whom they break bread, sight unseen, genuine faithfulness assumed, but factually, unknown.
Christadelphian ecclesias, since apostolic times have had elements of wood, hay and stable, in addition to the gold. As brother Thomas expressed the apostolic principle, "The satanic element has ever been among them with its 'depths as they speak' (ch. 2:24), corrupting and perverting the weak. In the wisdom of the Deity, Satan has been permitted to practise, and to deceive the hearts of the simple, who are 'ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth' (2 Tim. 3:7), without judicial interference." (Eureka, vol. 5, p. 81)
Unionized ecclesias claim to be in fellowship with everyone in their community with whom they break bread and therefore there must not be wood, hay or stubble in their Union. This is equivalent to the judgments you hear at clerical funerals where men's destiny is already decided without need of the judgment-seat of Christ.
Christadelphians, since apostolic times have recognized their responsibility in 'trying the spirits' and in not receiving into fellowship those who conform not to the apostolic standards. But they have not confused individual (personal or ecclesial) responsibility and action with Unionized ecclesial action.
"There is such a thing as ecclesial autonomy, and such a thing as inter-ecclesial unity of action. It is not always easy to say exactly where one should end and the other begin." (The Berean, 1980, 1986, 1996 + two pamphlet editions of "Our Basis of Fellowship")
Christadelphian ecclesias did not form themselves into Unions or Societies, but they "sacredly upheld" the principle of "ecclesial independence". (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1885, p. 167)

Unionized ecclesias were and are willing to sacrifice their independence to receive the "benefits" of said union. They may claim independence but the loss of independence is demonstrated by the standardized documents which Unionized Fellowships set forth as the only acceptable basis of fellowship.

Christadelphians did and still do believe that, doctrinally speaking, "The 'things concerning the Kingdom of God' and 'those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,' in their scriptural amplitude must be the measure and standard of fellowship."

The only acceptable basis of fellowship is that which the Union of Ecclesias legislates. In the case of the Bereans this consists of a Common Statement of Faith (BASF), a Common DTBR, a Common CoC, a Common Constitution containing "matters vital to fellowship", and a Commonly held Restatement.

Consistent with the importance these documents are given in Unionized Ecclesias, the history of these documents have been exaggerated to build them up. Eg. The Berean, 1965, p. 307.

The apostolic and Christadelphian basis of fellowship is, "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

Christadelphian ecclesias were and are still free to write, adapt and adopt their own Statement of Faith and duly recognized when they set forth "the 'things concerning the Kingdom of God' and 'those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,' in their scriptural amplitude".

The London Statement of Faith was quite different in its expressions from the Birmingham Statement of Faith. Yet the two ecclesias judged that doctrinally they had no differences and were therefore recognized in fellowship. Certainly the New York ecclesia to which brother Thomas belonged was different from both of those ecclesias yet, again, brethren accepted one another in fellowship.

Unionized ecclesias have a list of documents which must be assented to before membership into an ecclesia in the Union is granted. Once a member of the Society, fellowship is permitted.

All Unionized Ecclesias demand assent to a common Statement of Faith. Since this is the foundation upon which they believe they have "pure fellowship".
Christadelphians did and still do believe that one apostolic command is to receive true brethren in fellowship, not casting out those who conform to the apostolic measure and standard of fellowship. (3rd John 9-11)
Unionized ecclesias only receive into fellowship those who hold membership in one of the Union's ecclesias. The apostolic measure and standard is insufficient for Unionists.

Early Christadelphians had no name for their Fellowship, for there was no Union, Society or Fellowship to be named. There were only individual ecclesias which stood or fell on their own merits. Even the name Christadelphian was reluctantly taken for the purpose of military exemption.

And even then, after that name was taken, some Christadelphians chose the name "Antipas" saying, "Christadelphian is a private or family name, and Antipas a public name" (The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 52).

Denominational naming is a hallmark of Unionized ecclesias. Berean, Watchman, Old Paths &c. The Union of Ecclesias, the Fellowship, takes on an importance which was neither found in apostolic ecclesias, or Christadelphian ecclesias.

Ironically, Unionized Ecclesias claim to be the faithful Antipas element, and yet they totally ignore Antipas' documented history of beliefs and practices as found in the Antipas Christadelphian writings!

