"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free"

The Fellowship Debate Material

 

The Ecclesia and The Body of Christ vs. The Berean Society

Introduction: That Berean fellowship standards have changed over the years will be proved later in the debate material. I want to now focus on a subject which may be difficult for some to grasp, if they judge merely by what exists today.

When Christadelphian ecclesias first came into existence they were totally independent, totally autonomous. They maintained complete independence in regards to their Statement of Faith and Constitution. This was after the apostolic pattern. Christadelphian ecclesias did not join into unions or societies of ecclesias. This apostasy of forming unions of ecclesias was itself the result of divisions. It seemed natural for ecclesias of the same doctrinal basis to join together into unions, and while this might seem justifiable and natural, it was against everything that Christadelphians stood for to begin with. This is not to say that ecclesias did not recognize and associate with other ecclesias of the same mind -- indeed they did. But they never created paper based unions or societies. They simply recognized those ecclesias who were faithful, and refused fellowship with those who they judged were not.

Because local issues did not require international involvement, local issues remained local problems to be solved. Now, the reader might think that unions of ecclesias make inter-ecclesial fellowship easier. It does. But it also created "systems", "societies", "Fellowships" which, not only were unscriptural, not only were anti-pioneer, but were also doomed to create endless schisms as decisions moved from purely local decisions to, of necessity, being national or international decisions. In a society of ecclesias, one problem in what otherwise would be an isolated ecclesia, might turn into an international division as the Bereans have proved time and time again. They splinter into ever smaller groups, isolated from other brethren who as a matter of fact, do hold the "First Principles" of Truth. But the paper legislation, their "basis of fellowship" and common constitutions, demand action be taken when a "violation" has occurred.

The 1997 Berean division is a classic case. What was a local problem became an international question for all Berean ecclesias to individually decide where they stood when some brethren decided that the Texas "no fault" divorce laws constituted going to law. Instead of allowing the local ecclesia to solve the problem, because of the common societal laws Bereans held, some ecclesias decided it was "a matter of fellowship" and a division occurred.

And as these paper-based societies develop more and more paperwork to stave off error, these brethren who end up in small isolated ecclesias tend to cling onto their traditions under the misguided notion that they are upholding first principles of fellowship : the paper-based demonstrations of how zealous they are for "the purity of the truth".

Worse, as societies of ecclesias formed, so a new delusion began to take hold. This delusion was to confuse the mortal Society of Ecclesias with "The True Body of Christ". The Society of Ecclesias, in opposition to all those with whom it would not break bread, now began to consider themself as the only faithful brethern and therefore body of Christ, "The One True Body of Christ" and so forth. In fact, that term applies to that minority who are the true brethren of Christ, but not to any union or Society of Ecclesias!

"We profess and aspire to be that One True Body of Christ on earth, that rarest of jewels in the huge flesh-heap of mankind." (Our Basis of Fellowship, The Berean 1980, p. 12; 1986, p. 12; 1996, p. 12)

I do not have questions for all the following items. The quotes speak for themselves and any Berean "answer", predicted or otherwise is not relevant to the historical testimony these quotes provide.

 

1. Bro. Bob Widding, a Berean, made the following comment in a pre-debate discussion: “How one can forever defend being a member of a system that he thinks is synthetic and not Scriptural is an answer I look forward to reading.” My question for the Bereans then is, Is it accurate to describe the Central Fellowship as a “system”?

   [ Yes ]

2. Would it be accurate to describe the apostolic ecclesias as a "system"?

   [ Personal note: The Berean, to be consistent would have to say 'yes'.]

3. What constitutes a "system" of ecclesias?

   [ Personal Note: the only thing that we recognize today as such are that ecclesias have a common Statement of Faith, other documents like the DTBR and CoC. Apostolic ecclesias had none of this. The argument might be that they had the holy spirit inspired apostles. Yes, and were not the ecclesias filled with troubles; did not all Asia turn against Paul? The holy spirit inspired apostles were not a substitute for SOFs, DTBRs, CoCs or other documents which form ecclesias into unions. There is no hint whatsoever that early ecclesias formed themselves into unions ]

