What did Christadelphians set out to be? (9)

There were three main consequences of the events of 1864, 1873 and 1885 which were to have a lasting influence in Christadelphianism and change the direction of the movement. In the last two posts on this thread I looked at two of these consequences:

• There was a shift from the openness to change, from the exciting and lively debate, and the tolerance of the early years, towards a rigid dogmatism.

• As Christadelphians became less tolerant of alternative views there was a shift from diversity to division.
  

In this post I want to look at the third consequence:


3. With increasing organisation came an increase in authoritarianism.

One of the key factors in the growth of the Believers Movement and then Christadelphiansim was the development of some organisation. The Believers Movement was a lose alliance of churches and house meetings which shared a common understanding of many aspects of the Gospel, but were all autonomous and independant. While they worked together on many projects and exchanged speakers and magazines freely, independance can sometimes be a barrier to organisation. Robert Roberts appears to have been gifted in this area and Andrew Wilson noted that:

"The organising ability of Robert Roberts was very important: he gave the movement its rules, institutions, and much of its literature" (page 399).

However, the "rules, institutions and ... literature" proved to be a two-edged sword. Wilson also noted that:

"Roberts was held in high esteem by his brethren for his vigour; his application to ecclesial arrangements in Birmingham was immediate upon his arrival and energetic; simultaneously, he was engaged in controversy with the Aberdeen Campbellites [Churches of Christ]. Nevertheless, Roberts's efficiency and zeal appeared, in the eyes of some, to have an impetuous aspect to it; in 1864, he wrote of his 'strained relations with Dr. Thomas'; on other occasions, members of his family expressed reservations about his temperament."

As an example of of the last point, Wilson quotes from Roberts' own brother-in-law W. Norrie in his Early History of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in Great Britain (Edinburgh 1904-1906). Referring to a John Wilson of Halifax and his falling out with Robert Roberts Norrie wrote:

“[he] was one of many brethren who were victimised because of their ‘disagreement in important principles’ with R. Roberts. In the particular ‘principle’ in which the two differed, I was convinced that Roberts was in the right, but I was equally confident that this disagreement did not warrant the cruel treatment to which he [John Wilson] was subjected on that account”.

The way in which Roberts disfellowshipped Dowie, Turney and Ashcroft and turned "Bro. Dealtry" into "Mr. Dealtry", and especially the way he took this action without the approval of his ecclesia, shows that Roberts was becoming an authoritarian. He didn't need to consult anyone - after all, he was the editor of The Christadelphian! (and he'd gotten rid of his competitors who edited The Messenger of the Churches, the Christadelphian Lamp, and other magazines).

Even John Thomas changed from being what Wilson described as an 'anarchist':

"To describe John Thomas as a spiritual anarchist would not do full justice to the profundity of his radicalism" (page 93).

He described John Thomas as "a pioneer, a discoverer ... What appealed to him was to wriggle free of what he considered the mental shackles imposed by orthodoxy, so he could soar high in the spiritual etherea and see vistas, within the Bible, of God's past, present and future plans”. He was opposed to hierarchies, rules, constitutions, creeds and statements of faith and believed that a minimum of organisation was preferable.

Yet, Wilson notes that "during the period approximately 1864 to his death in 1871, Thomas's views on ecclesiastical polity became rather more authoritarian than they had previously been".

It was to be on this point of authoritarianism that the Christadelphian denomination was eventually to explode in 1885.

However, this is not just a history lesson. Christadelphianism changed and left later generations of Believers with this legacy:

1. There was a shift from the openness to change, from the exciting and lively debate, and the tolerance of the early years, towards a rigid dogmatism.
2. As Christadelphians became less tolerant of alternative views there was a shift from diversity to division.
3. With increasing organisation came an increase in authoritarianism.

I will take this up later and look at what can be done to get the Believers Movement back on track.