50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (7)

The same brother who sent me the excellent idea in my previous post also took up my suggestion that the 'Agreement' could be written in the second person, to make it more personal.

Here is how he re-wrote it:

SHARING UNITY WITH ALL GOD’S OTHER CHILDREN

1. I confess my failures in the past to maintain unity in the Body, I repent of my sins, and I humbly rely on God’s grace so that I might “reach unity in faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13 NIV).

2. I acknowledge the teaching of Scripture that there should be no division in the Body of Christ, and I acknowledge the power in my Lord's prayer, when He prayed "that we may be one, as He and the Father are one" (John 17:11).

3. I agree to treat you with the same respect and courtesy that my Lord showed to all others who trod this earth with Him.

4. I agree to treat you with the same love and compassion that the Father has showered upon us all. I will act with kindness toward you, and to speak kindly of you to all others. I will not be a party to gossip or malicious talk about you at any time.

5. I agree to serve you, to esteem you better than myself, to put your needs before my own self-interests and to contribute in whatever way I can to your spiritual development. I am prepared to sacrifice my time, interests and possessions to meet your needs.

6. I agree to pray for you. I thank you for the contributions you make, I pray for your spiritual development and I will plead for your forgiveness when you fail.

7. I agree to trust you, and, in turn, to be trustworthy. Therefore I take you at your word and do not wish to attribute motives to your actions. Help me to always speak truthfully and to not deceive or mislead you at any time.

8. I agree to resolve my differences with you with love and in the Spirit of Christ. I respect and value your opinions and, I recognise that we are all at different stages of spiritual growth and maturity. I acknowledge your right to hold views which are different to my own.

9. I agree that my labours are in vain without the Father’s blessing, and I therefore seek His guidance, as together we unite our energies to building up His house. I stand before you as a Brother who is dedicated and committed to the task of maintaining unity in the Body of Christ.

I really want to encourage everyone who reads this to re-write this in your own words and to think of positive ways you could use it (and I'd love to hear from you as to any ideas it inspires in you). I certainly don't want this to be another 'document' which will be argued over, and I'd be delighted if the attitudes it encourages begin to overwhelmingly change the nature of 'fellowship discussions' and 'unity talks'. Call it an agreement, a covenant, a prayer, a love letter, or whatever you like. The best way to prevent this 'agreement' from becoming yet another document is for it to be dynamic, fluid, ever-changing, adapted to local circumstances, and put to a multitude of creative uses.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (6)

Following on from my request that I'd love to hear from you if you have any suggestions as to how the Unity Agreement for the Twenty First Century could be used, I received this excellent idea by email from a brother.

I have taken your “Unity Agreement” and turned it into a “Prayer for the 21st Century”. I intend to carry this on my person at all times, and when any of our Brethren ring me to discuss their issues I will ask them if we can pray together first… I’ll lead and you can follow… and I will pray the “Prayer for the 21st Century”.

A PRAYER FOR THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY

1. Our Gracious Father in heaven, we confess our failures in the past to maintain unity in the Body, we repent of our sin, and humbly rely on your grace so that we might "all reach unity in faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13 NIV).

2. Father, we acknowledge the teaching of Scripture that there should be no division in the Body of Christ, and we acknowledge the power in our Lord's prayer, when He prayed "that they may be one, as we are one" (John 17:11).

3. We agree to treat each other with the same respect that your Son and our Lord showed to all others who trod this earth with Him.

4. We agree to treat all that come in contact with us with the same love and compassion that you have showered upon us, O Lord. We will act with kindness toward all others, and to speak kindly of them to others. We will not be a party to gossip or malicious talk about anybody, and especially our Brothers and Sisters in the Lord.

5. We agree to serve all our brothers and sisters, to esteem them better than ourselves, to put their needs before our own self-interests and to contribute in whatever way we can to their spiritual development. We are prepared to sacrifice our time, interests and possessions to meet the needs of all others, and especially our brothers and sisters.

6. We agree to pray for all our brothers and sisters. We thank you Father for the contributions they make, we pray for their spiritual development and we plead for their forgiveness when they fail.

7. We agree to trust each other, and, in turn, to be trustworthy. Therefore Father, we take our brothers and sisters at their word and do not wish to attribute motives to their actions. Help us to always speak truthfully and to not deceive or mislead our brothers and sisters.

8. We agree to resolve our differences with our brothers and sisters with love and in the Spirit of Christ. We respect and value their opinions and, recognising that we are all at different stages of spiritual growth and maturity, we acknowledge their right to hold views which are different to our own.

9. We agree that our labours are in vain without your blessing, O Father, and we therefore seek your guidance, as together we unite our energies to building up your house. We stand in your presence, O Lord, as Brethren who are dedicated and committed to the task of maintaining unity in the Body of Christ.

What a great idea!

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (5)

It seems to me that the main thing that is needed to bring about unity in the Christadelphian community is a change in attitude. Individuals and groups have wanted 'unity' on their own terms for too long. Unity committees perennially come and go, but attitudes remain unchanged. I have drafted a 'Unity Agreement' which simply tries to deal with the attitudes which underlie the prevailing issues.

