Permission needed to start a new ecclesia - IMPORTANT UPDATE

I reported earlier that a motion has been proposed for the Business session of the 2008 Australian Christadelphian Conference which would require new ecclesias to obtain the permission of five other local ecclesias in order to be recognised as a bona fide ecclesia meeting on the basis of the Unity Agreement.

Fortunately common sense has prevailed and the ecclesia proposing this has now withdrawn their motion.

This is very encouraging indeed. It tells me that we don't have to put up with the bullying intimidation of a vocal minority, and that the voices of moderate Christadelphians can still have an effect in stopping the progressive spread of extremism and fundamentalism in the Christadelphian community.

I've also heard that one or two ecclesias in the Brisbane area who were previously members of the G13 have now distanced themselves from that pressure group. The G13 was a group which met to discuss other (uninvited) ecclesias to devise ways of either bringing them into line with their own views or excluding them from the wider fellowship of the Christadelphian community. Such groups are described in clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide as "collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life".

It's very encouraging to see that some ecclesias which were previously associated with this bunch of bullies have come to their senses and withdrawn from the group.

I am sure that these two recent developments have partially come about as a result of blogs like this and the considerable number of Christadelphians who have been saying "enough is enough" and making it clear that such conduct is un-Christadelphian and unacceptable. Let's hope that these moderate Christadelphians will have an even louder voice in the future and that the controlling and intimidating elements in the Christadelphian community will eventually be silenced.

Fellowshipping an out-of-fellowship person (2)

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.

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:

"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.

Permission needed to start a new ecclesia

The following motion has been proposed for the Sydney Christadelphian Conference 2008:

Proposed Motion # 5:

'That the Australian Christadelphian brotherhood adopts a practice that, prior to the formation of any new ecclesia, a representative of the proposed ecclesia contact the Central Fellowship ecclesias in their local area, for recognition as a bona fide ecclesia meeting on the Australian Unity Basis of Fellowship.'

Moved by South Brisbane

Seconded t.b.a.

Rationale, as provided by South Brisbane

Objective

To provide a framework for effectively assessing the bona fides of all new ecclesias seeking fellowship on the Australian Unity Basis.

Procedures

1 All new ecclesias wishing to be recognised as a Christadelphian ecclesia meeting on the Australian Unity Basis should write to the recorders of established ecclesias in the local area of the proposed new ecclesia, stating they meet on the Australian Unity Basis of Fellowship.

2 The proposed ecclesia's location will determine the number of established ecclesias to receive such a letter, but it is suggested a minimum of five ecclesias should be approached for recognition as a bona fide Christadelphian Ecclesia.

3 Ecclesias receiving such notice should consult one another, after determining their own position, and if no objection is communicated to the proposed ecclesia's representative within one month, the request should be accepted and the new ecclesia notified in writing by the local ecclesias involved.

4 If any objections are raised by the local established ecclesiae, discussions should take place in order to resolve the perceived impediments.

5 A reasonable time should be allowed for resolution of the difficulties on the basis of the Ecclesial Guide and the Unity Booklet.

This motion raises a number of interesting matters.

First, we need to question the intention of the motion. Never in the past has a new Christadelphian ecclesia in Australia (or anywhere else in the world as far as I am aware) needed to obtain the consent of other ecclesias in the area. So why now? What is the reason for changing the practice of more than 140 years? Is this motion designed to restrict new ecclesias starting up or to control the activities of new ecclesias? If so, why?

