This is Cliff's response to comments made about an earlier message.
Firstly, who is the Brother who is in Pine Rivers who has been "dis-fellowshipped"?
Why was he "dis-fellowshipped?"
By whom was he "dis-fellowshipped?"
By God? Does God recognise men's "dis-fellowships?"
By Jesus? Does Jesus recognise men's "dis-fellowships?"
If the brother under discussion was "dis-fellowshipped" (a totally non Biblical terminology) by men, and if those who are "spiritual have restored such a one in the spirit of meekness" (cp Gal 6) surely this should be reason to rejoice, just as the Father in the parable of Luke 15 rejoiced when the prodigal returned home.
It is interesting that it is the elder Brother in Luke 15 who refused to come and eat at the Father's table of Grace when he learned that the prodigal was also eating there. And the prodigal was welcome at the Table of the Father (Lord) without the Elder Brother even being consulted or giving his consent.
So "Anonymous," by refraining from taking the emblems (at the Fathers Gracious Table at PRWC) when another was present at the same table whom you don't think should be there, who are you identifying with? The elder Brother!
This just highlights one of the major (and very important) differences between (some) modern Christadelphian's teachings and practices and Christ's teachings and practices.
For example, in Matthew 9:10 (also in Mark and Lukes records too, so the incident is more than significant; it is vitally important) we learn that "as Jesus reclined in the house, behold, many tax-collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, Why does your master eat with tax-collectors and sinners?"
This is exactly the same question as asked by some Christadelphians today! Different time and place - but the core issues are identical.
"Why do you eat (fellowship) with those whom we have dis-fellowshipped?"
The terms 'tax-collectors and sinners' were the appellations given to those "dis-fellowshipped" or "cast out" by the religious leaders of the day. Obviously Jesus did not have a problem having fellowship with those who had been "dis-fellowshipped" by the religious elite of His day. Remember, mealtimes in Israel were the equivalent of our modern "Breaking of Bread"... in those days you judged others by whom they had meals with. And Jesus says of this practice of having meals with "outcasts... "Do this in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11). So "Anonymous", would you agree, to obey Jesus we must do what Jesus did?
As Jesus said in another teaching parable of His... "Go, and do likewise!"
To do other that what Jesus clearly taught us to do, as is the "main stream Christadelphian teaching" according to our "Anonymous" friend, is to actually disobey the Commandments of Christ.
Not only did Jesus eat with those the Pharisees (the Elder Brother group) called "sinners" (incidently, Jesus never used that term Himself to describe others - anytime He does use the term "sinners" it is only when He is quoting the Pharisees back to themselves or to describe them!!), He reclined with them too. This was more than just "a sip of wine and sliver of bread just before Midday on Sunday"- this was a full on, relaxed fellowship meal. True fellowship was being had at every level in each these Gospel records and on every occasion where Jesus "Broke Bread"- not just at a superficial "Spiritually Elite," "in the club" level.
It is interesting that the Gospel writers are careful to tell us that the Pharisees did not dare question Jesus about His Table Manners. But they were bold to talk to the disciples on the side, in an effort to drive a wedge in between them and Jesus Himself. After all, Jesus was totally defying their long established culture and traditions and teaching His Disciples to do exactly the same.
Jesus was fully aware of what motivated the Spiritual Snobs of His day, and He said in Matthew 11 "But to what shall I compare to this generation? It is like little children sitting in the markets and calling to their playmates, saying, We played the flute to you, and you did not dance! We mourned to you, but you did not wail!" [In other words, the Religious Leaders in Israel were dismayed that Jesus would not dance to their tune. Jesus refused to abide by any of the socially and religiously acceptable conventions and traditions which would Spiritually Abuse any who the Father had called. And this man is the one we are to copy in every way. That is what True Worship really is: imitating in every way the one who is the Boss! It has been truly said, that we become just like the God we worship.]
Jesus continued: "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon." [Have you ever noticed that Jesus NEVER corrected any of their false ideas about devils, demons and supernatural forces. He even stood up in their synagogues, using their platforms where they preached such false teachings, and never once took them to task or enlightened the audience about their misbeliefs in this area. Paul and the other Apostles did exactly the same, for the Kingdom message is about how you show God in action to your fellow by your actions, not by convincing your fellow of what you do not believe!]
The observations of the Spiritual Leaders in Jesus' day was that "the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, Behold a man who is a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. But wisdom was justified by her children."
This man is more than our Redeemer and Saviour! He is the very pattern upon which we are to model our own lives. As He said, "wisdom is vindicated by the results" - and the massive results of Jesus' pattern for living, is that any one of us has been included by Grace within His "Forever" family. And to act petulantly and to refuse to take the very emblems of His life and power and mission and victory because someone else [who you might not agree with in some way] may also be present at the same table, is to snub the Lord of Heaven, slap Him in the face, and deny the very power that drew you and the "other" to that Table in the first instance.
Jesus whole life is one that denied "Guilt by Association" in any form for Holiness is far more powerful than sin any day. To act otherwise at His Table, (or at any time really, for worship is a 24/7 deal - not just a Sunday thing) is to "eat and drink condemnation to oneself," says Paul. (cp 1 Cor 11).
We declare, as we take Jesus into our lives, "Jesus, you are indeed the pattern for my life, so I eat this Bread (your Body Lord) and drink this wine (your life blood Lord) and it becomes an essential part of every living cell in my body - I am fully energised by you!!!" To then act towards others differently to the way Jesus taught, nay, commanded us to act, is to deny the very Lord who died for us all.
Jesus not only ate meals (had full on Fellowship) with those who had been cast out ("dis-fellowshipped"), He went out of His way (John 6:37; John 9) to have or renew fellowship with them, despite the written and oral traditions of His day. It cost Him His life in the end.
And that has ever been the pattern of the "Elder Brother" of the parable in Luke 15 to refuse to share the great love of Him who died for all, and to use "dis-fellowship" as a control mechanism to maintain religious control, (cp 3 John v9-11). Dis-Fellowship is the "iron fist enclosed in a not so velvet glove" (referred to in Matthew 24:49) to quote a much loved Brother who has gone before us.
It is so sad to see that the Diotrephian spirit still lives on - even in the 21st Century.
Whilst this may indeed be seen by some to be "main stream Christadelphian teaching" it is actually diametrically opposed to "main stream Christ teaching."
So the question is: who should we obey? God/Jesus, or men?
At the risk of disobeying (and even disappointing) men, I choose to obey God any day.
Showing posts with label Fellowship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fellowship. Show all posts
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Fellowshipping an out-of-fellowship person (1)
This message arose out of comments on an earlier message about a proposal being put to the 2008 Australian Christadelphian Conference in Sydney to restrict the start-up of new ecclesias.
An anonymous person left a comment describing how he visited another ecclesia and would not participate in the breaking of bread because of the attendance there of a person who had been 'disfellowshipped' by another ecclesia. He wrote: "If a Brother has been disfellowshiped and you visit another meeting and he is there then the main stream Christadelphian teaching is not to partake of the emblems which happened on this day."
In earlier posts on 'fellowship' I have discussed the Christadelphian practices related to breaking of bread, so I won't go into that again right now. However, I challenge the notion that "main stream Christadelphian teaching is not to partake of the emblems" if a disfellowshipped person is present. In fact, the Ecclesial Guide specifically deals with this issue in section 42. Here is an excerpt:
Applying this to the situation mentioned, visitors to an ecclesia should recognise the right of that ecclesia to exercise "their prerogative of independent judgment" and to make their own decision about a person who may have been disfellowshipped elsewhere. To refuse to participate in the breaking of bread on such an occasion is not only rude and an affront to ones hosts, it also demonstrates a refusal to recognise the principle of non-interference laid out in the Ecclesial Guide. It undermines the principles of mutual respect, autonomy and the prerogative of independent judgment which are "mainstream Christadelphian teachings".
In a subsequent post I will also publish Cliff's response to the comment which was a reply to his.
An anonymous person left a comment describing how he visited another ecclesia and would not participate in the breaking of bread because of the attendance there of a person who had been 'disfellowshipped' by another ecclesia. He wrote: "If a Brother has been disfellowshiped and you visit another meeting and he is there then the main stream Christadelphian teaching is not to partake of the emblems which happened on this day."
In earlier posts on 'fellowship' I have discussed the Christadelphian practices related to breaking of bread, so I won't go into that again right now. However, I challenge the notion that "main stream Christadelphian teaching is not to partake of the emblems" if a disfellowshipped person is present. In fact, the Ecclesial Guide specifically deals with this issue in section 42. Here is an excerpt:
"There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time, they have reciprocal rights. Ecclesial independence is a principle essential to be maintained. But it is no part of that independence to say that no ecclesia shall consider a matter that another has decided upon, if that matter comes before the first ecclesia, and challenges their judgment, and, in fact, requires a decision. In the example already discussed, if a brother withdrawn from by one ecclesia applies for the fellowship of another, that other ecclesia is bound to consider the application, and it is no infringement of the independence of the first ecclesia that it should be so, subject to the rules and attitudes indicated. It would, in fact, be a renunciation of its own independence, were it to refuse to do so. Respect for the first ecclesia requires that it accept its decision until it sees grounds for a different view; and in the investigation of these grounds it ought to invite its co-operation, as already indicated. But the mere fact of the application imposes upon it the obligation to consider and investigate the matter, if there are prima facie grounds for doing so. The other ecclesia would make a mistake if it considered such a procedure an infringement of its independence, Such a view would, in reality, be a trammelling of the independence of every assembly; for it would then amount to this, that no assembly had the right to judge a case coming before them if that case happen to have already been adjudicated upon by another ecclesia. The judgment of one would thus be set up as a rule for all."The writer of the Ecclesial Guide then goes on to say
"An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with; but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere."A little later he deals with "cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first" and says that each ecclesia should exercise their prerogative of independent judgment:
"let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot".To do otherwise would be "to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person".
Applying this to the situation mentioned, visitors to an ecclesia should recognise the right of that ecclesia to exercise "their prerogative of independent judgment" and to make their own decision about a person who may have been disfellowshipped elsewhere. To refuse to participate in the breaking of bread on such an occasion is not only rude and an affront to ones hosts, it also demonstrates a refusal to recognise the principle of non-interference laid out in the Ecclesial Guide. It undermines the principles of mutual respect, autonomy and the prerogative of independent judgment which are "mainstream Christadelphian teachings".
In a subsequent post I will also publish Cliff's response to the comment which was a reply to his.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Exclusiveness in fellowship
Following on from my latest post, I recently received this message from a sister who has been through a painful experience. She has discovered that she is welcome to join a particular Christadelphian ecclesia but if she does the ecclesia will demand that she can no longer break bread with the people who taught her the Gospel and who baptised her, even though they believe the same things as she does! This attitude adopted by some Christadelphians to 'fellowship' is simply crazy, but the following letter from Lucy demonstrates this plainly enough. The names of the ecclesias and individuals involved have been deleted.
My dear beloved brothers and sisters!