A UNITY AGREEMENT FOR THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY

1. We confess our failures in the past to maintain unity in the Body, repent of our sin, and humbly rely on the grace of God so that we might "all reach unity in faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13 NIV).

2. We acknowledge the teaching of Scripture that there should be no division in the Body of Christ, and our Lord's prayer "that they may be one, as we are one" (John 17:11).

3. We agree to treat each other with the respect due to brothers and sisters in Christ.

4. We agree to treat all our brothers and sisters with love and compassion. We will act with kindness toward them, and speak kindly of them to others. We will not be a party to gossip or malicious talk about our brothers and sisters.

5. We agree to serve all our brothers and sisters, to esteem them better than ourselves, to put their needs before our own self-interests and to contribute in whatever way we can to their spiritual development. We are prepared to sacrifice our time, interests and possessions to meet the needs of our brothers and sisters.

6. We agree to pray for all our brothers and sisters. We will thank our Father for the contributions they make, we will pray for their spiritual development and we will plead for their forgiveness when they fail.

7. We agree to trust each other, and, in turn, to be trustworthy. We will therefore take our brothers and sisters at their word and not attribute motives to their actions. We will always speak truthfully and will not deceive or mislead our brothers and sisters.

8. We agree to resolve our differences with our brothers and sisters with love and in the Spirit of Christ. We will respect and value their opinions and, recognising that we are all at different stages of spiritual growth and maturity, will guard their right to hold views which are different to our own.

9. We agree that our labours are in vain without the Lord's blessing and we therefore seek His guidance in building up His house. We are dedicated and committed to the task of maintaining unity in the Body of Christ.

Ecclesias may like to use this 'Agreement' as a model for writing their own commitment to each other.

Here are some suggestions for how it could be used:

(i) An ecclesia could pass around a copy with plenty of room for members to sign their names at the bottom. Copies of the signed document could then be given to every member to keep in their Bible or display in their home.

(ii) Perhaps a copy with all the members signatures could be displayed prominently at the ecclesial meeting place.

(iii) When a new member joins the ecclesia they could be given a copy with all the other members signatures, and be invited to add their name. Perhaps the copy given to new members or newly baptised people could be written in the second person: e.g. "We agree to treat you with love and compassion ..."

(iv) Ecclesias could send a copy to neighbouring ecclesias, with the signatures of all their members. Perhaps this copy could also be in the second person, as above.

(v) An ecclesia which has had an 'issue' with another ecclesia could send a copy to the other ecclesia as a sign of their goodwill and brotherly love.

(vi) If someone sends you (or your ecclesia) a letter or an email which contains gossip, denigrates another brother or sister, undermines the unity of the Body of Christ, or is unkind or unbrotherly, then send them a copy of the Unity Agreement for the Twenty First Century and let them know that this is the basis on which you try to relate to your brothers and sisters.

(vii) Arranging Brethren (and inter-ecclesial committees or combined arranging brethren's meetings) could begin their meetings by reading aloud the Unity Agreement for the Twenty First Century.

(viii) All correspondence between ecclesias on matters affecting relationships between them could include a copy of the Unity Agreement for the Twenty First Century as a reminder of their love, respect and commitment to each other.

If you have more suggestions I'd love to hear from you.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (4)

MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION (4)

UNITY IN FAITH

If you haven't already seen my post on this subject then it would also fit here as part of this series. Rather than re-post it you can click on the link above.

In my next post in this series I will publish a Unity Agreement for the Twenty First Century (UAFTTFC).

The so-called Unity Agreement in Australia (which has, in reality, been a Dis-Unity Agreement) has been used for years as a weapon to coerce individuals and ecclesias into conforming with the majority, or the loudest, or the most intimidating. The UAFTTFC is much gentler, more brotherly, solidly based in the teachings of Jesus, and impossible to wield as a weapon.

Hopefully, once it starts to circulate, if ecclesias or individuals are asked "do you accept the Unity Agreement?" the response will be "which one?" and this should lead into a discussion about the UAFTTFC with a spirit which is markedly different to the one which caused the problem.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (3)

THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION (3)

“THAT THEY MAY BE ONE” - PRAYING FOR UNITY

It is common for public Christadelphian prayers from time-to-time to include a petition for Unity in the brotherhood. The requests are no doubt genuine and are almost certainly modelled on that of the Lord himself: “I pray ... that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be one in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20f). Why then have these prayers apparently gone unanswered?

One of the most beautiful descriptions of brotherly unity in the Scriptures is Psalm 133: “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” The Psalmist (almost certainly David in this case) provides two similes of that unity:

1. It is like precious oil poured on the head of the High Priest (Aaron), running down to the bottom hem of his priestly vestments;

2. It is as if the dew which falls on Mount Hermon (in the far north of Israel) were also falling on Mount Zion (in the south).