Second, the motion appears to be totally impractical. Let's take one Australian city as a hypothetical example. Newcastle currently has three Christadelphian ecclesias: Newcastle, Charlestown and Boolaroo. The last time I spoke at Charlestown ecclesia I was asked to sit on the platform for the entire meeting as the hall was literally filled to capacity and there were no spare seats in the congregation. This is a good sign of a healthy ecclesia, and because there is "standing room only" the ecclesia is considering extensions to their meeting place. However, another option they might consider is starting a new ecclesia as an 'offshoot'. Under this proposed motion they would need the consent of at least five ecclesias in the area. But there are only three ecclesias in the area! Under this proposed new rule they would have to look further afield to other cities for approval to start a satellite ecclesia. Charlestown is a well-established ecclesia with a solid reputation and was an original signatory to the Australian Unity Agreement. To suggest that they can't start a satellite ecclesia without the permission of other ecclesias is not only insulting to them, it raises the question as to what authority the other ecclesias might have which Charlestown lacks.

Third, this motion smells of fear, a controlling spirit, and authoritarianism.

Are some ecclesias afraid that new ecclesias might operate differently, and do they find this threatening? There was a recent example (in Brisbane) of an ecclesia sending out an appeal for people to move into their area and join them because they were declining so sharply in numbers that they were at risk of dying out. At the same time this same ecclesia was a party to a move to restrict the activities of a new ecclesia which was bursting at the seams and which was growing numerically almost week-by-week. Are they afraid that as they die out their remaining members will transfer to the new dynamic meeting? What do they find so threatening about this?

It smells of a controlling spirit because new ecclesias sometimes do things a bit differently from the older ecclesias in the area, and some traditionalists don't like this. Instead of an organ they might decide to use guitars and drums (God forbid!). Instead of 17th century hymns they might want to sing contemporary music! They might even drop "thees" and "thous" and Elizabethan English and pray to the Almighty in contemporary English!! Where will this lead? It must be stopped!!!

It smacks of authoritarianism because it suggests that a 'group' of ecclesias should be empowered to control the activities of other ecclesias in the area. There is already at least one case in Australia of a 'group' of ecclesias in an area banding together while excluding other ecclesias in the area which might see some things differently, and then attempting to impose their collective will on the excluded ecclesias (and it's significant that this proposed motion comes from one of the ecclesias which is a party to this 'group'). This motion, if adopted, would give more power to these 'groups' which Robert Roberts condemned as"collective despotism":

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. (Clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide)

I would hope that the majority of ecclesias represented at the 2008 Conference will see this proposed motion for what it is and soundly reject it.

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:

1. 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.
   
   
2. Bullies need recognition, and the best way of dealing with bullies is to deny them the acceptance they crave.
   
   
3. 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.

Interestingly, an appeal was recently sent to Queensland ecclesias to help one of these G13 ecclesias. Apparently numbers are declining dramatically and the ecclesia is on the verge of dying (although some might argue that they are already spiritually dead). On the other hand, one of the ecclesias they are constantly criticising is growing steadily. In fact, just last Sunday I had the pleasure to visit this growing ecclesia. Visitors outnumbered members by 2 to 1! There was standing room only, and the meeting room was overflowing! It's ironic that an ecclesia which is dying and appealing for people to move into the area to prop them up should, at the same time, criticise an ecclesia which is growing, prospering and reaching out to people with the hope of the Gospel.

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.

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.

Comment 1
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.

It 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.

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 2
dont hide behind a blogsite do something about it

If 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.

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 3
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

I'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!

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.

A note on "withdrawing" in "The Ecclesial Guide"

A reader has pointed out to me that Robert Roberts' Ecclesial Guide uses the terms "withdraw/withdrawal/withdrawing" and "separate" approximately 50 times, but never uses the words "reconcile" or "reconciliation" even once!

This should immediately alert us to the fact that the author of The Ecclesial Guide was more interested in separating, dividing and "standing apart" than in what Paul calls "the ministry of reconciliation".

The Ecclesial Guide was first published in 1883. The following year saw the beginnings of what would become known as the "inspiration controversy" which led to a major division in the Christadelphian community in 1885. That would seem to be a good opportunity to see how the suggestions laid out in the Guide for resolving disputes were applied. To all those people who insist that ecclesias today should follow The Ecclesial Guide, I would suugest they take a look at how Robert Roberts and the Birmingham ecclesia applied the Guide in 1885.