4. The lack of emphasis which brother Roberts placed on the "organization" or Institution of the local ecclesia, much less a larger society is found in this writing, “The statement that the Christadelphians claim to be ‘the ecclesia’ (‘church’ is no less Greek, though of longer standing in English usage, and ecclesia is more convenient in consequence of the prostitution of the word ‘church,’) may be allowed to pass, if understood in the right way. As individuals, or as a human organisation, they make no pretence whatever to a divine appointment or standing. Their contention is that the truth of the gospel calls the believers of it from out of the world to be the servants of Christ, and that all who yield to the call become the called by virtue of their belief and obedience, and candidates for the favour of Christ at his coming. They claim to know and believe this truth. They do not claim ‘authority;’ they do not attach any virtue to their organisation, except the advantages of edification to come from peace and order to its members. They do not set themselves up as an official body. They are merely an aggregation of men and women believing the truth of God, and striving to walk in the obedience of His commandments, hoping in the mercy of God for that eternal life which He has predicated on such a course. They have no ecclesiastical pretensions or desire for ecclesiastical recognition. If others believe in the same truth and walk in the same obedience, they are glad of and claim their company under the law of Christ. If any demur to the truth, or decline from that obedience, they withdraw from their company under the same law, not as a judicial act towards the withdrawn from, but as a washing of their own hands of complicity with evil. Thus, they rest everything on the truth, and nothing on their individual or corporate prerogative. The departure of the truth will be the departure of the ecclesia, even if the individuals remain in company one with another. The truth with them makes or unmakes: the organisation is an accident of the truth merely, and not its governor or even official medium. Understood thus, the Christadelphians admit that they claim to be the ecclesia, a claim, however, in which they admit all to participate who can prove that they are walking in the belief and obedience of the truth.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1878, p. 227)

   [ Personal note: Compare the above, "they make no pretence whatever to a divine appointment or standing" with what is written below. It is more than making a "pretence" at "divine standing". ]

5. "The 'Body of Christ' is, in the ultimate sense, the approved-the redeemed-the glorified. Who will ultimately constitute this Body obviously we cannot say. That is the great purpose of the judgment-seat of Christ. 'Judge nothing before the time.' As to the present application of this expression (Body of Christ), that at best can be but a tentative consideration. Paul says (Heb. 3:6,14)-'Whose House (Body) are we IF we hold fast... we are made partakers of Christ (his Body) IF we hold stedfast.' At any particular time, therefore, the present constitution of the Body is but tentative and potential. So we cannot apply the term to any at present in an absolute sense. I certainly believe it would be unwise and questionable to apply this term "Body of Christ" to any with whom we [the Berean Society] can not in faithfulness break bread, for the Scriptures obviously restrict the term in its true sense to the faithful, and if we consider a man to be faithful in the scriptural sense, we have no right to stand aside from him in fellowship... We have judged to the extent of standing aside from those who do not fully accept and apply what we believe to be the first principles of fellowship. To this extent we have judged and must judge." (G.V. Growcott, Scriptural Fellowship)

   [ Personal Note: Either the Berean Society of Ecclesias is "The Body of Christ" as they judge themselves to be, or it is a misguided notion. And who chooses if a man or woman is allowed into "The Body of Christ" but the judgments of fallible mortal dust! What brother Growcott states as a general principle is fine. The problem comes when you take the principle and apply it, as he is doing, to a union of ecclesias. The Berean union locks out any brethren who do not assent to their long paper trail and then has the audacity to deny that brethren outside the union are part of 'the body of Christ'. ]

6. Brother Frank G. Jannaway  wrote, “This division of the original body has led me to take a wider view than I did in 1875, for I am convinced it is more than possible that those on the ‘right hand’ in the Day of Judgment will include some from each of the said divisions, notwithstanding their present separation” (Christadelphians Then and Now, p. 5). He makes an almost identical claim in The Berean for 1927: “These divisions have led us to take a wider view than we did in 1875, for we are convinced it is more than possible that those on the ‘right-hand’in the Day of Judgment will include some from each of the said communities, notwithstanding their present separation.” (Frank G. Jannaway, The Berean, 1927, p. 350) “Possible” indicates potential or likelihood. Brother Jannaway says he was “convinced it is more than possible”. “More than possible” is an expression meaning he was convinced that “those on the ‘right-hand’ in the Day of Judgment would include some from each of the said communities…”. Do you believe this is an accurate assessment of brother Jannaway’s words?