On Thursday May 15th, I met with two members of the XYZ Ecclesia, who were sent to identify if my beliefs met with their standards. After two and a half hours of conversation, I was invited to their service, which I gladly accepted and attended May 18th. I was very pleased by the way I was welcomed, almost like well known sister, who you haven’t seen in a while. We studied the Word of God, and broke bread together. I was a very satisfied and happy by my visit, and that is what I, have expressed in my e-mail. On May 20th, I attended an invitation for dinner and Bible study. Every one called me their sister, and again I felt welcomed.
On Monday May 26th I was very surprised when I received a phone call, from a board member informing me of a meeting that was to take place with me to become a member of XYZ Ecclesia. What was surprising is that I have attended several meetings where we broke bread and as to my awareness I assumed that I was already welcomed as a sister in Christ. I was born in former Soviet Union, a Communist regime, where you were called in for a meeting when you were suspected of being an enemy to society and will be immediately sent to Siberia or if you prefer to retain your privileges you were to submit too and join the Communist party. Anyways I felt stressed, wondering why this meeting has been scheduled, and if I have done something wrong?
On Thursday May 29th, I attended the meeting where I was informed of whom I can, and can’t break bread with. I can honestly tell you that I fell in love with every brother and sister I met in XYZ Ecclesia however I could not understand the reasoning of this practice.
Anyways, I was given “The Ecclesia Guide” to check if we have same beliefs, which we did prior to this meeting. I was also given an address list of W Ecclesia with whom I am allowed to “Break Bread” with and was told I must have an answer by Sunday.
By the way, they did tell me that I am allowed to be in fellowship with everyone except, I have to follow the rules with whom I can “Break Bread”.
Last night, I couldn’t go to sleep at all, thinking what had happened earlier this evening! I looked into the Bible and I could not find a law stating with whom we can or can’t break bread with in Christ.
But I found, that Jesus Christ broke bread with 3000 and 5000 people and did not ask them if they even believed He was Messiah. And that at the Last Supper when He was giving instructions about "Breaking Bread" to every disciple HE actually broke bread with Judah Iscariot who betrayed Him several hours later.
I looked at "The Ecclesial Guide and Constitution of the ABC Christadelphians," and I read about all their beliefs, which are exactly like mine. But again, I did not see anything saying about with whom I am allowed to break bread. Except, in the section of "The commandments of Christ” number 12 says – “Grudge not; judge not; complain not; condemn not,” (James 5:9, Matt 7:1). And by choosing with whom we break bread with, we are JUDGING our brothers and sisters; we are breaking our own law.
It is very sad to know that we have become similar to the Pharisees, who have two laws; one is written and one is oral.
In Matt 23 says, "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3. So you must obey Moses and do everything he tells you. But do not do what they (Pharisees) do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."
And in Deut.6:4 Yahweh said to Moses "1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. 8. And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today"
I have come to the conclusion that by choosing brothers and sisters whom you can or can’t “Break bread” with and who’s beliefs are exactly the same like yours and mine, has become an “obsessive tradition” or “religious idolatry”.
I am not willing to follow MAN'S rules, when I will be present on judgment day facing God, I want to no shame and excuses on this subject. One day all, of us will be there. Please remember that.
I do not judge anyone, I am speaking truth saying do not follow MAN’s rule, it is against God. I have no problem breaking bread with anyone in XYZ Ecclesia or any of my brothers and sisters around the world.
I love Yahweh, and I want to walk in His Will and no one MAN’s law or rules could stop me. It is sad, but I am coming to the conclusion that XYZ Ecclesia don't want to break bread with me unless I agree not to break bread with my brothers and sisters like **, ***, T ecclesia . I won't agree to such man made rule.
I still love all my brothers and sisters in Christadelphians Ecclesia around world. My prayers are with them. I'm happy many of them accept me still. May Yahweh open their hearts and their minds to see The Truth, as they preach; and ignore MAN'S LAW or ANY RULES.
I will continue to do what I was called to do, which is Preach the Gospel
Yahweh blesses you!
Sister Lucy
My dear beloved brothers and sisters!
On Thursday May 15th, I met with two members of the XYZ Ecclesia, who were sent to identify if my beliefs met with their standards. After two and a half hours of conversation, I was invited to their service, which I gladly accepted and attended May 18th. I was very pleased by the way I was welcomed, almost like well known sister, who you haven’t seen in a while. We studied the Word of God, and broke bread together. I was a very satisfied and happy by my visit, and that is what I, have expressed in my e-mail. On May 20th, I attended an invitation for dinner and Bible study. Every one called me their sister, and again I felt welcomed.
On Monday May 26th I was very surprised when I received a phone call, from a board member informing me of a meeting that was to take place with me to become a member of XYZ Ecclesia. What was surprising is that I have attended several meetings where we broke bread and as to my awareness I assumed that I was already welcomed as a sister in Christ. I was born in former Soviet Union, a Communist regime, where you were called in for a meeting when you were suspected of being an enemy to society and will be immediately sent to Siberia or if you prefer to retain your privileges you were to submit too and join the Communist party. Anyways I felt stressed, wondering why this meeting has been scheduled, and if I have done something wrong?
On Thursday May 29th, I attended the meeting where I was informed of whom I can, and can’t break bread with. I can honestly tell you that I fell in love with every brother and sister I met in XYZ Ecclesia however I could not understand the reasoning of this practice.
Anyways, I was given “The Ecclesia Guide” to check if we have same beliefs, which we did prior to this meeting. I was also given an address list of W Ecclesia with whom I am allowed to “Break Bread” with and was told I must have an answer by Sunday.
By the way, they did tell me that I am allowed to be in fellowship with everyone except, I have to follow the rules with whom I can “Break Bread”.
Last night, I couldn’t go to sleep at all, thinking what had happened earlier this evening! I looked into the Bible and I could not find a law stating with whom we can or can’t break bread with in Christ.
But I found, that Jesus Christ broke bread with 3000 and 5000 people and did not ask them if they even believed He was Messiah. And that at the Last Supper when He was giving instructions about "Breaking Bread" to every disciple HE actually broke bread with Judah Iscariot who betrayed Him several hours later.
I looked at "The Ecclesial Guide and Constitution of the ABC Christadelphians," and I read about all their beliefs, which are exactly like mine. But again, I did not see anything saying about with whom I am allowed to break bread. Except, in the section of "The commandments of Christ” number 12 says – “Grudge not; judge not; complain not; condemn not,” (James 5:9, Matt 7:1). And by choosing with whom we break bread with, we are JUDGING our brothers and sisters; we are breaking our own law.
It is very sad to know that we have become similar to the Pharisees, who have two laws; one is written and one is oral.
In Matt 23 says, "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3. So you must obey Moses and do everything he tells you. But do not do what they (Pharisees) do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."
And in Deut.6:4 Yahweh said to Moses "1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. 8. And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today"
I have come to the conclusion that by choosing brothers and sisters whom you can or can’t “Break bread” with and who’s beliefs are exactly the same like yours and mine, has become an “obsessive tradition” or “religious idolatry”.
I am not willing to follow MAN'S rules, when I will be present on judgment day facing God, I want to no shame and excuses on this subject. One day all, of us will be there. Please remember that.
I do not judge anyone, I am speaking truth saying do not follow MAN’s rule, it is against God. I have no problem breaking bread with anyone in XYZ Ecclesia or any of my brothers and sisters around the world.
I love Yahweh, and I want to walk in His Will and no one MAN’s law or rules could stop me. It is sad, but I am coming to the conclusion that XYZ Ecclesia don't want to break bread with me unless I agree not to break bread with my brothers and sisters like **, ***, T ecclesia . I won't agree to such man made rule.
I still love all my brothers and sisters in Christadelphians Ecclesia around world. My prayers are with them. I'm happy many of them accept me still. May Yahweh open their hearts and their minds to see The Truth, as they preach; and ignore MAN'S LAW or ANY RULES.
I will continue to do what I was called to do, which is Preach the Gospel
Yahweh blesses you!
Sister Lucy
Censorship, disfellowship and statements of faith
The following message was recently posted on the Truth Alive forum. I thought it expressed very well what a lot of other people are also thinking. With the author's permission I am re-posting it here in full.
Dear friends,
Very often we can go through a set of traditions whilst making bold statements that suggest we alone hold the correct Biblical truths and that we follow the Bible and that we should check everything against the Bible. But when someone sincerely does do that and comes up with difficult questions it isn't liked and people don't want to answer them, because it's disruptive and challenging. But should churches be allowed to say 'we follow the Bible and you should check it out to see whether its true' and not allow people to do that.
Brother Dr John Thomas believed “no you shouldn't”, and people found him very disruptive and challenging and that is the history of the Christadelphian body. If you doubt that read his autobiography and the huge number of debates he was involved in. The problem has been the questions never ended where Dr John Thomas left off and no doubt had he lived longer he would have challenged more and come to different understandings. In his lifetime he changed many times and in fact was baptised three times as he changed views.
Robert Roberts believed that in his teachings he had reached a finality of truth and that was set in place and maintained by establishing the Birmgham Statement of Faith, which was later Amended to clarify things to what people believed reflected the original position of things. In other words the Christadelphian body has sought to censor the very freedom to think and question that Dr John Thomas wanted for himself. In fact that has always been the historical problem that Protestant Christianity has faced. By putting the authority onto a book and individual interpretation it has been inevitable that different people have balanced it a different way. I'm not saying we should be Catholic, but what I am saying is that we should learn from our history of our own non infallibility in these matters.
The reality is that the Christadelphian body has survived in its present form is as a direct result of the Statements of Faith, because they have broadly set out the original distinct Christadelphian doctrines. The idea that we are bound simply because we read the Bible independently for ourselves is not true, even though that is what I was given to believe as a youngster and told to do. In essence I was expected to read the Bible for myself, but come to see things in terms of tradition and expectation. That is in all honesty how social conditioning works and with time we may find things don't quite square with what we are told to believe or how things are actually done in comparison to what we read, the second being where my main objections have laid. It has kept the Christadelphian body in a time warp in many ways where any change to the way things are done leads to people feeling the balance is going to be upset.
The hidden cost of course has been in those people who have been disfellowshipped for asking too many questions and hidden feelings of suppression, because the unspoken rule is that you are not allowed to seriously question the way things are done. The problem that has led to is that the Christadelphian body has become very legalistic and very word bound and very much what scripture would term 'in the letter'.
However the Christadelphian body has changed and is changing., there is a greater understanding growing of the need for grace, the centrality of the teachings of Christ, the need for a more practical focus and a recognistion in the Care Groups that there are emotional situations that need to be understand. Our problem as a community and what we show is the limitation of the Bible alone without a recognition of the need for the Spirit of God. But we won't accept that, because if we did we would have to admit that our exclusivity was a problem, that you can't get to the right spirit merely by academic debate and that we have in fact treated a lot of people badly and that disfellowshipping lots of people wasn't the right way to go about things.
In its present form the Christadelphian body will not survive and already is dying and it's not merely because people don't want to follow God, although as we all know most people don't in the West. It's because it doesn't really answer people's spiritual longing for a real connection with God. It's too academic an approach, it's too emotionally disconnected and there's too little power. It's also led to a situation where most of the children of Christadelphians do not get baptised and very often there are a lot of people hanging in there simply because that is where they have their social connections.