The fittingness of these symbols is fairly obvious. The anointing oil ‘united’ the High Priest’s head with the bottom hem of his clothing because it was poured in such abundance that it ran the full length of his beard and vestments. The symbol of the High Priest in particular is chosen because the other priests were only sprinkled with oil.

The dew on Mount Hermon was also noted for being particularly abundant. Delitzsch quotes a traveller who wrote “Nowhere in the whole country is so heavy a dew perceptible as in the districts near to Hermon” [1] . A natural feature of the land is that an abundant dew, preceded by warm days, might be diverted to Jerusalem by the cold current of air sweeping down from the north over Hermon. Hence, the whole land is united, symbolically, by the abundant dew.

The Psalm emphasises two important aspects of unity. First, the Psalmist three times uses a Hebrew word literally meaning “to descend”:

“It is like the precious oil that ran down on the beard ... going down to the hem of his garments; like the dew of Hermon coming down on the mountains of Zion”.

This is to emphasise that the source of unity is from above and that it descends on the brotherhood. In other words, true spiritual unity cannot be generated by a groundswell from below. It does not matter how we try to engineer it, or plan it, or negotiate it. Unity can only come from God. Then, the Psalmist reminds us that this unity is abundant (like the oil or dew in the similes).

To experience this unity in the Christadelphian brotherhood we must first acknowledge that it can come only from God and not through human endeavour. And then we must set out to discover this experience which God is prepared to provide abundantly.

William Barclay makes several valuable points about the passage in John quoted above. He asks:

“What was that unity for which Jesus prayed? It was not a unity of administration or organization; it was not in any sense an ecclesiastical unity. It was a unity of personal relationship ... a unity in which men loved each other because they loved him, a unity based entirely on the relationship between heart and heart.” [2]

He further comments on the failure of ecumenism to achieve this unity in Christendom. His comments are also applicable to the failure of the Christadelphian brotherhood to achieve unity:

“Christians will never organize their churches all in the same way. They will never worship God all in the same way. They will never even all believe precisely the same things. But Christian unity transcends all these differences and joins men together in love. The cause of Christian unity ... has been injured and hindered because men loved their own ecclesiastical organizations, their own creeds, their own ritual, more than they loved each other.”

Tragically, it is true of the Christadelphian community that men have fought harder for the preservation of a particular Statement of Faith, or explanation of one, or for a certain style of worship, or hymn book, or manner of dressing, or one ecclesial organisation or another, than they have for the unity or peace or harmony of the Body itself. If these efforts had been focussed on preaching the Gospel what a different story could have been told!

If, then, our prayers for unity have not produced peace and harmony within the Body is there anything we can do in order to pray more effectively? Some of the Scriptural teaching on prayer is relevant here.

• Jesus taught: “When you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins” (Mark 11:25).

It is clear from this that our own forgiveness is conditional on our willingness to forgive our brethren for “anything”. Yet, when we read some of the literature and much of the correspondence which passes between ecclesias we see an unwillingness to forget what our brethren have said or done in the past. Some brethren or ecclesias seem to be unflinching in their determination to extract a recantation from others, and quote in lengthy detail from past letters or conversations, analysing it line-upon-line and word-by-word, to make a brother “an offender for a word”. [3] Their fervour to preserve ‘the Truth’ as they understand it may well be at the expense of the brother or sister ‘for whom Christ died’ whose preservation seems to be secondary to the conserving of a dogma.

The practical demonstration of a love which reconciles is FORGIVENESS.

So then, if we are to pray more effectively for unity in the brotherhood we must begin with a willingness to forgive our brethren for the pain they have caused us in the past, for the unkind things they have said about us, for the misunderstandings, the battles of words, the entrenchments behind indefensible positions, and all the other reminders of our humanity. And we must do this even if our brethren are unwilling to reciprocate with their forgiveness of us!

• James may have had the Lord’s words in mind when he wrote: “Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed” (James 5:16). There needs to be an admission of fault on all sides, and a realisation that both individual and communal ‘healing’ are dependent on an open and honest confession that we have not treated each other well. Prayer must then begin to focus on the needs of others, especially those from whom we have been estranged.

• If we read Paul’s prayers for the churches in his various letters we will notice that he makes a habit of praying for others. His prayers are always positive and include thanks to the Father for the contributions made by others. Note the repetition of thankfulness in these prayers:

1. “I thank God for all of you” (Romans 1:8).
2. “I always thank God for you” (1 Corinthians 1:4).
3. “I have not stopped giving thanks for you” (Ephesians 1:15).
4. “I thank my God every time I remember you” (Philippians 1:3).
5. “We always thank God when we pray for you” (Colossians 1:3).
6. “We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers” (I Thessalonians 1:2).

Even those churches which caused Paul real heartache are remembered in his prayers with thanks. When was the last time we prayed for our brethren in that way, especially those who oppose us over some issue? If we get into the habit of thanking God for all our brethren we will force ourselves to focus on their positive characteristics and the contribution they are making to the service of God.