   [ Personal note: GVG's judgment was not shared by FGJ as shown above. FGJ had not taken the ill-fated step of confusing the mortal ecclesia with The Body of Christ which Bereans had done by circa 1960. FGJ's judgment, by the way, has been shared by some of the current Berean brethren who came from the Unamended community. Perhaps their ideas changed once they joined the Bereans and became, without reimmersion, part of 'The Body of Christ'. ]

7. "The Editor of the Christadelphian has never interfered in the affairs of the Birkenhead ecclesia, or any other ecclesia. He has several times attended ecclesial meetings in various parts of the country, by request, to take part with them in the disentanglement of ecclesial difficulties: but this could not justly be characterised as “interference.” It was co-operation in a perfectly brotherly spirit, with brotherly results, and with the reverse of gratification to us in every case, except in so far as good was achieved. If it refer to the conducting of the Christadelphian, the complaint is still more destitute of reasonable ground. The Editor in all cases has only exercised the lawful prerogative of an editor. He has “edited” the contents of the magazine from the point of view of the objects at which it aims. This cannot be held to be an interference in any ecclesia’s affairs. Each ecclesia does its own untrammelled part; and the Editor of the Christadelphian does his." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1885, p. 167)

   [ ]

8. "The principle of ecclesial independence has been clearly recognised and sacredly upheld among us hitherto as a principle vital to the objects of the truth in the development of brethren and sisters in the simple ways of faith, in preparation for the coming of Christ. The abandonment of this principle—the surrender of self-government into the hands of a “conference,”—would be a long further stride towards that apostacy from apostolic principles which many fear is already begun in our midst. To consent to such a machinery would be to create an abstraction which would work mischief in a variety of ways. It would divert the minds of the brethren from the simple regulation of their own affairs: and introduce an outside source of debate and appeal. The “conference” would be before their minds in all their dealings, giving scope to unruly spirits to gratify their love of contention in the complicating of affairs that ought to be simple. And, worse still, it would put into the hands of those who are at home in the carnal arts of factious organisation, and manipulating of votes, a machinery which would inevitably work for the corruption and destruction of the truth in its faith and practice. It would organise a tyranny over ecclesial and individual life. It, at the same time, would open out a sphere at present closed to ecclesiastical ambitions. “Presidents” and “secretaries” would acquire a factitious importance that would soon ripen into the pretensions of clericalism; and the simple ways of the truth, which afford scope only for pure-minded, self-denying service, would soon be overwhelmed and destroyed by the flesh-glorifying and unapostolic officialism which prevails with such fatal effects in all branches of the ecclesiastical world from which we have been delivered. Faithful men will refuse to be compromised in such a plausible device." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1885, p. 167)
   

   [ Personal note: Here is 1885, the year of the so-called "case study" of sacred Berean fellowship principles. What is sacred to Christadelphians, according to brother Roberts?: "Ecclesial independence has been sacredly upheld" says brother Roberts. But the Berean SOCIETY or UNION of ecclesias is anything but a sacred upholding of this principle. The Berean union of ecclesias is a kind of Conference. The 'Conference' spoken of is not a one time meeting but an organized ecclesiastical organization which conducts the business of the ecclesiastical Society or union of churches. This is called, "inter-ecclesial unity of action" in the Berean Society ]

9. In speaking of The Birmingham Constitution, the Birmingham Statement of Faith and The Ecclesial Guide, G. V. Growcott wrote, "Besides long and deep scriptural study, these pamphlets arose out of actual experience and practice. They [these pamphlets] were the result of testing and refinement over a perod of 30 years, from 1853 when bro. Roberts accepted the Truth to 1883 when they were published in this completed form, and have been changed very little since." (The Berean, 1965, p. 307). How old was brother Roberts when he was baptized?

   [ He was 14 years old. Personal note: So at 14 years of age, according to GVG, brother Roberts has developed a Statement of Faith. The truth is, the the BSOF would not appear until 15 years later. So 30-15 = 15 years, not 30 -- though granted, 30 years sounds better than 15 years, it isn't accurate ]

10. G. V. Growcott wrote, "The 'Constitution and Statement of Faith' has an inseparable companion work, the 'Ecclesial Guide,' which was
    jointly developed with it." (The Berean, 1965, p. 307). What year was the Birmingham Statement of Faith first published?