It's a religion which very often creates beliefs in people, but not faith and the two things are very different. You can sustain belief in people by keeping reinforcing the same things over and over again like a kind of social reinforcement schedule and that's why many people believe if you don't go to some church you would lose your faith. That's because their faith hangs on going through a set pattern of behaviour, whereas faith is a lot more solid and a lot harder to destroy. It comes from a knowledge of God, not just a knowledge of the Bible. The difference is one has power, the other does not. We read in Hebrews 11 and its frequently quoted that 'faith is the the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. What is less frequently quoted is the later things in the chapter which people were able to do as a result of faith and how this is set out as the normal expected standard of the Christian walk.
The Christadelphian movement started from a very radical questioning of mainstream Christianity based upon textproof quoting and reached a level of complexity beyond many average men and women. To do that you need educated, well read people with high rational skills and it is very questionable that that was the first century approach anyway. For that to be universally available required the invention of printing, considerable time, health and nutrition that was not available for most of history.
Few people have ever had that kind of access to the Bible and they were more reliant upon pictures and communicated stories and what they understood in their own hearts. There are benefits to that though I am thankful for the scripture knowledge I have gained as a result, but it can be rather a one tracked thinking method that denies the role of experience or emotion. It therefore leads to our community suiting certain personality types and ways of thoughts and being very hard for other types of personality and ways of thoughts.
The experience that we have as a community has relevance, but to think we have all the truth and all the understanding is a very limited way of thinking in my opinion. That of course is why at every stage all the developments within the community have been fights to change a mindset. The perception that is held is that we come to the Bible without a mindset, without a conditioning, without any effect from our upbringing and social environments, when in fact there is a strong mindset at play within the community that does not allow certain thoughts to be held or raised. You see that when a difficult passage is read and people muse over its difficultness whilst saying 'of course we don't believe in this or that'.
For truly open minded thinking to occur we do have to consider the possible truth of these thoughts and the thoughts have to be allowed to be raised without the possibility of censure. To truly allow God to speak to us we have to not be frightened of whether other people think us heretical or not. That's what a full pursuit of truth is really like.
I'm not suggesting a perfect church exists, because it does not. We are works in progress. What I am saying is that we need to give people freedom to grow without fear of censure and we have to start realising what effect our conditioning and environment and history have upon us. I'm not perfect any more than you are, but dis-fellowshipping people is judging people and it is a way of stifling questions and progress and understanding. If we have the truth, if you think about it, it should be fairly easy to answer people's objections without needing to do that. We should have no fear of asking ourselves how much of our responses are thought out ones rather than conditioned ones.
I think there is a factor we need to be aware of - the fear that if we change our beliefs we somehow face losing our salvation. That's a very thought limiting idea. We have to realise instead that God isn't a God who seeks to frustrate the seeking heart and it is for this reason that grace is such an empowering truth.
I would welcome your thoughts on these ideas and maybe if we did we could come to a greater understanding even if it isn't possible for me to be formally accepted back into fellowship..
With much love and blessings in Jesus,
Tim.
Dear friends,
Very often we can go through a set of traditions whilst making bold statements that suggest we alone hold the correct Biblical truths and that we follow the Bible and that we should check everything against the Bible. But when someone sincerely does do that and comes up with difficult questions it isn't liked and people don't want to answer them, because it's disruptive and challenging. But should churches be allowed to say 'we follow the Bible and you should check it out to see whether its true' and not allow people to do that.
Brother Dr John Thomas believed “no you shouldn't”, and people found him very disruptive and challenging and that is the history of the Christadelphian body. If you doubt that read his autobiography and the huge number of debates he was involved in. The problem has been the questions never ended where Dr John Thomas left off and no doubt had he lived longer he would have challenged more and come to different understandings. In his lifetime he changed many times and in fact was baptised three times as he changed views.
Robert Roberts believed that in his teachings he had reached a finality of truth and that was set in place and maintained by establishing the Birmgham Statement of Faith, which was later Amended to clarify things to what people believed reflected the original position of things. In other words the Christadelphian body has sought to censor the very freedom to think and question that Dr John Thomas wanted for himself. In fact that has always been the historical problem that Protestant Christianity has faced. By putting the authority onto a book and individual interpretation it has been inevitable that different people have balanced it a different way. I'm not saying we should be Catholic, but what I am saying is that we should learn from our history of our own non infallibility in these matters.
The reality is that the Christadelphian body has survived in its present form is as a direct result of the Statements of Faith, because they have broadly set out the original distinct Christadelphian doctrines. The idea that we are bound simply because we read the Bible independently for ourselves is not true, even though that is what I was given to believe as a youngster and told to do. In essence I was expected to read the Bible for myself, but come to see things in terms of tradition and expectation. That is in all honesty how social conditioning works and with time we may find things don't quite square with what we are told to believe or how things are actually done in comparison to what we read, the second being where my main objections have laid. It has kept the Christadelphian body in a time warp in many ways where any change to the way things are done leads to people feeling the balance is going to be upset.
The hidden cost of course has been in those people who have been disfellowshipped for asking too many questions and hidden feelings of suppression, because the unspoken rule is that you are not allowed to seriously question the way things are done. The problem that has led to is that the Christadelphian body has become very legalistic and very word bound and very much what scripture would term 'in the letter'.
However the Christadelphian body has changed and is changing., there is a greater understanding growing of the need for grace, the centrality of the teachings of Christ, the need for a more practical focus and a recognistion in the Care Groups that there are emotional situations that need to be understand. Our problem as a community and what we show is the limitation of the Bible alone without a recognition of the need for the Spirit of God. But we won't accept that, because if we did we would have to admit that our exclusivity was a problem, that you can't get to the right spirit merely by academic debate and that we have in fact treated a lot of people badly and that disfellowshipping lots of people wasn't the right way to go about things.
In its present form the Christadelphian body will not survive and already is dying and it's not merely because people don't want to follow God, although as we all know most people don't in the West. It's because it doesn't really answer people's spiritual longing for a real connection with God. It's too academic an approach, it's too emotionally disconnected and there's too little power. It's also led to a situation where most of the children of Christadelphians do not get baptised and very often there are a lot of people hanging in there simply because that is where they have their social connections.
It's a religion which very often creates beliefs in people, but not faith and the two things are very different. You can sustain belief in people by keeping reinforcing the same things over and over again like a kind of social reinforcement schedule and that's why many people believe if you don't go to some church you would lose your faith. That's because their faith hangs on going through a set pattern of behaviour, whereas faith is a lot more solid and a lot harder to destroy. It comes from a knowledge of God, not just a knowledge of the Bible. The difference is one has power, the other does not. We read in Hebrews 11 and its frequently quoted that 'faith is the the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. What is less frequently quoted is the later things in the chapter which people were able to do as a result of faith and how this is set out as the normal expected standard of the Christian walk.
The Christadelphian movement started from a very radical questioning of mainstream Christianity based upon textproof quoting and reached a level of complexity beyond many average men and women. To do that you need educated, well read people with high rational skills and it is very questionable that that was the first century approach anyway. For that to be universally available required the invention of printing, considerable time, health and nutrition that was not available for most of history.
Few people have ever had that kind of access to the Bible and they were more reliant upon pictures and communicated stories and what they understood in their own hearts. There are benefits to that though I am thankful for the scripture knowledge I have gained as a result, but it can be rather a one tracked thinking method that denies the role of experience or emotion. It therefore leads to our community suiting certain personality types and ways of thoughts and being very hard for other types of personality and ways of thoughts.
The experience that we have as a community has relevance, but to think we have all the truth and all the understanding is a very limited way of thinking in my opinion. That of course is why at every stage all the developments within the community have been fights to change a mindset. The perception that is held is that we come to the Bible without a mindset, without a conditioning, without any effect from our upbringing and social environments, when in fact there is a strong mindset at play within the community that does not allow certain thoughts to be held or raised. You see that when a difficult passage is read and people muse over its difficultness whilst saying 'of course we don't believe in this or that'.
For truly open minded thinking to occur we do have to consider the possible truth of these thoughts and the thoughts have to be allowed to be raised without the possibility of censure. To truly allow God to speak to us we have to not be frightened of whether other people think us heretical or not. That's what a full pursuit of truth is really like.
I'm not suggesting a perfect church exists, because it does not. We are works in progress. What I am saying is that we need to give people freedom to grow without fear of censure and we have to start realising what effect our conditioning and environment and history have upon us. I'm not perfect any more than you are, but dis-fellowshipping people is judging people and it is a way of stifling questions and progress and understanding. If we have the truth, if you think about it, it should be fairly easy to answer people's objections without needing to do that. We should have no fear of asking ourselves how much of our responses are thought out ones rather than conditioned ones.
I think there is a factor we need to be aware of - the fear that if we change our beliefs we somehow face losing our salvation. That's a very thought limiting idea. We have to realise instead that God isn't a God who seeks to frustrate the seeking heart and it is for this reason that grace is such an empowering truth.
I would welcome your thoughts on these ideas and maybe if we did we could come to a greater understanding even if it isn't possible for me to be formally accepted back into fellowship..
With much love and blessings in Jesus,
Tim.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Do Christadelphians enjoy schism?
It's nothing new to most readers of my blog that Christadelphians are a deeply divided community, and have been since 1885, and possibly earlier. I've lost count of the various "fellowships" and splinter groups.
However, I was surprised to see that the article about Christadelphians on Wikipedia currently has more to say about "schisms" within Christadelphianism than it says about Christadelphian beliefs! (I say "currently" because wikipedia is a dynamic information site and everything could change by the time I finish writing this post).
The information appears to me to have been posted by a Christadelphian. It makes me wonder why some Christadelphians seem to take so much delight in the fact that it is a divided, troubled, conflict-riddled, argumentative community which has not only set itself against the world but against each other.
However, I was surprised to see that the article about Christadelphians on Wikipedia currently has more to say about "schisms" within Christadelphianism than it says about Christadelphian beliefs! (I say "currently" because wikipedia is a dynamic information site and everything could change by the time I finish writing this post).
The information appears to me to have been posted by a Christadelphian. It makes me wonder why some Christadelphians seem to take so much delight in the fact that it is a divided, troubled, conflict-riddled, argumentative community which has not only set itself against the world but against each other.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wrested Scriptures (5) - "another Gospel"
It is often argued by some Christadelphians that any variation from the one true faith falls under this condemnation of Paul:
What did Paul mean when he wrote about those preaching "another Gospel"?
The best way to get an overview of Galatians is to read it through in one sitting, preferably in a modern version. The Message is excellent for this purpose, and it won't take long at all to read the whole letter. If you read Galatians this way you will notice that Paul is very single-minded and that he really has just one objective in writing this letter. There was only one issue that he wanted to deal with in this letter and he gets straight to the point in the opening verses.
Paul doesn't leave us in any doubt as to the problem: certain teachers from Jerusalem had visited the churches in Galatia and attempted to bring them under some of the rules and regulations of Judaism. Paul is very outspoken in his opposition to this "Judaizing" of Christianity and makes it very clear indeed that the Gospel he preached, and through which the Galatians were converted, was a message of freedom in Christ. He tells them again that we are saved by grace, and not through the keeping of any rules or regulations. He explains that any human efforts to please God and gain salvation through rituals, law-keeping and 'legalism' of any kind will end in failure. No less than seven times he emphasises the importance of grace.