• A useful model for prayer is to commence with PRAISE, to follow with THANKS and then to continue with INTERCESSION or PETITIONS. The following is one suggestion for applying this model to our prayers for our brethren and community:

PRAISE - focus on what God has done for the brotherhood, observe His hand at work among us for ‘the perfecting of the saints’, and praise Him for what He has already accomplished with us. In doing so, we should include in our prayer praise for what God has achieved through those brethren with whom we have a difference.

THANKS - list those things which our brethren have done for which we can be grateful. We should even thank God for conflicts and differences of opinion if they help us to re-examine our own opinions or attitudes. In doing so we will help to produce a positive result from these experiences.

INTERCESSION - this is praying for the needs of others. By praying for others before praying for own needs helps us to keep our own wants in perspective and enables us to look for ways of serving each other. Having prayed for another person the inevitable consequence is that we will want to help them. However, we must be careful here not to tell the Almighty what other people need and then proceed to give it to them. The object of this type of prayer is to become sensitive to the needs of others and to look for the Father’s leading in how we may help to accomplish His purpose with others.

PETITIONS - or requests for help. We should include requests for the Father to help us in overcoming our prejudices and preconceived notions about our brethren. We need help in trying to understand the points-of-view of people with whom we differ, and in developing an empathy for their needs. We may need help in being able to forgive, or to apologise for past actions or words.

Any prayer should stimulate the person praying into action. We cannot pray that God will achieve such-and-such and then sit idly by and want no part in the accomplishment of it. I believe that if we are to pray communally for unity in the Body then we must also pray for it individually, perhaps in the ways I have suggested, with a genuine concern for our individual brothers and sisters in all ‘fellowships’ and branches of the Vine. We will not need to work for an artificial unity of organisation or administration, because the unity which descends from above will transcend all differences, being a joining together of true disciples in love.


[1] Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 3, William B. Eeerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, 1973. p 319.
[2] William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Volume 2, The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1975, p218. (His emphasis).
[3] This expression is from Isaiah 29:21 and, in that context, referred to those who cross-examined their brethren in such a way that they could turn their own words against them. I am reminded of being questioned at length by the Arranging Brethren of one ecclesia who wanted to determine my understanding of the word “at” in clause 24 of the BASF!

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (2)

THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION (2)

Removing the Cause of the Quarrel

It is abundantly obvious that previous attempts at reconciliation have failed. Even the so-called ‘reunion’ of 1958 never really worked and many ecclesias in Australia today have their own ‘basis of fellowship’ while still claiming adherence to the Unity Agreement. The basis of fellowship at some combined meetings. for example, ( including meetings during visits to Australia by the editor of The Christadelphian) is ‘the Unity Agreement’ with additional requirements. This is a contradiction. The imposition of any additional requirements means, of necessity, that the Unity Agreement is not the basis of fellowship. Similarly, Melbourne Youth Gatherings and a past Melbourne Conference have imposed additional requirements for fellowship, despite a resolution by participating ecclesias at an earlier Conference Business Session [1] that the basis of fellowship would be the Unity Agreement without addition or further explanation. Let’s be honest. Either ecclesias accept the Unity Agreement as adequate, or they don’t. They can’t have it both ways. If the Unity Agreement has failed to achieve its objective, and clearly it has, then we need to look at a different basis for fellowship.

First we should examine why the Agreement failed. No agreement, contract, partnership or marriage will succeed unless there is a commitment to it by both parties. Perhaps one of the primary causes of an increasing divorce rate in this country is that the Legislators have made it relatively simple to obtain a divorce and many people enter marriage with the expectation “if it doesn’t work we can easily get a divorce”. Hence, in many marriages, there is no real commitment to make it work. The analogy with fellowship is, in fact, a Scriptural one. The word used in the Greek New Testament for ‘fellowship’ is koinonia. In the contemporary colloquial Greek koinonia is very commonly used of a business partnership, of marriage and of a person’s relationship with God. [2] Fellowship in the Biblical sense is essentially a partnership or a sharing in something, and without a commitment by all parties the partnership will fail.

I would suggest that the Australian Unity Agreement has failed chiefly because of a lack of commitment to the idea of Unity. In fact, the history of the Christadelphian community has shown that the brotherhood has never been terribly committed to the idea. The existence of so many 'fellowships' is testimony to that: we have Central, Dawn, Berean, Old Paths, Apostolic, Wayfarer, Advocate/Unamended, Amended, Antipas, and Family Journal fellowships, and probably others. Some of these fellowships you may never heard of, although I'm sure we could also add a few more! It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. The Australian Christadelphian Shield once published a chart showing all the divisions in the Christadelphian community throughout its history. [3] The Editor noted that “the diagram represents an embarrassing skeleton in the Christadelphian closet” and rightly commented that “controversy is so often the result of emotion, pride, personalities, dogmatism, lack of listening, lack of love, lack of thought for the common good, lack of glory to God”. It is also a tragic situation of which the brotherhood should be ashamed.