In an earlier post about Robert Ashcroft I gave the details as to how Roberts went about "withdrawing" from Ashcroft. Here is some of that information again:

In January 1885, an ecclesial meeting of the Birmingham (Temperance Hall) ecclesia was held at which an article by Ashcroft in his Exegetist was discussed. A vote was taken, and the majority were against Roberts. The following month Roberts tried again, and at a meeting of the ecclesia a motion was adopted regarding their understanding of inspiration which said "[we] will take no action of withdrawal from any member of the ecclesia, until accusation is made against him in scriptural form, and he has been heard in his own defence".

Roberts then invited several brethren 'to tea' and for a quiet talk on Friday 22 May. After tea Roberts dropped a bombshell asking several brethren to resign from the ecclesia, and then proposed that if the brethren present denounced Robert Ashcroft and Joseph Chamberlin all could be forgiven and forgotten. They refused.

The next day Roberts posted 'postcards' asking the recipients to sign their acceptance of Roberts' view on inspiration, and their promise to withdraw fellowship from brethren Ashcroft and Chamberlin. Roberts made it clear that he held the lease to the ecclesial meeting place "and whoever remained with him would remain in the premises".

Roberts then sent ‘tickets' to his supporters in the ecclesia, which they were to produce in order to gain admittance to the meetings of the ecclesia. Fellowship was therefore denied to anyone not holding a ticket, and a physically strong brother was put in charge of the door to bar their entry. A meeting of Roberts' supporters, possessing tickets, dissolved the ecclesia and reconstituted themselves with a new basis of fellowship including Roberts' definition of inspiration.

Take another look at the suggestions set out in the Guide for resolving differences of opinion and you will see none of this heavy-handedness: nothing about issuing 'tickets' to your supporters, putting 'strong brethren' at the door to keep your opponents out, or going against the clear decision of the ecclesia to allow differences of opinions. Roberts taught one thing and then practiced another, because a foundation for "withdrawal" and "separation" rather than reconciliation had already been laid. Yet it was Roberts' example, rather than his lofty words, which was ultimately followed by the religious purists and so to this day there remains an atmosphere of fear, intimidation and isolation in the Christadelphian community.

Paul's advice would be to keep a watchful eye on those who cause troubles and make difficulties, in plain opposition to the teaching you have been given, those who take bits and pieces of the teaching that you learned and then use them to make trouble, and steer clear of them, giving them a wide berth. (Rom 16:17).

It's time that fair-minded Christadelphians spoke out against this heavy-handed bullying and intimidation, and steered well clear of those who teach about "standing apart".

A note on dichostasia or "standing apart"

In the previous post I explained that the Greek word translated "divisions" in Romans 16:17 is dichostasia which literally means "standing apart". I noted that it is seen in a party-spirit where people who hold the same opinion cluster together and vote or act as a group.

The terrible irony is that the very people who insist on a uniform understanding of "fundamental doctrine" as the way of achieving unity in the Body of Christ are very often the same people who are creating division by "standing apart" from those who hold differing views.

I recently came across an incredibly brazen example of this. On May 10 this year a group of 38 delegates from 10 ecclesias in the Brisbane area met to discuss, among other things, how to handle ecclesias in their area who weren't conforming.

The official minutes of the meeting noted that one of these ecclesias under investigation was feeling "intimidated" and "isolated" as a result of previous discussions. It was suggested that this ecclesia (Kedron Brook) should be invited to join the "Combined Arranging Brothers Meeting". Incredibly, the minutes record that it was decided not to invite Kedron Brook (KB) to attend their meeting because "Bro XX raised the point that by KB attending this meeting would not allow discussion of them to take place"!

Here is a very clear example of dichostasia - the party-spirit where brethren who hold the same opinion cluster together and vote or act as a group, and exclude dissenters or non-conformists.