In contrasting the false teachings of the Judaisers with the message he preached, Paul says "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (5:4). To abandon the Gospel of grace is "apostacy" - a fall from grace. He says that if righteousness could be gained any other way than by grace then "Christ died for nothing!" (2:20-21).
Right from the start of this letter Paul makes it clear that this is about grace versus legalism. He says that the Gospel of Christ which they first heard and embraced was about "the grace of Christ" but that now they were deserting this Gospel of grace and "are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all" (1:5-7).
So its really quite plain here that the "other Gospel" which was being preached was about legalism, rule-keeping and attempting to gain righteousness through "works of the law".
This explains why Paul says that "if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed". Later he said that "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (3:10). Legalism brings a curse on those who try to live by rule-keeping.
In earlier posts in this series I noted that many of these "wrested Scriptures" are used by the very people the texts are speaking about and given another meaning contrary to the one that was intended and turned against the believers. Paul wrote: "some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves" (2:4). Not surprisingly then this passage in Galatians 1:6-9 is also often used by legalists in their attempts to rob believers of their freedom in Christ and to bring them into bondage to a doctrinal creed, a style of worship, a manner of dressing, an organisational structure, or some other man-made way of practicing religion.
"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:6-9)This text is interpreted to mean that unless someone is preaching the one true faith in its entirety then they are preaching "another Gospel". It's argued, for example, that trinitarianism is "another Gospel". So too is heaven-going at death. Some Christadelphians go even further and accuse other Christadelphians of preaching "another Gospel" if they hold different views on the atonement, the nature of Christ, resurrectional responsibility, inspiration, divorce and remarriage, the extent of the Kingdom, or even the identity of Gog and Magog!
What did Paul mean when he wrote about those preaching "another Gospel"?
The best way to get an overview of Galatians is to read it through in one sitting, preferably in a modern version. The Message is excellent for this purpose, and it won't take long at all to read the whole letter. If you read Galatians this way you will notice that Paul is very single-minded and that he really has just one objective in writing this letter. There was only one issue that he wanted to deal with in this letter and he gets straight to the point in the opening verses.
Paul doesn't leave us in any doubt as to the problem: certain teachers from Jerusalem had visited the churches in Galatia and attempted to bring them under some of the rules and regulations of Judaism. Paul is very outspoken in his opposition to this "Judaizing" of Christianity and makes it very clear indeed that the Gospel he preached, and through which the Galatians were converted, was a message of freedom in Christ. He tells them again that we are saved by grace, and not through the keeping of any rules or regulations. He explains that any human efforts to please God and gain salvation through rituals, law-keeping and 'legalism' of any kind will end in failure. No less than seven times he emphasises the importance of grace.
In contrasting the false teachings of the Judaisers with the message he preached, Paul says "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (5:4). To abandon the Gospel of grace is "apostacy" - a fall from grace. He says that if righteousness could be gained any other way than by grace then "Christ died for nothing!" (2:20-21).
Right from the start of this letter Paul makes it clear that this is about grace versus legalism. He says that the Gospel of Christ which they first heard and embraced was about "the grace of Christ" but that now they were deserting this Gospel of grace and "are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all" (1:5-7).
So its really quite plain here that the "other Gospel" which was being preached was about legalism, rule-keeping and attempting to gain righteousness through "works of the law".
This explains why Paul says that "if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed". Later he said that "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (3:10). Legalism brings a curse on those who try to live by rule-keeping.
In earlier posts in this series I noted that many of these "wrested Scriptures" are used by the very people the texts are speaking about and given another meaning contrary to the one that was intended and turned against the believers. Paul wrote: "some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves" (2:4). Not surprisingly then this passage in Galatians 1:6-9 is also often used by legalists in their attempts to rob believers of their freedom in Christ and to bring them into bondage to a doctrinal creed, a style of worship, a manner of dressing, an organisational structure, or some other man-made way of practicing religion.
Friday, November 23, 2007
50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (21)
This post continues the series of suggestions as to how Australian Christadelphians could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement.
4. Above all, love each other
In looking at the "first principles" we need to take careful note of the cornerstone of our faith:
I am painfully aware that some Christadelphians are keeping "dossiers" on various people. One of them recently offered to show a brother the dossier he had on me! I've actually seen a document, put together by a Sydney sister, which purports to be a collection of heretical statements I've made but which includes writings by some other unknown person whom she has wrongly assumed is me. Someone once offered me a copy of a 200 page dossier they had been given on another brother, detailing his alleged sins and indiscretions (I didn't take up the offer!)
It's time this abhorrent practice was stopped.
If someone has "the Truth" then they will not keep dossiers on their brethren. There should be no record of wrongs.
Perhaps the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement could be celebrated with a huge bonfire as all these files and dossiers on other brethren are consigned forever to the flames.
4. Above all, love each other
In looking at the "first principles" we need to take careful note of the cornerstone of our faith:
"The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'." Gal 5:14All to often Christadelphians focus on doctrinal differences, even to the point of being nit-picking about the smallest detail. Ecclesias have divided over the most trivial things. I was once interrogated for months by the arranging brethren of one ecclesia to determine if I agreed with them about the meaning of the word "at" somewhere in the BASF! If we are obsessed with the tiniest details then it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, and to forget that the cornserstone of our faith is "love each other".
"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:8It's time Christadelphians let go of the past and concentrated on the future: "forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead" (Phil 3:13). One of the best ways Australian Christadelphians could celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement would be to let go of all the minor differences which have hindered the work of witnessing to the risen Christ.
I am painfully aware that some Christadelphians are keeping "dossiers" on various people. One of them recently offered to show a brother the dossier he had on me! I've actually seen a document, put together by a Sydney sister, which purports to be a collection of heretical statements I've made but which includes writings by some other unknown person whom she has wrongly assumed is me. Someone once offered me a copy of a 200 page dossier they had been given on another brother, detailing his alleged sins and indiscretions (I didn't take up the offer!)
It's time this abhorrent practice was stopped.
"Love ... keeps no record of wrongs." 1 Cor 13:5If Christadelphians are truly people of God, followers of Jesus Christ, then they will show the world that they are His disciples by loving each other. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35). No presentation of "the Truth", regardless of how well reasoned or how convincing will amount to anything if it is not based on a genuine love for one another.
If someone has "the Truth" then they will not keep dossiers on their brethren. There should be no record of wrongs.
Perhaps the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement could be celebrated with a huge bonfire as all these files and dossiers on other brethren are consigned forever to the flames.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (20)
This post continues the positive suggestions as to how Australian Christadelphian ecclesias could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement. In my previous posts I wrote about finding common ground and maintaining ecclesial autonomy.
3. Be Honest
The Australian Unity Agreement spelled out very clearly what the 'basis of fellowship' is for Christadelphians:
In other words, no attempt is being made here to insist on the specific wording of the BASF or of any of the minor details. It is only those doctrines which are mutually understood to be first principles which are to be believed and taught. There are many other acceptable summaries of these first principles. For example, one Christadelphian website has this sumary of beliefs:
The Unity Agreement goes on to say that any other summary or definition of the One Faith is also acceptable, provided it is in agreement with the BASF on the fundamentals, or first principles.
Secondly, what is clear from the Unity Agreement is that ecclesias are not at liberty to add to what was mutually agreed to be the "first principles" and to insist on acceptance of any other doctrine, idea or opinion. Any ecclesia, group or organisation which has additional requirements for fellowship is going beyond the Unity Agreement. You cannot say on the one hand that you accept the Unity Agreement and then on the other hand insist on someting additional. As soon as you add something, then you no longer accept the Unity Agreement.
If several parties come to an Agreement then one party cannot add something to it without the consent of all the parties. Yet this is precisely what several ecclesias and organisations have done. Some ecclesias, for example, have insisted on agreement with lengthy explanations of the BASF before they will agree to fellowship other Christadelphians. Some have added "doctrines" to their 'basis of fellowship' (such as statements about six literal 24 hour days for creation, or the availability of the Holy Spirit). The Australian Christadelphian Bible Mission (ACBM) demands agreement with a statement on divorce and remarriage and an additional doctrinal statement before they will accept someone as a 'field-worker'. The organisers of some combined ecclesial meetings have demanded acceptance of some additional doctrines which are not included in the Unity Agreement in order to participate. This is a contradiction. The imposition of any additional requirements means, of necessity, that the Unity Agreement is not the basis of fellowship. This situation got so out-of-hand that in 1988 a Conference Business Session passed a resolution that the basis of fellowship at future Conferences would be the Unity Agreement without addition or further explanation.
Of course, autonomous and independent ecclesias or organisations can have their own rules, standards or Statements of Faith. However, the moment they attempt to add to the Unity Agreement they can no longer claim to meet on that basis.
It's ironic that some of the ecclesias and organisations which are most vocal in advocating the importance of the Unity Agreement are often the ones which are guilty of breaking it by having additional requirements. In my opinion, this is simply dishonest.
If any ecclesia believes the Unity Agreement is inadequate (and any ecclesia which has added a doctrine or explanation to their basis of fellowship have, by that very action, admitted that they believe the Unity Agreement is inadequate) then they should honestly and publicly announce that they no longer accept the Unity Agreement and they will fellowship in future on a different basis. That would be the honest thing to do.
To celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement I suggest that all ecclesias claiming to meet on that basis should remove any additional doctrines or requirements which they have added along the way and return to the simple terms of the original Agreement, or be honest in saying that they meet on a different basis.
3. Be Honest
The Australian Unity Agreement spelled out very clearly what the 'basis of fellowship' is for Christadelphians:
We agree that the doctrines to be believed and taught by us, without reservation, are the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures, of which the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (with positive and negative clauses and the Commandments of Christ) gives a true definition.We should carefully note two important things which are spelled out here. First, the doctrines which Christadelphians believe and hold in common are "the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures". The Agreement says that the Birmingham amended Statement of Faith (BASF) is "a true definition" of this One Faith, not "the true definition". In other words, Christadelphians are united by their belief in "the first principles" and the BASF is just one definition of these first principles. Christadelphians accepting the Agreement are called on to agree with the first principles, and not the minor details or specific wording of the BASF. In fact, almost every Christadelphian would disagree with some detail or other in the BASF yet will accept that it gives a true definition of the first principles.
In other words, no attempt is being made here to insist on the specific wording of the BASF or of any of the minor details. It is only those doctrines which are mutually understood to be first principles which are to be believed and taught. There are many other acceptable summaries of these first principles. For example, one Christadelphian website has this sumary of beliefs:
- The Bible is God's word and the only message from him.It is without error, except for copying and translation errors.
- There is only one God - the Father. The Holy Spirit is God's power.
- Jesus is the Son of God, and a human being, through his mother Mary.
- By living a sinless life Jesus has opened the way of salvation from death.
- Jesus is currently in Heaven, on God's right hand. He will one day return.
- When he returns he will rule the earth and give immortality to those who have tried to follow him and do the will of God. His followers will help him to rule.
- Humans are 100% mortal, having no existence when dead. The reward for the faithful is eternal life on earth after Christ's return.