Before we could ever be committed to unity we would have to decide that we wanted it. Not some of us; all of us. We would have to be prepared to make compromises. We would have to accept that other brethren are perfectly entitled to maintain different points of view, or standards of dress, or styles of worship, or ways of expressing their faith in Christ. We would have to become more tolerant, more flexible, more understanding, more empathetic, more caring, more loving. We would have to find ways of demonstrating to our brother or sister that we are genuinely concerned about them, their welfare and their salvation.

This is why the Unity Agreement didn’t work. It was a formality, a technicality, a legal document encompassing a credal formula which was open to interpretation. It could not, however, compel the parties to it to love each other. For a while the threat of exclusion from the ‘fellowship’ of the wider community was sufficient to encourage ecclesias to support the concept of ‘Unity’, but it didn’t take long for some brethren and ecclesias to realise that nothing needed to change. They could still insist that their interpretation of Scripture was the only valid one; if they didn’t like the way other brethren said or did things they could try to isolate them in various ways; they could criticise, condemn or denigrate their brethren; and they didn’t have to do anything at all to help their brethren in any way! And everything was fine because we had ‘Unity’.

Many ecclesias, of course, are quite prepared to accept that other brethren and ecclesias do have differences of opinion on non-fundamental issues, and yet are prepared to acknowledge that these differences create no barrier to fellowship. These ecclesias are prepared to accept another Christadelphian at his or her word when they say they share the same faith. These ecclesias are not part of the problem.

The following steps must be taken before Unity in the Christadelphian brotherhood can be achieved.

1. Christadelphians must want Unity. They must do more than think Unity would be a nice ideal. There must be a genuine yearning for it.

2. There has to be a realisation that there can only be real fellowship between brethren when each of us, individually, has true fellowship with the Father and the Son. For reformation to occur in the brotherhood there must be a reformation in each of our lives. We must dedicate ourselves to prayer, meditation on the Word and to righteous living. Ronald Dunn wrote about ‘revival’ in the church:

“Revival has never come because men placed it on the calendar. It has come because God placed it in their hearts.” [4]

His words apply equally to reformation in the Christadelphian community. Unity and genuine fellowship can only be experienced if God has placed it in our hearts.

3. We must pray for Unity. It is a sad truth, however, that in some parts of our community there must first be a revival of praying. By this I mean there has to be a greater intensity of personal prayer. The only way to improve the quality of prayer in our meetings is to improve the quality of prayer in our personal lives. We must learn to talk with each other more frequently and openly about the power of prayer and learn to pray together.

“The church must learn to live in a kneeling position, for in order to pray for revival there must first be a revival of praying.” [5]

4. Once we recognise that fellowship and Unity come from God and not from human endeavour we will want to dissolve all our Unity and Fellowship Committees. We will view our man-made documents, our Statements of Faith, Unity Agreements, Resolutions and Creeds with the correct perspective. We will see them for what they are: man-made, fallible and inadequate. By then we will have come to learn our priorities and begun to focus on the growth of Spirituality. We must follow the apostle’s instruction to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18), constantly renewing our commitment to truth and experiencing a deeper understanding of the Word of God.

5. We must trust in God. We must accept him at his word that he will meet all our needs [6]. With this trust we will submit ourselves to him and accept the Divine arrangements as the only ones suitable for our Body, realising that “God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be” (1 Corinth 12:18). Instead of attempting to cut off some parts, or trying to isolate them from the rest of the body, or dividing the body into segmented parts, we will endeavour to understand why God has placed them there and what contribution they are intended to make. We will seek to discover each one’s talent and to learn from them, realising that each member has a story to tell about his or her encounter with God.

Then we can experience real Unity and fulfil our ministry of reconciliation.



[1] Resolution passed at the Conference Business Session, Sydney, 1988. This meeting had to be held in Sydney due to the cancellation of the Adelaide Conference over an inability by the Adelaide ecclesias to reach an agreement on the basis of fellowship at the Conference.
[2] William Barclay, New Testament Words, SCM Press, London, 1964, p173.
[3] The Australian Christadelphian Shield, Editorial, November, 1993.
[4] Ronald Dunn, Don’t Just Stand There ... Pray Something!, Alpha, England, 1992, p217.
[5] Ibid, p232
[6] For example, see Romans 8:32, “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things” and 2 Peter 1:3, “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness ...”

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (1)

Australian ecclesias are currently looking at ways of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Unity Agreement in 1958. The festivities began in 2006 which was the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Adelaide Conference where a decision was made to attempt the process of unification.

The Unity Agreement has never worked in Australia. Almost from the beginning ecclesias began to divide along 'party lines', and for many years there were 'block disfellowships' where entire ecclesias were disfellowshipped because of the beliefs of one member, and where any ecclesias which refused to disfellowship the ecclesia concerned were themselves effectively disfellowshipped.