Not only is it unbrotherly and divisive for a group of ecclesias to decide that they want to "stand apart" and talk about another ecclesia without them being present, but it seems to me that it's just plain stupid to circulate this in their official minutes. But then, I will probably never understand the thinking of such brethren.

Wrested Scriptures (2) - "offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned"

In my last post I showed that one of the Scriptures which are frequently quoted in support of "withdrawing fellowship" when read in it's context actually means something quite different from the meaning attached to it by religious purists*. In this post I want to consider another passage whose meaning has been reversed by the purists.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. (Romans 16:17 KJV)

Of all the scriptures which have wrested (twisted or distorted) by the purists, this one may have suffered more maltreatment than most others. Written for the very purpose of protecting and preserving the church from division, it has become one of the chief instruments of such division.

What did Paul mean when he wrote about "the doctrine you have learned"? We first need to look at the context to see what Paul had been teaching the Romans which would cause them to avoid those who were divisive. The context shows that Paul had been teaching them that division among brethren is a sin. The "doctrine" he is referring to is the teaching that no one should cause division ("doctrine" literally means "teaching"). In a nutshell, that teaching in Romans is summed up in 14:19 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification".

The verse we are looking at comes at the end of a body of teaching which commences in Romans 12:1. Paul devotes the next 4 chapters to Christian conduct, especially as related to unity in the community of God's people. His primary teaching is that God's people should not be divided and its members should not put obstacles in front of another believer.
Here are some key verses from that body of teaching:

• "In Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others" (12:5).
• "Love must be sincere." (12:9)
  
• "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves." (12:10)
• "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited." (12:16)
• "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another". (13:8)
• Chapter 14 deals at length with the attitudes necessary to preserve unity in spite of differences. The foundation of Paul's teaching about this is laid in verse one: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."

After having given this extensive teaching about avoiding division and preserving unity, Paul recognises there will be those who will not follow this teaching. There will always be people who refuse to follow the example of Christ, but who create a factional atmosphere. Almost every church at some time will encounter people who want to set up their own power bases, who recognize as brethren only those who agree with their opinions, and who will drive out the believers who will not submit to their authority. Jesus encountered this in the religious leaders of His day, the New Testament letters show how such people infiltrated the church from an early stage, and the divided state of Christendom in general is evidence of this factionalism.

So what should be done about a person who insists that his/her view is the right one and that everyone else should agree with it? How do we handle a person (or group of people) who is/are threatening to divide a church or group of believers by making a big issue out of a difference of opinion? Paul says "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them" (Rom 16:17 NIV).

We should note several things about these words:

1. Paul is not advocating any public or corporate action here. He is not telling a congregation that they should excommunicate or disfellowship any one.
2. The "avoiding" recommended by Paul is an individual thing - they are simply told to steer clear of those who create division and stay out of their way.
3. The KJV says "Mark them which cause division." The word "mark" is from the Greek skopeo and literally means "to observe, watch, to keep an eye on." The person is not "marked" in any way and nothing is actually done to them. They are simply put under surveillance, or carefully watched.
4. The word "divisions" is from dichostasia which literally means "standing apart" and here it refers to "alienating one from another." It is seen in a party-spirit where people who hold the same opinion cluster together and vote or act as a group.
5. The word "avoid" is from ekklino which means "to turn away from, to hold aloof from, to stay out of the way." There is nothing in the word which implies any formal or organised disciplinary action. W.E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of NT Words says, "In exhorting them to turn away from false teachers, the Apostle is not speaking of excommunication, but of personal dissociation from the offenders." Commentator Albert Barnes puts it this way: "That is, avoid them as teachers; do not follow them. It does not mean that they were to be treated harshly; but that they were to be avoided in their instructions. They were to disregard all that they could say tending to produce alienation and strife; and resolve to cultivate the spirit of peace and union."