- Baptism is essential to gain this eternal life.
The Unity Agreement goes on to say that any other summary or definition of the One Faith is also acceptable, provided it is in agreement with the BASF on the fundamentals, or first principles.
Acceptance of this basis would not preclude the use of any other adequate Statement of Faith by an ecclesia, provided this is in harmony with the B.A.S.F. understood as in Clause 1 (a) above.For example, the summary from the conservative website above might be an acceptable one in the terms of the Unity Agreement (although it's not perfect - for example, the expression "Humans are 100% mortal" is clumsy [How can you be 50% mortal?]).
Secondly, what is clear from the Unity Agreement is that ecclesias are not at liberty to add to what was mutually agreed to be the "first principles" and to insist on acceptance of any other doctrine, idea or opinion. Any ecclesia, group or organisation which has additional requirements for fellowship is going beyond the Unity Agreement. You cannot say on the one hand that you accept the Unity Agreement and then on the other hand insist on someting additional. As soon as you add something, then you no longer accept the Unity Agreement.
If several parties come to an Agreement then one party cannot add something to it without the consent of all the parties. Yet this is precisely what several ecclesias and organisations have done. Some ecclesias, for example, have insisted on agreement with lengthy explanations of the BASF before they will agree to fellowship other Christadelphians. Some have added "doctrines" to their 'basis of fellowship' (such as statements about six literal 24 hour days for creation, or the availability of the Holy Spirit). The Australian Christadelphian Bible Mission (ACBM) demands agreement with a statement on divorce and remarriage and an additional doctrinal statement before they will accept someone as a 'field-worker'. The organisers of some combined ecclesial meetings have demanded acceptance of some additional doctrines which are not included in the Unity Agreement in order to participate. This is a contradiction. The imposition of any additional requirements means, of necessity, that the Unity Agreement is not the basis of fellowship. This situation got so out-of-hand that in 1988 a Conference Business Session passed a resolution that the basis of fellowship at future Conferences would be the Unity Agreement without addition or further explanation.
Of course, autonomous and independent ecclesias or organisations can have their own rules, standards or Statements of Faith. However, the moment they attempt to add to the Unity Agreement they can no longer claim to meet on that basis.
It's ironic that some of the ecclesias and organisations which are most vocal in advocating the importance of the Unity Agreement are often the ones which are guilty of breaking it by having additional requirements. In my opinion, this is simply dishonest.
If any ecclesia believes the Unity Agreement is inadequate (and any ecclesia which has added a doctrine or explanation to their basis of fellowship have, by that very action, admitted that they believe the Unity Agreement is inadequate) then they should honestly and publicly announce that they no longer accept the Unity Agreement and they will fellowship in future on a different basis. That would be the honest thing to do.
To celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement I suggest that all ecclesias claiming to meet on that basis should remove any additional doctrines or requirements which they have added along the way and return to the simple terms of the original Agreement, or be honest in saying that they meet on a different basis.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (19)
Digression: The G13
In my last post I referred to a group of ecclesias calling themselves simply "a group of thirteen ecclesias", or G13 for short. In the spirit of clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide I called for this group to be disbanded (clause 44 says that such groups "lay the foundation of a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life").
I recently received a letter from a brother in Queensland claiming to write "on behalf of the combined arranging brethrens group in Brisbane representing 13 Ecclesias". There was no letterhead, the group was unnamed, he did not say which ecclesias made up the group of 13, what his position was within the group, or what the purpose or objectives of the group were. Although he asked me several questions about my membership of an ecclesia and my fellowship status, he gave me no indication as to why he was seeking this information, why it was important to them, or how it would be used. The letter came across to me as intimidating.
I understand that around the same time he also wrote to at least one ecclesia seeking information about me.
I won't be replying to the letter.
There are at least 3 reasons I won't be replying:
- To reply to this unnamed, unappointed, unaccountable "group" would be to give them legitimacy. In my opinion, self-appointed vigilante groups within the brotherhood are, in Robert Roberts words, a "collective despotism". To acknowledge them would be to condone the intolerable tyranny they are imposing on the brotherhood.
- Bullies need recognition, and the best way of dealing with bullies is to deny them the acceptance they crave.
- This G13 "group" has been stirring up trouble for at least two ecclesias in Queensland. If they think I will help them they must be mad.
Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when He said "let the dead bury their dead". In other words, ecclesias and people which are spiritually dying will spend more time burying those who are already spiritually dead than they will in learning from those who are alive and growing and could help them.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (18)
This post continues the positive suggestions as to how Australian Christadelphian ecclesias could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement. In my last post I wrote about finding common ground.
2. Maintain ecclesial autonomy
Under the heading "Fraternal Gatherings from Various Places" clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide says:
Christadelphian ecclesias are free to make decisions for themselves about how their meetings are conducted, their style of worship, the songs or hymns they sing, their speakers, how leaders or "serving brethren" are appointed, membership, and fellowship. In fact, the Ecclesial Guide provides some detailed and specific guidelines about 'fellowship' which ensures that an ecclesia has the right to welcome into fellowship someone who has been denied fellowship elsewhere. It emphasises that this is important in order to preserve the autonomy and independence of ecclesias. The principle of autonomy includes the right for each ecclesia to create or adopt their own Statement of Faith. Theoretically we could have as many unique Statements of Faith as there are ecclesias. The Australian Unity Agreement specifically reinforced the rights of ecclesias to have their own unique Statement of Faith.
However, these valued principles of autonomy and independence are easily eroded whenever groups of ecclesias band together in an attempt to impose their own ideas on other ecclesias. Unfortunately this happens all too often and ecclesias are sometimes pressured into adopting the same hymn book or worship style as their neighbours, or denying fellowship or membership to someone who is 'out-of-fellowship' elsewhere (for whatever reason). In the words of Robert Roberts this is imposing an "intolerable tyranny" on the brotherhood.
The fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement would be a good time to disband any "unions", "societies" or "groups" which interfere with ecclesial independence. Unfortunately, there are several of these groups in Australia. Most States have inter-ecclesial committees which facilitate exchanges of speakers, coordinate Conferences, liaise with the Government or regulatory bodies on behalf of ecclesias generally, and perform legitimate "fraternal" functions. Queensland, for example, has the South East Queensland Coordinating Committee, New South Wales has the NSW Christadelphian Committee, etc.
However, in addition to these bona fide coordinating committees some States also have "groups" or "meetings" which cause a great deal of trouble. Participation in these groups/meetings is by invitation only and is restricted to ecclesias which follow a particular party line. In Queensland, for example, there is a group which describes itself only as "the group of thirteen ecclesias" (or G13 for short). They meet to discuss the practices of ecclesias which are not in their "group", and generally stir up trouble. They have recently been targeting two ecclesias in their area and writing letters around the country trying to find some 'evidence' that they are fellowshipping out-of-fellowship individuals (and even if they did, the Ecclesial Guide specifically says they have the right to fellowship whoever they please).
Groups like these should be immediately disbanded if the ecclesias concerned are genuine about unity in Australia.
2. Maintain ecclesial autonomy
Under the heading "Fraternal Gatherings from Various Places" clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide says:
These are beneficial when restricted to purely spiritual objects (i.e., let the brethren assemble anywhere from anywhere, and exhort, or worship, or have social intercourse together); but they become sources of evil if allowed to acquire a legislative character in the least degree. Ecclesial independence should be guarded with great jealousy with the qualifications indicated in the foregoing sections. To form "unions" or "societies" of ecclesias, 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.The principles of ecclesial independence and autonomy have been cherished by Christadelphians since the movement began. This tradition was inherited from the Restoration Movement (the Churches/Disciples of Christ or "Campbellites" as John Thomas called them) who in turn inherited it from the radical reformation ("anabaptists"). It is well grounded in Scripture.
Christadelphian ecclesias are free to make decisions for themselves about how their meetings are conducted, their style of worship, the songs or hymns they sing, their speakers, how leaders or "serving brethren" are appointed, membership, and fellowship. In fact, the Ecclesial Guide provides some detailed and specific guidelines about 'fellowship' which ensures that an ecclesia has the right to welcome into fellowship someone who has been denied fellowship elsewhere. It emphasises that this is important in order to preserve the autonomy and independence of ecclesias. The principle of autonomy includes the right for each ecclesia to create or adopt their own Statement of Faith. Theoretically we could have as many unique Statements of Faith as there are ecclesias. The Australian Unity Agreement specifically reinforced the rights of ecclesias to have their own unique Statement of Faith.
However, these valued principles of autonomy and independence are easily eroded whenever groups of ecclesias band together in an attempt to impose their own ideas on other ecclesias. Unfortunately this happens all too often and ecclesias are sometimes pressured into adopting the same hymn book or worship style as their neighbours, or denying fellowship or membership to someone who is 'out-of-fellowship' elsewhere (for whatever reason). In the words of Robert Roberts this is imposing an "intolerable tyranny" on the brotherhood.
The fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement would be a good time to disband any "unions", "societies" or "groups" which interfere with ecclesial independence. Unfortunately, there are several of these groups in Australia. Most States have inter-ecclesial committees which facilitate exchanges of speakers, coordinate Conferences, liaise with the Government or regulatory bodies on behalf of ecclesias generally, and perform legitimate "fraternal" functions. Queensland, for example, has the South East Queensland Coordinating Committee, New South Wales has the NSW Christadelphian Committee, etc.
However, in addition to these bona fide coordinating committees some States also have "groups" or "meetings" which cause a great deal of trouble. Participation in these groups/meetings is by invitation only and is restricted to ecclesias which follow a particular party line. In Queensland, for example, there is a group which describes itself only as "the group of thirteen ecclesias" (or G13 for short). They meet to discuss the practices of ecclesias which are not in their "group", and generally stir up trouble. They have recently been targeting two ecclesias in their area and writing letters around the country trying to find some 'evidence' that they are fellowshipping out-of-fellowship individuals (and even if they did, the Ecclesial Guide specifically says they have the right to fellowship whoever they please).
Groups like these should be immediately disbanded if the ecclesias concerned are genuine about unity in Australia.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (17)
I'd like to finish this series with a few positive suggestions as to how Australian Christadelphian ecclesias could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the great work done by brethren of a previous generation. My own grandfather (George H. Darke) was actively involved in the work of reunion in Australia and was on one of the Unity Committees. I had the benefit of many discussions with him over subsequent years about what drove them in those days and how successful, or otherwise, their efforts had been.
1. Find Common Ground
The Australian Unity Agreement was designed to end a long period of division between two groups ('fellowships') in the Australian Christadelphian brotherhood. It recognised that there had been misunderstandings between the two groups for a considerable time because each group had remained relatively isolated from the other and had therefore begun to develop their own theological 'jargon', especially in relation to the atonement. Each group would use different words to explain the same concepts, so they each thought that the other group believed something different.
One of the achievements of the Unity Agreement was to produce an explanation of the atonement that both groups could agree with while either avoiding the 'loaded' terminology or explaining it in a way that enabled both groups to find common ground. Neither group was forced to renounce previously held ideas. There were no witch-hunts to find people who didn't agree. No ecclesia changed their Statement of Faith. In fact, the Unity Agreement specifically acknowledged that the various Statements of Faith which were in use at that time could continue to be used. It was acknowledged that these Statements of Faith were essentially saying the same thing, although using different wording. In fact, this situation has continued to the present day and Australian ecclesias continue to use various Statements of Faith.