Christadelphian ecclesias were and are still free to write, adapt and adopt their own constitution. For example, one should compare the constitution of the New York ecclesia of which brother Thomas was a member, The Royal Association of Believers with the Birmingham Record aka the Birmingham Ecclesial Record aka the Birmingham Constitution.

In 1866 the Nottingham ecclesia adopted the New York example (The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 52) even though it was quite different from what Birmingham drafted and adopted. Twenty-three years later, in 1889, the Nottingham ecclesia "adopted a constitution on the lines of the one used by the Birmingham Temperance Hall ecclesia" (The Christadelphian, 1889, p. 462).

Christadelphian ecclesias viewed the ecclesial constitution as a set of man-made rules, for the order and operation of an ecclesia. No claim was made that any constitution contained "matters vital to fellowship".

Some Unionized Ecclesias dictate assent to a common constitution. For example, the Bereans since 1980, that is for twenty-seven years, have published a basis of fellowship which contains a "Common Constitution" containing "matters vital to fellowship." While some Berean ecclesias may have their own ecclesial constitution, their published basis of fellowship requires them to uphold the Union's "matters vital to fellowship".

Christadelphians did and still do recognize "the individual right" in regards to any action or advocacy of an action. They did not and do not confuse early events such as how Dowieism was handled, or how partial-inspirationism was handled with the latter day invention of "inter-ecclesial unity of action", that is to say, the actions of Unionism. In all cases early Christadelphian brethren acted on "the individual right", not Unionist principles.
Advocates for Unionism read and reinterpret all historical accounts to be consistent with Unionist behavior. If a "community" is withdrawn from, it must be a Union of Ecclesias which is being withdrawn from, not just "the Birmingham ecclesia". Never mind the historical documentation.

Christadelphians did not and do not legislate against a "Current problem" claiming, at first, it is not a first principle but then twenty years later claim the matter is and always has been a first principle.

 See Clause 4 of the Berean Restatement.
Christadelphians do not make the Word of God void in attempting to uphold tradition.
Advocates of Unionism are prone to misinterpret various Scriptures for the sole purpose of justifying Unionism. For example, the claim might be made that "there is, scripturally speaking, no such thing as an 'ecclesial shepherd.'" Such a claim is designed to absolve individuals from their Scriptural call and obligations, and worse, the manifestation of Scriptural love (which is not found at either extreme).
Christadelphians did and still do recognize the value of reading the early Christadelphian writings as invaluable guides to understanding the Scriptures. Christadelphians have no need to set one part of what is written against another part depending on what the current argument is.
Advocates of Unionism selectively quote and misrepresent the pioneer writings for the sole purpose of justifying Unionism. For example, brother Thomas might be quoted as saying "I lead no one of my own will, nor do I wish to lead anyone" to try and justify the argument we do not have ecclesial shepherds but the same advocate for Unionism claims "Given brother Thomas' place in the revival of God's Truth, it is only logical that we thoughtfully consider his works when contending for the faith becomes necessary." This plainly indicates brother Thomas' role as a shepherd who feeds. So which argument will advocates of Unionism set forth today? Whichever serves their current argument.

It might be argued that since ecclesias have autonomy that they therefore have the "right" to form unions if they so choose. It is true, they may form themselves into some new Society if they so choose. In this age people may do anything which they choose to do. The fact they can do it is no evidence that the thing is right by God's Word. This is the first and most serious ground upon which men, specially those claiming to be brethren of Christ, will be judged. The question is, do they refuse to receive those who conform to the apostolic "measure and standard" into fellowship. Yes, they do and they do so on the basis that they claim they are justified in forming an exclusive union of ecclesias -- a thing the Scriptures do not advocate, justify or logically lead to. In fact, the disobedience of apostolic command, which Unions lead to, demonstrates that the position they hold is false for the Scriptures do not contradict themselves or lead brethren into a false position.

Added to that is the fact that it has been done under false colors of "the one Christadelphian fellowship which has steadfastly refused to alter our fellowship position from that established by bre. Thomas and Roberts" which is a shameful misrepresentation of Christadelphian history and the true Christadelphian position.

 

Return to Introduction

 

Last Update: October 5, 2007