For many years the 'Logos' ecclesias were a separate sub-group, refusing to fellowship or associate with the majority, including some of the largest ecclesias in the country, while claiming to be in the 'Central fellowship' and upholding the Unity Agreement at the same time. For many years they refused to fellowship the Sydney (Shaftesbury Rd) ecclesia, the Brisbane (Petrie Terrace) ecclesia, and the Beverley Hills ecclesia, and refused to associate with any ecclesia which accepted these ecclesias in fellowship.

'Unity' during this period was a farce.

For a while it seemed that things were moving in a more positive direction. The Logos ecclesias accepted Sydney and Brisbane ecclesias back into fellowship. After the Beverley Hills ecclesia was disbanded no attempts were made to block the former members of Beverley Hills ecclesia from joining other ecclesias. The ecclesias commonly called 'Logos' ecclesias even distanced themselves from the Logos magazine and its former editor (having been embarrassed by doctrinal extremes and allegations of moral failure). For a while it looked as though the period of 'block disfellowships' was over. However, it didn't take long for the same bullying intimidation of ecclesias to raise its ugly head again, most recently in South East Queensland. There have been some disturbing signs that very little may have changed and there is still a heavy-handed attitude to fellowship and conformity in some circles. What has changed is that the former 'Logos' ecclesias have now joined (and perhaps dominate) the inter-ecclesial organisations such as the Australian Christadelphian Committee (now known as the Association of Australian Christadelphian Ecclesias, Inc), and are consequently in a position to inflict their extreme views on the brotherhood at large.

Against this background I thought it would be timely to post here some articles which I wrote some time ago on "The Ministry of Reconciliation" (published in the Christadelphian Forum magazine between December 1993 and August 1995). The articles have been slightly modified to bring them up to date. I hope this will be a positive contribution to the celebrations around the 50th anniversary of the Australian Unity Agreement, especially my Unity Agreement for the Twenty First Century (to follow).

THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION (1)

The teaching of the New Testament makes it clear that we are not only to preach about what God has done and will do, but that we are to demonstrate by our way of life what God is doing. There are many powerful exhortations in Scripture to witness by example, to be an imitation of Christ, so that when others look at us they will see a reflection of Jesus.

Jesus taught us that the most powerful and effective way to preach the Truth is through our relationships with each other. “All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another” (John 13:34f. Note the emphasis of the KJV “By this shall all men know ...” Rotherham places a decided stress on the words “By this”[1]). The emphasis indicates that it is by this means alone that we will be able to demonstrate to “all men” that we are the true disciples of Jesus. Not by argument or persuasion, but by the quality of our relationships with each other.

A short time later Jesus prayed: “I pray also for those who will believe in me ... that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). Here it is the oneness, the unifying nature of the brotherhood, which is evidence that they are in Christ and in God. Without the evidence of this relationship existing between the believers the world will not believe.

To this we can add the thrust of Paul’s words in 2 Cor 5:17-21. “... If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Paul’s appeal is clear. We are the instruments of God and have been empowered to act as His representatives in the world. Our message is to be one of reconciliation and our method is to be living examples of God’s righteousness ("that we might become the righteousness of God" i.e. “representatives of the Righteousness of God, endued with it and viewed as in it, and examples of it”[2]).

Paul’s words are meant to be understood as saying that God is making his appeal to the world to be reconciled to Him through us, and we do this by being examples of God’s righteousness. By our way of life we demonstrate the effects of being reconciled to God.

Of our reconciliation to God Leon Morris comments: “Reconciliation properly applies not to good relations in general but to the doing away of an enmity, the bridging over of a quarrel. It implies that the parties being reconciled were formerly hostile to one another. ... Now the way to overcome enmity is to take away the cause of the quarrel.” [3] The same must also be true of relationships between brethren. How can we demonstrate that we have been reconciled to God if we cannot (or will not) be reconciled with each other? This is the repetitive theme of John’s first letter: “Since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11).

To be reconciled with each other, in the words of Leon Morris, requires the removal of the cause of the quarrel. It is sadly ironic that the subject which has been at the centre of nearly every division and ‘withdrawal of fellowship’ in the history of our community has been ‘the atonement’. How can that which makes us ‘at one’ with God also be the cause of separation between brethren?


[1] J.B.Rotherham, The Emphasised Bible, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, 1967.
[2] Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, Guardian Press, Grand Rapids, 1976.
[3] Leon Morris, Reconciliation, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, 1980.

Wrested Scriptures (4) - "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

For as long as I can remember I've been hearing Amos 3:3 quoted in support of the argument that there must be doctrinal uniformity on all points in order for there to be "unity" in an ecclesia, or in order for an individual or ecclesia to be accepted "in fellowship".

The King James Version translates this verse: "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

As with the other "wrested Scriptures" I've already examined in this series, this verse is made to mean something totally different to what it was intended to mean, and this peculiar interpretation is reached only by taking the verse out of its context and then relying on a translation which is at odds with almost all other translators.