    [ 1868; The Christadelphian, 1868, p. 22 ]

11. What year was The Ecclesial Guide first published?

    [ 1883; The Christadelphian, 1883, p. 559; Personal note: The Ecclesial Guide would not appear till 15 years later, again a 15 year difference from what GVG claimed was "jointly developed" ]

12. "The Ecclesial Guide is a suggestion: not a mandate—which is not within the function of any (by Christ) unauthorised brother. It only becomes a rule when made such by an ecclesia adopting it: and even then it remains outside the structure of an ecclesia’s constitution. The ecclesia takes so much of it as pleases them, and makes it theirs." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1884, p. 426; One year after The Guide is first published)

    [ Personal note: Like the SOF and every other document brother Roberts or the Birmingham ecclesia held, other ecclesias were totally free to decide what they adopted ]

    
    The Ecclesial Guide, p. 35
    Notice it does not say, "That we recognise as brethren, and welcome to our fellowship,
    all who have been immersed after their acceptance of
    our Birmingham Statement of Faith, Doctrines to Be Rejected and Commandments of Christ."

13. "That we recommend the Temperance Hall ecclesia to consent to the formation of an ecclesia at Acock’s Green, in accordance with the letter now read from brother J. J. Powell on behalf of the brethren of that district. But we deem it important to place on record our conviction that no new ecclesia should be formed of members of an already existing ecclesia without the consent of the said existing ecclesia being first asked and obtained. And that a new ecclesia so formed becomes a separate self-governing body, whose members cannot at the same time be the members (except in a spiritual sense), of the ecclesia from which they separate. We think it essential to affirm the principle of ecclesial independence as regards all matters of local organisation and discipline." (The Christadelphian, 1890, p. 431)

    [ Personal note: But not the Bereans. They have "inter-ecclesial unity of action" and have admitted they have a hard time telling when that begins and ecclesial independence ends ]

14. “J. C.—Nothing can be done collectively to heal existing differences. The evil must be cured at its source—individual shortcoming; and this can only be done by every man setting his own mind and behaviour right in the sight of God. Some will do this; all will not: and therefore discord will always exist. We must not be discouraged at it. “The church” is at present a mixture of “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and stubble;” and these elements must continue mixed, until the Judge of all the earth returns to separate them. We are neither able nor at liberty to judge at present as to who among those confessing the truth are the pearls, and who are the rubbish; but pearls there are, and rubbish there is, and therefore a lack of perfect harmony. We must use charity in the matter; this is the province of charity, to put the best face on things where nothing certain is known, and await the result in patience Differences ought not to disconcert us; they ought not even to surprise us; they are the inevitable offspring of the present organisation of “the church.” Divisions—doctrinal and personal—will always occur so long as righteousness and unrighteousness, truth and error, co-exist. True, “these things ought not so to be,” and they will not be when the church is perfected by the rejection of all its spurious members, and the glorification of all those that are true. At present, such things will be, and all we can do is to do the best we can, steer a single minded course in the sight of God, and not let our hearts down at any result that may follow.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 17)

    [ Personal note: Discord, as a rule, does not exist in the Berean society. Remember, they have mistaken the mortal ecclesias for The One True Body. They claim to be in fellowship with everyone in their community who breaks bread. There is therefore no wood, hay or stubble in such a synthetic union of ecclesias ]

15. "Beware of sacrificing the principle of ecclesial independence. Any number of brethren may profitably come together to hold intercourse on a spiritual basis; but if they begin legislating, they will begin mischief. This is the lesson of all experience. Dr. Thomas was dead against it. Each ecclesia must legislate for itself. A conference of delegates may easily become an incubus on ecclesial life.—Editor." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1892, p. 158)

    [ Personal note: Notice that the issue is sacrificing the principle of ecclesial independence. Whether there is a conference of delegates or not, the real problem is when ecclesias come together to begin legislating. "Each ecclesia must legislate for itself." Bereans have violated this forming themselves into a society or union of exclusive ecclesias. ]

16. "A.E.F.—According to constitution of the Birmingham ecclesia, we “recognise as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who have been immersed (by whomsoever) after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precept.” But we have no power to deal with disputes in a far country. The principle of ecclesial independence of action is a thing to be strenuously guarded. The blunders that are frequently made are nothing in their evil to what the establishment of a fictitious central power would be. There is nothing to be done but wait for Christ from heaven." (C.C. Walker, The Christadelphian, 1900, p. 526)

    [ ]

17. "There is such a thing as ecclesial autonomy, and such a thing as interecclesial unity of action. It is not always easy to say where one should end and the other begin" (Our Basis of Fellowship, The Berean, 1980, p. 11; 1986, p. 11; 1996, p. 11)

    [ Personal note: Notice that Berean ecclesias are so closely tied together that G.V. Growcott himself could not tell where ecclesial independence ended (!) and group action, as mandated by their Society's documents, began! What a remarkable contrast to apostolic and pioneer practices ]