This is something which is often overlooked by subsequent generations. The purpose of the Unity Agreement was to find common ground and to use language which was acceptable to all parties, rather than imposing the view of one group on another. It focused on what united, rather than on what divided. The ecclesias which refused to accept the Agreement, and thereafter separated themselves from all other Christadelphians in Australia, were those which insisted that they were right and demanded that others renounce their views. They regarded themselves as the only 'true Christadelphians' and the only ones which upheld the 'original' Christadelphian faith as it was defined by men such as Robert Roberts. They have remained isolated for fifty years, and their numbers have significantly declined.
In the fifty years since the Agreement was adopted by most Australian ecclesias there has been a tendency by some ecclesias and individuals to focus on the actual words used in the Agreement and to demand that everyone uses these words in the same way they do. They have forgotten that the Agreement was designed as a compromise, which used words with which everyone could agree, and avoided terminology which carried connotations which others would find unacceptable. They have also forgotten that with time words can change their meaning and can carry different connotations. The actual wording of the Unity Agreement may not carry the same meaning for people today as it did for Christadelphians fifty years ago.
That's why, in my opinion, the documents associated with the Unity Agreement are no longer relevant to most Christadelphians. What is important, and which should be celebrated, is that fifty years ago Christadelphians made a conscious decision and took a deliberate step to end their differences. They did this by finding common ground and finding a way to explain the important things on which they agreed, which everyone would find acceptable.
From my grandfather, who was actively involved in the work of reunion, I learned that many brethren of that time realised that the only way to end the years of mistrust was to take people at their word. If someone said they agreed with something, then they took them at their word. They didn't cross-examine them to find out if they 'really' agreed. Based on the teaching of Jesus that 'your "yes" should mean "yes"' they began with the assumption that everyone was being honest and if they said they agreed then they agreed. The Unity Agreement ultimately failed to produce sustainable unity in the Christadelphian community because brethren began to question the integrity of others. They doubted that some people were being honest when they adopted the Agreement, and began to say so. Trust rapidly broke down again and the ecclesias divided once more. Although they were often 'technically' in fellowship ecclesias soon regrouped and formed alliances and went back to behaving as two distinct sub-groups within one denomination.
There are possibly several ways in which Christadelphians in Australia today could recognise in a constructive way the work done fifty years ago, by looking again for the common ground. Here are some general principles which might be helpful:
1. Find Common Ground
The Australian Unity Agreement was designed to end a long period of division between two groups ('fellowships') in the Australian Christadelphian brotherhood. It recognised that there had been misunderstandings between the two groups for a considerable time because each group had remained relatively isolated from the other and had therefore begun to develop their own theological 'jargon', especially in relation to the atonement. Each group would use different words to explain the same concepts, so they each thought that the other group believed something different.
One of the achievements of the Unity Agreement was to produce an explanation of the atonement that both groups could agree with while either avoiding the 'loaded' terminology or explaining it in a way that enabled both groups to find common ground. Neither group was forced to renounce previously held ideas. There were no witch-hunts to find people who didn't agree. No ecclesia changed their Statement of Faith. In fact, the Unity Agreement specifically acknowledged that the various Statements of Faith which were in use at that time could continue to be used. It was acknowledged that these Statements of Faith were essentially saying the same thing, although using different wording. In fact, this situation has continued to the present day and Australian ecclesias continue to use various Statements of Faith.
This is something which is often overlooked by subsequent generations. The purpose of the Unity Agreement was to find common ground and to use language which was acceptable to all parties, rather than imposing the view of one group on another. It focused on what united, rather than on what divided. The ecclesias which refused to accept the Agreement, and thereafter separated themselves from all other Christadelphians in Australia, were those which insisted that they were right and demanded that others renounce their views. They regarded themselves as the only 'true Christadelphians' and the only ones which upheld the 'original' Christadelphian faith as it was defined by men such as Robert Roberts. They have remained isolated for fifty years, and their numbers have significantly declined.
In the fifty years since the Agreement was adopted by most Australian ecclesias there has been a tendency by some ecclesias and individuals to focus on the actual words used in the Agreement and to demand that everyone uses these words in the same way they do. They have forgotten that the Agreement was designed as a compromise, which used words with which everyone could agree, and avoided terminology which carried connotations which others would find unacceptable. They have also forgotten that with time words can change their meaning and can carry different connotations. The actual wording of the Unity Agreement may not carry the same meaning for people today as it did for Christadelphians fifty years ago.
That's why, in my opinion, the documents associated with the Unity Agreement are no longer relevant to most Christadelphians. What is important, and which should be celebrated, is that fifty years ago Christadelphians made a conscious decision and took a deliberate step to end their differences. They did this by finding common ground and finding a way to explain the important things on which they agreed, which everyone would find acceptable.
From my grandfather, who was actively involved in the work of reunion, I learned that many brethren of that time realised that the only way to end the years of mistrust was to take people at their word. If someone said they agreed with something, then they took them at their word. They didn't cross-examine them to find out if they 'really' agreed. Based on the teaching of Jesus that 'your "yes" should mean "yes"' they began with the assumption that everyone was being honest and if they said they agreed then they agreed. The Unity Agreement ultimately failed to produce sustainable unity in the Christadelphian community because brethren began to question the integrity of others. They doubted that some people were being honest when they adopted the Agreement, and began to say so. Trust rapidly broke down again and the ecclesias divided once more. Although they were often 'technically' in fellowship ecclesias soon regrouped and formed alliances and went back to behaving as two distinct sub-groups within one denomination.
There are possibly several ways in which Christadelphians in Australia today could recognise in a constructive way the work done fifty years ago, by looking again for the common ground. Here are some general principles which might be helpful:
- Recognise that there can be several ways of saying the same thing, and that your way is not the only way, and may not even be the best way.
- When listening to other people, or when reading what they have written, look for what you agree with, rather than what you disagree with. Realise that they may also be simply using different words to say something you'd agree with although you might say it differently.
- When in discussion with individuals or ecclesias about different points of view, first acknowledge as many areas as possible where you agree.
- Take people at their word. If a brother or sister says they believe something, or that they agree with you, don't ask other people for their opinion. Don't go digging for information to the contrary, and don't conduct a cross-examination. Accept what they say and don't question their integrity.
- Ecclesias which meet visitors at the door and present them with a doctrinal statement of some kind and ask for their assent before they can break bread should end this practice immediately.
- While the hard work of all the people involved with reunion should be acknowledged, the actual documents they produced are of little relevance today (except for historical purposes, and to give us an insight into how they got a result). The time has come to stop referring to the 1958 Unity Agreement as the 'basis of fellowship'.
- There has been a suggestion that the Unity Agreement should be reprinted and a copy given to every Australian Christadelphian. In my opinion this would be a waste of paper. It's unlikely to be read by most, and won't be understood by many who read it. It would be far better to encourage an exchange of ideas, some diversity of thinking, and brotherly love, rather than republish a document which belongs to another era.
To be continued.
Monday, October 29, 2007
50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (16)
What is 'fellowship'? (8)
How can we make fellowship "just happen", or what can we do to facilitate it?
How can we make fellowship "just happen", or what can we do to facilitate it?
Now that we've looked at what happened in the New Testament churches when they got together I'd like to make some suggestions, based on the first century model, for Christians in the twenty first century.
It seems that meeting together over a meal was a central part of the fellowship of the earliest believers. This carried on the 'table fellowship' practices of Jesus, and also 'called to remembrance' the last supper. While sharing communal meals is a good way to facilitate the building of strong healthy relationships, I'm not suggesting that's all we should do. We learn from the Corinthian experience that even though they carried on the tradition of a shared meal it degenerated into something which Paul said was "not the Lord's supper". It also didn't take long for the church to replace this meal with a token or 'symbolic' meal, consisting of a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. The next step was to 'sacramentalise' it and to demand that the bread and wine should only be 'administered' by an ordained priest. The meal known as the Lord's table had progressively shifted from a full meal which was shared with family, friends and those who had been marginalised by society but were now invited to the kingdom of God, to a religious rite which was tightly controlled by those who ruled the churches.
The shift from a meal to mere symbols of one also coincided with a shift from grace to legalism in the church. God's grace was once celebrated as generous, abundant and overflowing. It later became something which the church-rulers tried to control and 'administer'. The morsel of bread (later to become a mere 'wafer' in the Catholic church) and the sip of wine also characterised how the church had become mean as it became legalistic.
To restore the meal to a central place in the gathering of believers might go a long way towards restoring the type of fellowship which was experienced in the early church, but would not guarantee it. There may also be other ways of facilitating this type of fellowship, with or without the communal meal. The following ideas are simply suggestions.
- One of the features of a shared meal is that everyone participates in it. If we want to facilitate fellowship we have to encourage participation. I'm not suggesting that we simply find jobs for people to do (such as doing a prayer or reading, 'preparing the emblems', playing the organ), but that we structure our gatherings in such a way that everyone participates as fully as they would like. Paul obviously had this in mind when he said "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church" (1 Cor 14:26). It's also probably what he had in mind when he wrote "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph 5:19-20. See also Col 3:16-17).
- To have this kind of full participation gatherings also need to be interactive. It would be almost impossible in a large group to structure a programme (or 'order of service') where everyone is able to contribute with a hymn/song or a word of instruction. Imagine an ecclesia with 100 members all prepared to give an exhortation or sing a song! To have the kind of interaction which encourages full participation would mean that the structured, formalised, religious 'service' would have to give way to something which is fluid, dynamic, spontaneous and full of surprises. Ecclesias would have to decide if they wanted a formal service (like the liturgical churches Christadelphians so often criticise), or something closer to the experience of the first century believers.
- The motivation for any gathering has to be the spiritual growth of everyone participating. It's not good enough to simply encourage attendance and assume that just by being there everyone will get something out of it. Gatherings of the church should be so that the whole body is fed and nurtured and enabled to grow.
- In larger groups that means getting to know people who are used to sitting quietly, always behaving themselves, never ruffling feathers; the people who never speak up or express an opinion, and certainly never oppose anything; the kind of person who is always there, and because of that we assume they must be getting something out of it. It's possible that some of these people are dying on the inside, not getting the kind of food they need for spiritual growth, but desperately hoping that if they keep turning up one day something miraculous will happen and they will find what they need.
- Of course, it's equally possible that we don't really know the noisy people either. We make assumptions about the people who always have something to say, who always have an opinion (right or wrong), who seem so confident in their knowledge and understanding of the ways of God. We can assume that because someone gives good exhortations they must be right with God, that their spiritual needs are being met, and that their main purpose is to feed others. It's easy to overlook the needs of noisy people. The noise might be a cry for help, disguised as self-confidence; or it might be a cover-up for something that is desperately wrong and needs sorting out. We will never know, unless we get to know them personally.
- Gatherings of believers must promote relationship-building. Sitting in the same pew, or simply shaking a hand, does not constitute 'fellowship'. There has to be time spent together getting to know each other and talking about life in general. There will have to be opportunities for crying on shoulders, sharing a laugh, passing around photographs, and talking about work.