The Hebrew word translated here in the KJV as "agreed" is ya'ad. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon says this word (in the niphal tense) means:

1) to meet
2) to meet by appointment
3) to gather, assemble by appointment

Here is how some other translations render this verse:

• "Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment?" (Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible)
• "Can two people walk together without agreeing to meet?" (Contemporary English Version)
• "Do two walk together if they have not met?" (Young's Literal Translation)

Gesenius says it means "to come together at an appointed time or place". The "agreement" here relates only to the intention to meet together at a particular time and place. There is nothing in this word, or its context, to suggest that there has to be agreement about anything else in order for the parties to "walk together" or meet together. In fact, in other contexts this root word took on the meaning of an engagement or espousal to marry. It did not refer to the marriage itself, but rather to the intention to marry. Similarly, the word could be used of a summons to a court. It did not refer to the court trial but to the summons issued to appear for trial. In this case the parties did not meet together because they "agreed" but rather that they might debate their differences.

One commentator has noted the use of the verse in the context of divisions in the church:

"It is an interesting observation that those who head for Amos 3:3 for a text of unity, actually are not trying to promote unity at all. They are searching for grounds on which to justify their separation from others." (W. Carl Ketcherside, The Twisted Scriptures, St. Louis Missouri, 1992).

The passage in Amos goes on to say that God does not pour out His judgment on a city without first revealing His intention to His prophets (verse 7). The whole passage is about God declaring His intention, and not about reaching agreement.

One of the reasons why there is so much dis-unity in the Christadelphian community is that too many people have tried to create unity on their own terms by demanding that everyone else has to agree with them. Amos 3:3 is often quoted as "proof" that unity can only be achieved through doctrinal conformity. As long ago as December 1993 I wrote an article in the Christadelphian Forum magazine about the failure of the Australian Unity Agreement to achieve any kind of meaningful unity (and at the time "block disfellowship" was being practiced by several ecclesias which adopted the Agreement against other ecclesias which were parties to the same Agreement). In that article I wrote the following:

I would suggest that the Australian Unity Agreement has failed chiefly because of a lack of commitment to the idea of Unity. In fact, our history as a community has shown that we have never been terribly committed to the idea ...

Before we could ever be committed to unity we would have to decide that we wanted it ...

This is why the Unity Agreement didn’t work. It was a formality, a technicality, a legal document encompassing a credal formula which was open to interpretation. It could not, however, compel the parties to it to love each other. For a while the threat of exclusion from the ‘fellowship’ of the wider community was sufficient to encourage ecclesias to support the concept of ‘Unity’, but it didn’t take long for some brethren and ecclesias to realise that nothing needed to change. They could still insist that their interpretation of Scripture was the only valid one; if they didn’t like the way other brethren said or did things they could try to isolate them in various ways; they could criticise, condemn or denigrate their brethren; and they didn’t have to do anything at all to help their brethren in any way! And everything was fine because we had ‘Unity’ ...

We must want Unity. We must do more than think Unity would be a nice ideal. There must be a genuine yearning for it.

Perhaps I'll post the entire article on this blog later because it's still relevant, not only in Australia where the 'celebrations' for the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement have been marred by still more fellowship controversies, but also in North America where the unity discussions broke down (as I publicly predicted as soon as I knew of the involvement of certain brethren who were renowned for their refusal to compromise or negotiate).

I hear that the Australian celebrations have included references to Amos 3:3 and that, regrettably, the mistranslation of the KJV is being pushed in an effort to bully ecclesias who aren't conforming into accepting the exclusivist approach to fellowship. Hopefully common sense will soon prevail and there will be something to celebrate.

Angels and the Court of Heaven

I'm trying to get hold of a book or article which I understand was written by Christadelphian David Kingston with the title "Angels and the Court of Heaven" (or something similar). as I understand it this book/article proposes that the devil/Satan is an angel. I'm not sure if it's the same David Kingston who is a Christadelphian in Queensland. In any case, I don't have any contact details for him.

Does anyone know about this book/article, or how to contact the author?

I'm particularly curious as to how a Christadelphian who believes the devil/Satan is an angel might explain Hebrews 2:14.

If you can help with any information please contact me using the email address in my profile.

Wrested Scriptures (3) - "tell it to the church"

Matthew 18:15-17 is quoted so often as a 'formula' for dealing with disputes between brethren that it's quite common to refer simply to 'Matthew 18' and most people know at once that it is this 3 or 4 step process that is being referred to. If someone says the church or an individual should "apply Matthew 18" then it is understood that a suggestion is being made to follow these steps.

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Unfortunately, Jesus' words here are often quoted without their immediate context and consequently sometimes given a meaning contrary to their original intention. The preceeding verses are about rescuing lost sheep and acting with humility towards others. Jesus dramatically emphasised the importance of avoiding any action that might cause a brother to sin. These verses under consideration are followed in Matthew's account with a saying that we should forgive our brother, not seven times but "seventy times seven" (v. 22), and a parable about how our forgiveness should be generous, abundant and overflowing.