18. "Any additional fellowship requirements or restrictions added unilaterally by individual ecclesias are to be discouraged and avoided. This way so easily lies the potentiality of anarchy and schism. What local decisions an ecclesia makes (in the interests of preserving its local harmony and soundness) are far better kept entirely separate from, and secondary to, this basic body of fellowship-defining material we ALL have, and subscribe to, in common." (Our Basis of Fellowship, The Berean, 1980, p. 11; 1986, p. 11; 1996, p. 11)

    [ Personal note: Notice, that with Bereans the exercising of ecclesial independence is a thing to be strenuously guarded against for it might create schism! ]

19. "The ideal is that all ecclesias have exactly the same Constitution, as far as concerns matters of fellowship. There seems to be no reason for sacrificing this ideal for the sake of numbers. To so do would in time mean a multitude of varying bases, instead of our present common and uniform one." (Our Basis of Fellowship, The Berean, 1980, p. 11)

    [ Personal note: Again, ecclesial independence is denied. Here is "the ideal". You see, if the ecclesis were independent as Christadelphian ecclesias were in the times of brethren Thomas and Roberts, "the ideal" would be applied locally. But with the Berean Society of ecclesias, "the ideal" now becomes international for Bereans are The One True Body... ]

20. "Brother R. W. asks us to countenance the movement at the antipodes to “give up the word ‘Birmingham’ and substitute ‘Christadelphian.’” Our answer must be as before: We have no authority so to do. Neither has anyone else. The Birmingham ecclesia can only speak for itself; and it is so with every other ecclesia. We entirely sympathise with every godly effort for unity on a pure basis; but it would be a mistake to issue a document under the above title, because it would imply the right of the issuers to speak for the whole household of faith, which right does not exist. The principle of ecclesial independence must be jealously guarded, and it is the beginnings of things that have to be watched. There is no desire on the part of the Birmingham ecclesia to impose its form of words on any ecclesia; but there can be no valid objection to any ecclesia adopting it if it sees fit. But to adopt this statement and give it a universal title that the Birmingham ecclesia conscientiously refrains from giving it, does not seem to be right at all. If a group of Australian ecclesias desires a common statement, let them accurately define its scope and limitations. We are happily agreed as to the “one faith,” but let us be careful about our definitions. Ecclesiastical history is a warning to us in this respect." (C.C. Walker, The Christadelphian, 1904, p. 113)

    [ Notice here, CCW is talking about something as basic as the Statement of Faith! This is 1904 and our brethren who would become the Bereans are still "in fellowship" with other Christadelphians at this point in time and will be for another 19 years. Notice, SPECIFICALLY, that ecclesias were able to carry their own Statement of Faith and that no authority or attempt to unionize ecclesias was being made by CCW -- if the union of ecclesias had already existed his words would make no sense. ]

21. In the Berean document, “Our Basis of Fellowship” we read, “Fellowship is the total oneness of the whole Body, based on THE TRUTH, believed and practiced, and preserved soundly among us according to the commands God has given us.” Is that “whole Body” exclusively the Berean Fellowship?

[ Yes : Then you do not believe Christadelphians outside the Berean Fellowship can be part of the body of Christ? Did not Frank Jannaway say the very opposite of what you are saying?


  No : Then you believe you are in fellowship with Christadelphians outside the Berean Fellowship?

Personal Note: What painful choices our Berean brethren must make when they confuse The Body with the Society!

]

22. Brother Roberts said, "To form ‘unions’ or ‘societies’ of ecclesias (and it may be added, ‘conferences’) in which delegates should frame laws for the individual ecclesias would be to lay the foundation of a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life. Such collective machineries create fictitious importances, which tend to suffocate the truth. All ecclesiastical history illustrates this.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1885, p. 167)

    [ If the Berean contention on ecclesial organization were true, that is that a union or society of ecclesias was the pioneer position on fellowship, there would be no need to form a union or society in the first place! All the Bereans, Dawn, Old Paths et. al, would have to do is send their delegates to the conference! ]

23. "In our generation, as in that of the apostles, the ecclesia, or general assembly of the many, who are called, is composed of these heterogeneous materials. It has been thus in all generations before and since Satan, in the days of Job, mingled with the Sons of the Deity, when they presented themselves in the Divine presence (Job 1:6). 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 practice, 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." (John Thomas, Eureka, vol 5, p. 81) Does the Berean community have within itself a “satanic element”?