- We mustn't forget, however, that our objective is not simply to be friendly and to get to know people (important though that is). We need to help people to connect with God, and to learn from their encounters with God. We need to share on a deeper, more intimate, spiritual level. The friendliness and relationship-building I mentioned in the points above are steps towards intimacy between fellow-believers and with God. But before we can ever develop that kind of intimacy we have to develop trust. In my experience, I have found that many Christadelphians have stopped trusting each other. The dreadful ecclesial fights that have gone on for generations have been one of the main causes of this loss of trust, but in a vicious cycle of mistrust we have learned that arguments lead to mistrust, and mistrust leads to misunderstanding and yet more fighting. The road back will be long and slow, and needs a great deal of prayer and patience.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (15)
What is "fellowship"? (7)
What is it that "just happens" when believers gather together?
So far in this series I think we've seen that the word 'fellowship' is used in the Bible with reference to the way the earliest Christians shared everything: their possessions, homes and food as well as their faith. They lived in community and consequently developed close personal relationships. They genuinely cared for each other and demonstrated their mutual commitment by providing for each others needs. In fact, the word 'fellowship' is a translation of koinonia which literally means "to share". Sharing a meal together, as a kind of re-enactment of the last supper, came to symbolise the community life of the early church, and was at the very heart of their communal life.
These days, however, the word 'fellowship' has taken on a kind of technical meaning in the Christadelphian community to refer to cliques of believers - sub-groups within the Body of Christ which refuse to recognise the legitimacy of others. These divisions are usually the result of differences of opinions on doctrinal or theological matters. So we have the Dawn fellowship, the Old Paths fellowship, the Unamended fellowship, the Amended fellowship, the Central fellowship, the Antipas fellowship, etc, etc. What these 'fellowships' share within their groups is a narrow, restricted and exclusive interpretation of "the one true faith". The differences between the various groups are often so technical that an observer would be pressed to find any differences at all. Even 'insiders' sometimes wonder what it is that makes the other 'fellowships' so different to them and what it is that puts them 'out-of-fellowship'. Despite the enormous common ground between the groups they have separated over differences which seem trifling to others.
I've said a few times that when believers come together fellowship simply happens, and have looked at how this happened in the New Testament churches. The shared meal was called "the Lord's supper" or "the Lord's table", "breaking bread" and the "love feast". It was a central part of first-century Christianity. It was also a meal, not simply the partaking of token or symbolic "emblems", and would have been open to whole families and probably friends and relatives. It reflected Jesus' pattern of using meal tables to welcome people who had previously been excluded from normal communal life because of physical deformities, diseases, their sins, careers or beliefs.
Early on in this series I referred to another way the word 'fellowship' is typically used by Christadelphians. If someone says they had "wonderful fellowship" at a Bible school they would be referring to the quality of friendships which were shared, the conversations and discussions, the happy times spent over meals, and the sense of warmth, acceptance and belonging which made it such a wonderful experience. This is the right way to use the word 'fellowship' and not in the narrow technical sense referring to affiliation with a sub-group, or in the sacramental or eucharistic way with reference to the partaking of bread and wine during a religious service.
So what is it that "just happens" when believers gather together that we call 'fellowship'? When people come together frequently and regularly for meals they share more than food. As they talk together over the meals about their lives, their families, their work, their hobbies and interests, they get to know each other. They discover what is really going on in each others lives. They get to know when life is going well or when they are struggling. They become open, honest and transparent with each other. They reveal their true selves to each other, admitting to their weaknesses so they can find help and encouragement in overcoming them. They share their joys and triumphs, and help and encourage others. They progressively become involved in each others lives, not only for the time they come together for the meal.
A meal is the ideal way to facilitate this relationship-building. On the other hand, structured, formalised religious services provide little opportunity for sharing in this way, if at all.In my next post I want to look at a question I raised previously: how can we make fellowship "just happen", or what can we do to facilitate it?
We should carefully note that it was during a meal with His disciples that our Lord said "do this in remembrance of me".
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Comments
Yesterday three comments were submitted on my post about Queensland Madness which I felt deserved a post of their own rather than potentially get lost amongst the comments. As they were sent in quick succession I'm assuming that they're from the same reader.
But what I personally find most remarkable about this comment is that the writer has assumed that Paul must have read the Christadelphian Ecclesial Guide! Where in the Scriptures do we find any hint of ecclesias writing "transfer letters" for people who moved from one city or ecclesia to another? It's a modern practice which this reader has read back into the ancient texts.
Imagine this: Paul establishes an ecclesia in some city (and presumably arranges for a transfer letter from his old ecclesia so he can join the ecclesia he has just established). After spending some time with them and getting them on their feet he decides (or is moved by the Spirit) to move on. He travels to another city, preaches the Gospel, makes some converts and establishes a new ecclesia. He now has to write to the last ecclesia he established and get their permission to transfer to the new ecclesia he has just established so that he can stay there for a while. However, he will soon have to go through this whole process again (and again) as he is on a missionary journey and hopes to establish several more ecclesias. His biggest problem is that he can't resign from an ecclesia when he leaves a city, because that would mean he's no longer in the Body of Christ (because "Resignation from an Ecclesia is effectively resignation from the Brotherhood"), so he can't apply for a transfer until he has established a new ecclesia. But then he's faced with the new problem that he's a member of an ecclesia but not attending the meetings!
If the person making this comment could let me know which Scripture(s) he used to formulate this incredible idea I would love to see them.
And by posting this information I think I AM doing something about it – exposing the madness in SE Queensland for what it is. What else do you think I should do?
Comment 1It seems to me that this writer has made some assumptions about the resignation which led to the letter which was the subject of my post. First, he's assumed (and I think wrongly) that a "resignation" is the same as to "cut off ourselves from them". I can think of several good reasons why someone might resign without intending to cut themself off from their former ecclesia. And perhaps this person already did talk with someone about it (I'm actually sure they did), and perhaps they did give an explanation. And perhaps they didn't "ask for a transfer" because at that stage they hadn't decided to where they wanted to transfer. But it's actually irrelevant because the point of my post was that the premise that "resignation from an Ecclesia is effectively resignation from the Brotherhood" is unChristadelphian and unScriptural.
why do we resign from our eccleias,why dont we speak to our ecclesias,before we cut off ourselves from them. If we are not happy with our ecclesia and will not talk to them about it, why not ask for a transfer when you have found an ecclesia you are happy with instead of leaving your brethren and sisters without an explanation.Probably because it makes good headlines.Paul did set out on a journey as do many of our brethren and sisters I am sure they dont resign before they do. If he did find find an ecclesia in corinth he would like to join he would write a letter to his ecclesia and ask for a transfer. The loving way to do things.
But what I personally find most remarkable about this comment is that the writer has assumed that Paul must have read the Christadelphian Ecclesial Guide! Where in the Scriptures do we find any hint of ecclesias writing "transfer letters" for people who moved from one city or ecclesia to another? It's a modern practice which this reader has read back into the ancient texts.
Imagine this: Paul establishes an ecclesia in some city (and presumably arranges for a transfer letter from his old ecclesia so he can join the ecclesia he has just established). After spending some time with them and getting them on their feet he decides (or is moved by the Spirit) to move on. He travels to another city, preaches the Gospel, makes some converts and establishes a new ecclesia. He now has to write to the last ecclesia he established and get their permission to transfer to the new ecclesia he has just established so that he can stay there for a while. However, he will soon have to go through this whole process again (and again) as he is on a missionary journey and hopes to establish several more ecclesias. His biggest problem is that he can't resign from an ecclesia when he leaves a city, because that would mean he's no longer in the Body of Christ (because "Resignation from an Ecclesia is effectively resignation from the Brotherhood"), so he can't apply for a transfer until he has established a new ecclesia. But then he's faced with the new problem that he's a member of an ecclesia but not attending the meetings!
If the person making this comment could let me know which Scripture(s) he used to formulate this incredible idea I would love to see them.
Comment 2If you look at the top right-hand corner of this blog you will see my name! I'm not hiding! However, I'm pretty sure "anonymous" is not your real name.
dont hide behind a blogsite do something about it
And by posting this information I think I AM doing something about it – exposing the madness in SE Queensland for what it is. What else do you think I should do?
Comment 3I'm pretty sure this reader is referring to the Pine Rivers ecclesia, but I have no idea what point they are trying to make. What I do know is that Pine Rivers ecclesia is growing, dynamic, welcoming, encouraging and friendly. I've visited Pine Rivers ecclesia a few times and listened to people tell me what a wonderful place it has been to them, or how it has saved their family. I'm happy to give any ecclesia like that as much PR as I can!
yo talk about the NO ecclesia what about the PR ecclesia they need all the PR they can get.Its like political parties say one thing do another and get their PR departmrnt to fix it
Sunday, October 07, 2007
More Queensland madness
This past week I heard of yet another case of bullying and intimidation by a Queensland ecclesia. A brother who had resigned from an ecclesia in south-east Queensland was sent a threatening letter from the Arranging Brethren saying that "Resignation from an Ecclesia is effectively resignation from the Brotherhood".
Since when is membership of an ecclesia a prerequisite for membership in the Body of Christ? And since when did someone lose their place in the Body of Christ because they didn't belong to a local ecclesia? Does this mean all those Christadelphians who live "in isolation" and away from a local ecclesia are no longer in the brotherhood? Perhaps someone should tell the Isolation League that all the people on their isolation list are no longer in the Brotherhood, and by implication aren't bona fide Christadelphians.
This is relevant to my series on the Australian Unity Agreement (and why it failed), because it is precisely this kind of mentality which has been the most destructive influence in the Australian Christadelphian community.
I probably don't need to go into what 'membership' means in a Scriptural sense because most Australian Christadelphians would immediately recognise the sheer madness in the statement quoted from this letter. However, for the benefit of people who have to deal with this bullying on a regular basis I will briefly comment on the references in the New Testament to 'membership' of the body of Christ.
In Romans 12 Paul uses the analogy of a human body with its various parts to teach about how all the believers are connected to each other and form part of a single 'organism' he calls "the body of Christ". In verse 5 he says "in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others". The Greek word translated "member" is melos and literally means a limb or body-part. He uses the same analogy in Ephesians 3:6; 5:30 and Colossians 3:15 where he says we are "members together of one body" or of "His body". In 1 Corinthians 12:12 he draws out the analogy and says "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts (melos); and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ." In verse 20 he says "there are many parts (melos), but one body" and then in verse 27 "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part (melos) of it". In 1 Corinthians 6:15 he says "your bodies are members of Christ himself".
So in all these places we have a metaphor where each individual believer is a 'part' or member of a worldwide 'body'. Paul says nothing about membership of local organisations. That parochial concept was developed later by the institutionalised church (which used 'membership' as a way of controlling believers and forcing their allegiance to the local bishop).
One does not leave the Body of Christ simply because they leave a local ecclesia.
The absurd idea that "resignation from an Ecclesia is effectively resignation from the Brotherhood" appears to stem from a fear that the so-called 'leaders' of the ecclesia will lose control if people are allowed to resign at will. If they argue that someone who has resigned from their area of control has resigned "from the Brotherhood" then their next step would be to say that the former-member is no longer "in fellowship". They can then use this threat to keep someone in line or else risk being "out of fellowship" with the wider brotherhood.