Yet this saying has often been used in a way which is far from gracious or forgiving. It is sometimes applied as a strict legal process ending in the offender being cut off from fellowship. I've seen the 'process' applied over a period of days. Here is an example based on real-life:

Step 1: A brother (or sister) has been rumoured to have committed some offence (or to hold some unorthodox opinion). An email is sent to them to ask if the rumour is true. ("If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.")

Step 2: It seems from the reply to the email that the alleged offender is denying the allegation (contrary to the information received from "a reliable source"), but there's something about the response which makes the enquirer suspicious that they are hiding something. A second email is sent, but this time a third party is copied in on the email. ("But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' ")

Step 3: The accused person becomes agitated that they weren't believed, or because rumours are being spread about them, and possibly because a third person has now become involved. They send off a quick response which is probably angrier in its tone than it might have been had they first slept on it. This just confirms in the mind of the enquirer that something is wrong. They forward the email on to the Arranging Brethren of the ecclesia. ("If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.")

Step 4: The Arranging Brethren discuss it at their monthly meeting, which just happened to be that evening, and agree that something needs to be done. A letter is sent to the offender before the week is out telling him that they want him to attend a special Arranging Brethren's meeting on the following Tuesday to answer the charges. In the meantime, because of the seriousness of the allegations, they advise that the brother has been suspended from all ecclesial duties.

Step 5: The accused brother takes offence at this heavy-handed approach and says he refuses to meet the Arranging Brethren until his accusers come to him face-to-face "in the spirit of Matthew 18". The Recorder sends urgent emails to all the Arranging Brethren, informing them of this development and of the brother's intransigence and his refusing to accept their authority. He's actually worse than they originally thought! They agree that "Matthew 18 has already been applied" (through the sending of two emails) and that as they have now reached the last step they have no alternative but to reluctantly withdraw fellowship ("if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")

That might sound exaggerated but this example is based on real-life incidents. Is this what Jesus meant by forgiving your brother seventy times seven? Is this what He meant about going after a lost sheep? Or humbling yourself like a child? Or suffering personal loss in order to avoid causing a brother to sin? All these things are in Matthew 18, so whatever we do with these few verses we must interpret and apply them in this context.

The first thing we must do is to put this 'process' back in its context and take note of the words which immediately follow.

"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

We should carefully note that these words are about "agreeing" and "coming together". Jesus hasn't changed the subject - this is actually the conclusion to the 'process' that He has just described. The whole object of the 3 or 4 steps in dealing with a brother who sins is to "win your brother over" (v. 15), to "agree" (v. 19) and to "come together" (v. 20). The climax comes in Jesus own asurance that if brethren follow these steps to resolve their differences and to be reconciled ("come together") it is because He is present and has been at the heart of the process of reconciliation.

This teaching is about forgiveness and reconciliation. It's obvious that the example above misses the point completely. So what is Jesus saying?

First, if a brother sins then go to him privately, face-to-face, and in a non-confrontational way and do whatever you personally can to help him get back on track.

If that fails, draw on the experiences of other mature Christians and use them as helpful resources.

If that doesn't help, then use the entire collective wisdom of the whole community of God's people ("the church" didn't exist as an institution at the time, so Jesus is either referring to the local synagogue [but then why not say "the synagogue"?] or, more likely, He is using a word from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible which means the community of God's people). In other words, get as much help as you can, draw on anyone you need to, get the whole community involved if necessary.

Finally, if that fails (and I imagine that that last step would take a very long time), then "treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector". What did Jesus mean by that? Was He suggesting that the offender should be treated with contempt and avoided at all costs? How did Jesus treat "pagans and tax collectors"?

• He called them to be disciples (Matt 9:9)
  
• He ate with them (Matt 9:10-11) and it shocked the religious leaders that he "fellowshipped" with such people
  
• He was their friend (Matt 11:19)
• He promised that they would go into the Kingdom ahead of the religious leaders (Matt 21:32)

The Synoptic Gospels all emphasise the special place the pagans, tax collectors and sinners occupied in the ministry and affections of Jesus. Can Matthew 18:17 be saying the exact opposite? Unlikely! I think what Jesus is saying is that we never give up in working for agreement or reconciliation. We forgive again and again and again ("seventy times seven"), maintaining a relationship with a brother who has sinned, and treat him as someone in need.

I really feel it's important that Christadelphians who have used these verses in Matthew 18 as part of their "disfellowship process" should re-look at them very seriously. I was recently astounded to see this teaching quoted to support a case for ecclesias standing together "collectively" in order to isolate another ecclesia which wasn't conforming. The minutes of a "Combined Meeting of the Arranging Brothers of 12 South-East Queensland Ecclesias" (on 18th June 2007) noted a recommendation that "all ecclesias should move forward collectively and not individually in the spirit of Matt 18" in order to put pressure on the ecclesia being discussed. Where on earth did they get the idea that to "move forward collectively and not individually" was the "spirit of Matt 18"?! It seems they have missed the point of Jesus' teaching completely!