    [ Personal Note: Remember GVG's claim "Fellowship is the total oneness of the whole Body, based on THE TRUTH, believed and practiced, and preserved soundly among us according to the commands God has given us." If the "whole Body" were nothing but the true servants of God then that would be true. But in a mortal ecclesia this is impossible. So if the Bereans have total oneness, they have total oneness with the "satanic element" as well, which brother Thomas plainly says "has been thus in all generations". Will the Bereans has us to believe that this statement from brother Thomas stopped being true in 1923? Sorry my Berean brethren, but the Scriptures speak against using a false weight in judgment ]

24. “It is certain that the Lord will find much that will displease him; absolute and unruffled unanimity is unattainable in his absence.” (The Christadelphian, 1896)

    [ ]

25. "Neither Dr. Thomas nor brother Roberts were satisfied with the state of the ecclesias in their day. Dr. Thomas wrote to bro. Roberts: 'The people of this generation are more expert in acquiring a superficial and theoretical outline of the Truth than the spirit which a deep and comprehensive and affectionate appreciation of it is sure to generate. Our labours bring us into contact with two classes who profess the Truth—the lukewarm and the hot.' And bro. Roberts, referring to one of the Plymouth Brethren with whom he had a discussion, said, 'He has all the godly fervour that characterises the body to which he belongs. It is distressing that we have so little of it among those who profess the Truth' (The Christadelphian, Sept., 1886). No one of any experience can deny that the remarks of our brethren apply with equal force in our days." (The Berean, 1935, p. 104)

    [ Personal Note: Compare these frank remarks on the state of the Berean community in 1935 with the idealism found in GVG's descriptions of the Berean community ]

26. "Do they wish all ecclesias in the United Kingdom, and all 'members' thereof, to consider them a permanent ethical tribunal, to whose judgment as to 'right ways and wrong ways,' in such cases as that under consideration, all must bow under pain of excommunication? Surely the answer must be in the negative. Where would our jealously guarded ecclesial independence vanish to if such an idea were tolerated? Some time ago brother F. G. Jannaway was alluded to in the press as 'the head of the Christadelphians.' Of course, he only smiled. Some time ago the editor of The Christadelphian had to answer the question of a Court of Law as to whether he was 'the recognised head of the Society of Christadelphians.' He said, 'I am not ‘the recognised head of the Society of Christadelphians,' neither is there any such recognised head upon earth.' Then came the question: 'Have you been authorised by the Ruling Body of the Society?' (The matter in question did not concern the body generally.) The answer was: 'I have not been ‘authorised by the Ruling Body of the Society,’ because no such Ruling Body exists.' Then, for the information and guidance of the Court, the following statement was made: 'Our Society in the United Kingdom consists of a number of churches (or ‘ecclesias’ as we call them), each of which is absolutely independent and self-governed. And this is the order of things in the U.S.A., Canada, the Australasian Overseas Dominions, and other countries.'" (The Christadelphian, 1919, p. 461)

    [ Personal Note: It was the order in 1919. Less so in 1923, worse in 1960 and even worse in 1980. The Bereans will want to claim they have ecclesial independence. But their own phrase "inter-ecclesial unity of action" (The Berean, 1980, p. 11; 1986, p. 11; 1996, p. 11) is indisputable evidence that they have surrendered independence for the Society ]

Summary:

1. Early Christadephians maintained that ecclesial independence was a "sacred principle".
2. That there was no union or society of ecclesias based on a Common Statement of Faith, DTBR and CoC circa 1903. So JT and RR could not have established a common basis of fellowship, because some brethren were pushing Birmingham in 1903 to do just that! And brother Roberts and CC Walker are both on record saying that a common SOF would not create the paradise that some brethren sought for.
3. Bereans were not satisifed with a Common SOF, DTBR and CoC. In 1960 they added the Berean Restatement and in 1980 they added the Common Constitution with "matters vital to fellowship". You can see how ecclesial independence atrophies in such a union.
4. When brethren began forming unions of ecclesias they began to mistake the Union or Society of Ecclesias for The Body of Christ. The wood, hay and stubble element, the satanic element, clearly recognized and confessed to by early Christadelphians suddenly disappeared and the union began to claim to be capable of 'pure fellowship'. This is nothing short of an apostasy of ideas, in one particular area, with significant ramifications.

 

Next: What's in a Name?

Return to Introduction

 

Last Update: October 1, 2007