This bullying is so transparent I will be surprised if most people don't see through it.
Since when is membership of an ecclesia a prerequisite for membership in the Body of Christ? And since when did someone lose their place in the Body of Christ because they didn't belong to a local ecclesia? Does this mean all those Christadelphians who live "in isolation" and away from a local ecclesia are no longer in the brotherhood? Perhaps someone should tell the Isolation League that all the people on their isolation list are no longer in the Brotherhood, and by implication aren't bona fide Christadelphians.
This is relevant to my series on the Australian Unity Agreement (and why it failed), because it is precisely this kind of mentality which has been the most destructive influence in the Australian Christadelphian community.
I probably don't need to go into what 'membership' means in a Scriptural sense because most Australian Christadelphians would immediately recognise the sheer madness in the statement quoted from this letter. However, for the benefit of people who have to deal with this bullying on a regular basis I will briefly comment on the references in the New Testament to 'membership' of the body of Christ.
In Romans 12 Paul uses the analogy of a human body with its various parts to teach about how all the believers are connected to each other and form part of a single 'organism' he calls "the body of Christ". In verse 5 he says "in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others". The Greek word translated "member" is melos and literally means a limb or body-part. He uses the same analogy in Ephesians 3:6; 5:30 and Colossians 3:15 where he says we are "members together of one body" or of "His body". In 1 Corinthians 12:12 he draws out the analogy and says "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts (melos); and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ." In verse 20 he says "there are many parts (melos), but one body" and then in verse 27 "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part (melos) of it". In 1 Corinthians 6:15 he says "your bodies are members of Christ himself".
So in all these places we have a metaphor where each individual believer is a 'part' or member of a worldwide 'body'. Paul says nothing about membership of local organisations. That parochial concept was developed later by the institutionalised church (which used 'membership' as a way of controlling believers and forcing their allegiance to the local bishop).
One does not leave the Body of Christ simply because they leave a local ecclesia.
The absurd idea that "resignation from an Ecclesia is effectively resignation from the Brotherhood" appears to stem from a fear that the so-called 'leaders' of the ecclesia will lose control if people are allowed to resign at will. If they argue that someone who has resigned from their area of control has resigned "from the Brotherhood" then their next step would be to say that the former-member is no longer "in fellowship". They can then use this threat to keep someone in line or else risk being "out of fellowship" with the wider brotherhood.
This bullying is so transparent I will be surprised if most people don't see through it.
50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (14)
What is "fellowship"? (6)
In the last post in this series I started looking at two questions:
- What is it that "just happens" when believers gather together?
- How can we make fellowship "just happen", or what can we do to facilitate it?
A little later in Acts we find further confirmation that what was really fundamental to the "fellowship" of the early church or ekklesia was that they shared their possessions:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4:32-35)This passage has been misquoted, or only partially quoted, by those who say that the basis of unity is having "one mind" on doctrinal matters. They quote the words "all the believers were one in heart and mind" and argue that to be one "in mind" means to believe the same doctrines. Yet the words which immediately follow tell us clearly what the early believers understood by being one in heart and mind: "they shared everything they had". Those who argue for a doctrinal basis for unity will point to the next words ("the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus") and say that that is a doctrinal statement. Yet again they ignore what follows: "and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them". In other words, the resurrection inspired and empowered a graciousness among the believers which caused them to reach out to those in need and provide for them. The "apostles' doctrine" was about behaviour rather than dogma.
We encounter "breaking bread" on only two other occasions in the Acts, and then in Paul's letters we will see that it gets mentioned only in 1 Corinthians. The other New Testament writers don't mention it at all, with the possible exception of Jude's mention of the "love feasts" of the early church. It might seem strange that if Communion is such an important "sacrament" or "ordinance" that it hardly rates a mention in the New Testament.
So let's look first at the other mentions of "breaking bread" in the Acts, and then on to 1 Corinthians.
The second time a breaking of bread occurs in the Acts is in 20:7 where we read that "on the first day of the week we came together to break bread". This was in Troas and was the occasion when a young man, Eutychus, fell asleep in a window during a long sermon by Paul, falling to his death from the third story window. After Paul revived the young man "he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate" (v. 11). There is nothing here to tell us whether "to break bread" meant to have an ordinary meal or whether there was anything sacramental or eucharistic about it. In the absence of any further information we cannot draw any conclusions, one way or the other, from this incident.
The third and final mention of breaking bread in the Acts is in chapter 27. Here we read that Paul "took some bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all. Then he broke it and began to eat" (v. 35). The wording here is certainly reminiscent of the last supper, and is similar to Paul's own description of that occasion in 1 Corinthians 11:23 ("The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it ...").
These words are almost identical to the way Luke records the last supper: "he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 22:19) and an incident when Jesus broke bread with some disciples after His resurrection: "When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them" (24:30). In fact, Luke highlights that it was through this breaking of bread that these disciples recognised Jesus (v. 35) - no doubt because table-fellowship was such a central part of our Lord's ministry. Notice how each record has these words: (1) took bread (2) gave thanks (3) broke it and (4) gave it to them. The breaking of bread in Acts 27 followed the same form as the breaking of bread ritual recorded elsewhere.
What is really remarkable about the Acts 27 incident is that the same expression is used in Acts 2 and Acts 20 for gatherings and meals of the believers, yet in Acts 27 Luke is recording an incident when Paul "broke bread" with his unbelieving fellow-survivors of a ship wreck. We should carefully note that Paul "broke bread" with people who were strangers to him, "sinners" and non-Jews alike. The basis of their fellowship was that they had been through a common experience and been saved (from shipwreck). They were invited to the Lord's table in celebration. Perhaps we need to re-think what it is we celebrate by "breaking bread", and with whom.
From the Acts 27 incident we can be certain that "breaking bread" was not some mystical experience reserved as a "sacrament" for believers, not was it restricted to those "in fellowship" because they believed in "the apostles' doctrine".
The other thing we can be certain about is that in Acts 2 and Acts 27 "breaking bread" meant having a meal, not just a morsel of bread torn from a loaf. In Acts 27 for example we read that Paul said "for the last fourteen days, you have been in constant suspense and have gone without food" and they therefore should eat, and then after he "broke bread" they ate "as much as they wanted" (vv. 37-38). As far as I can see there is absolutely no Biblical basis for the later practice of celebrating "the breaking of bread" with a tiny piece of bread and a sip of wine.
This brings us to the references in 1 Corinthians to breaking bread. In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Paul refers to the unleavened bread used at the Passover Festival: "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth." There is a hint here that the early Christians may have kept the Passover as an annual festival, celebrating our deliverance by Christ*. There is nothing in the context of these verses which suggests Paul was thinking of a weekly "Festival". The Feasts, or Festivals, of Israel (including Passover) were annual events and there is no other mention of the weekly gatherings of believers as "Festivals". Some Christadelphians quote this passage as the reason why unleavened bread should be used for the Breaking of Bread meeting, but there is no evidence that Paul had weekly meetings of believers in mind or that he was thinking of anything other than the annual Passover Festival. However, what is interesting (to me) is that the Passover Festival which Paul referred to was a meal, not just a piece of bread.
The second mention of bread in 1 Corinthians is in 10:16-17 where Paul writes "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." This passage connects to the early reference to Passover, as "the cup of thanksgiving" was one of four cups of wine consumed during the Passover meal. Paul later says this was the cup "after supper" (11:25). The Passover meal began with a prayer recited over bread, and ended with a prayer said over wine. Between this "grace before meals" and the "grace after meals" was the meal. By taking the bread and wine only, and omitting the meal, is to miss the whole point that this was meant to be a meal and not just a small piece of bread and a sip of wine. In fact, Passover was no ordinary meal - it was a celebration, and the four cups of wine emphasised the celebratory nature of this meal.
This mention of bread and wine in chapter 10 almost certainly was referring back to the previous mention of the Passover and therefore was probably referring to the church's annual celebration of Passover. There is nothing here to suggest that it was a weekly gathering. In any case, there is nothing to suggest that the elements of bread and wine were separated from a meal.
The last mention of breaking bread in 1 Corinthians is in Paul's account of the last supper and forms part of his rebuke of the Corinthian practice of treating poorer brethren contemptibly. He begins by saying "I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good" (11:7) and refers specifically to a very divisive practice: "for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk." I dealt with this in an earlier post in a series on the Lord's table, but I'll repeat it here for convenience.
In the Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) world it was common among the wealthy for meals with invited guests to be in two stages: the main meal was eaten first, followed by a "symposium" which consisted of desserts and drinks, accompanied by speeches and discussion. Some guests would be invited for the first stage, and further guests would be invited to the symposium. (There is also some evidence that on some ocasions the symposium was 'open' for anyone who was not invited but who wished to listen to the speeches and discussion to stand around the outside, although not joining in the desserts and drinks).
The main problem in Corinth arose out of tensions between the rich and poor. For the first few centuries of Christianity meetings were held in homes and not in church buildings. The size of meetings was dictated by the size of the largest home. Obviously meetings would therefore usually be in the homes of the wealthiest members. This seems to have been the case in Corinth. While we don't know exactly what was going wrong in Corinth, we do know that a distinction was being made between rich and poor. There are two main possibilities:
- The rich were arriving early (perhaps while the poor were still working) and enjoying a large meal together with fine food. The poor would arrive later with their own scanty food (possibly for the 'symposium'). The bread and wine of the Lord's Supper were brought together and taken at the end of the meal (rather than the bread at the beginning and the wine at the end, with the meal in between, as it happened at the last supper).
- The rich and poor were eating at the same time, but bringing their own food - the rich eating and drinking well, with meat and delicacies, and the poor with scanty food, perhaps only bread. Although the rich opened their houses to the poor they did so in a way which emphasised the social divisions. There was over-indulgence on the part of the rich, and feelings of envy on the part of the poor.
This passage highlights once again that "the apostles' doctrine" was about sharing material possessions. The wealthy Corinthians are rebuked for their practice of ignoring the needs of the poor and not sharing their food with them, and are encouraged to follow the Lord's example. What is very clear from this is that the "breaking of bread" in Corinth was a meal, and not the kind of ritual that would be celebrated these days in a Christadelphian Breaking of Bread meeting or in the Communion services of most denominations. At some point in church history the elements of bread and wine were separated from this shared meal and "sacramentalised" and rules were put in place for the "administration" of the sacrament by priests.
Perhaps it's time for a re-think and a return to the earliest practices of the believers.
* There is some evidence that the early Christians continued to celebrate the Jewish Passover on the same date observed by the Jewish people. This changed when the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. adopted the name Easter as representing the events of Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection and by observing Easter on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. The Palestinian historian Epiphanius (315 A.D. - 403 A.D.) says that the 15 Jewish Christian bishops who administered the Jerusalem Church until 135 A.D. observed Passover on Nisan 14. In The Apostolic Constitutions, an early Christian document, the following rule is laid out: "You shall not change the calculation of the time, but you shall celebrate it at the same time as your brethren who came out of the circumcision (the Jews). With them observe the Passover."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)