Here are some ways other translations paraphrase this verse:

• "And now I implore you, my brothers, to keep a watchful eye on those who cause troubles and make difficulties among you, in plain opposition to the teaching you have been given, and steer clear of them." (J. B. Phillips)
• "One final word of counsel, friends. Keep a sharp eye out for those who take bits and pieces of the teaching that you learned and then use them to make trouble. Give these people a wide berth." (The Message)

Everyone who uses this verse as justification for separating from people with different views, who equate "this doctrine" with some form of creedal statement (such as a statement of faith), or some other definition of "the true faith", or who insist on agreement with a doctrinal interpretation of some sort, are the very people who are disrupting unity and who Paul says we should avoid!

It is sadly ironic that the chief offenders against unity are the ones most likely to quote this verse to justify the divisions they are causing. Such is the nature of the religious purists that they wrest, or twist Scripture to make it say the opposite of what it was intended to mean.


* I will explain this term "religious purists" later when we get to a Scripture about it.

Wrested Scriptures (1) - "withdraw fellowship"

In earlier posts I've written about Jesus' teachings on the injustice of exclusivism (especially as it was practiced by the religious leaders of His day) and the "good news" that God was welcoming into His Kingdom those who had been excluded, marginalised, disenfranchised and rejected by the religious purists.

In this short series I'd like to look at the Scriptures quoted by the religious purists of our own day to support their practice of "withdrawing fellowship" from people who disagree with them. We will see that these Scriptures have been "wrested" in order to make them mean something quite different from what they actually say.

The expression "withdraw fellowship" is often regarded by Christadelphians as preferable to "disfellowship" (although that is still a very common term) or "excommunicate", because it is claimed to be a Biblical expression. Christadelphians almost certainly adopted this practice from the Disciples/Churches of Christ (sometimes called "Campbellites" by Christadelphians, but more accurately described as the Stone-Campbell Movement) who also use the term "withdraw fellowship" in some circles. Robert Roberts' Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian ecclesias (1883, aka "The Ecclesial Guide") in referring to an "offender" says it is an ecclesia's "duty to separate him from their fellowship by withdrawal".

The expression "withdraw fellowship" does not occur in the Bible. However, religious purists usually quote 2 Thessalonians 3:6 from the King James Version in support of their fellowship practices.

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

To understand this verse we first need to understand the context. Thessalonica was a free city (urbs libera) within the Roman Empire. One of the privileges of being a free city was that freedom from taxation (libertas cum immunitate) was granted, and direct descendants of original families, as well as retired soldiers, were supported by the dole if they registered and requested it.

This status as a free city provided a lot of opportunity for leisure. Being devoid of scholastic opportunities, the tendency was for many of the men to degenerate into lazy and irresponsible louts and loungers, ready for any excitement which might be aroused to offset the monotony (and Acts 17:5 provides a hint as to how easy it was to find people of that type in Thessalonica).

This explains why Paul emphasised to the Thessalonian believers the necessity of securing honest employment, holding it, and earning one's own livelihood. He mentioned this in his first letter:

• Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. (1 Th 4:11-12).
• Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you. (1 Th 2:9)

This teaching provides the background for Paul's instructions in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us" (NIV).

We should especially note the immediate context. Paul's makes it clear in the words that follow that he is referring to the problem of laziness which was rife in the Thessalonian community.

• For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Th 3:7-10).

The KJV expression "walketh disorderly" has been used by religious purists to expel anyone who doesn't measure up to their standards, doctrinal or behavioural. In the Thessalonian context we can see that the NIV's translation "every brother who is idle" is a reference to the problem of idleness in Thessalonica. Other translations render it similarly:

• "Keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness" (RSV)
• "Refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest." (The Message)
• "Withdraw and keep away from every brother (fellow believer) who is slack in the performance of duty and is disorderly, living as a shirker" (Amplified Bible)
• "Keep away from all brothers who are living a lazy life." (TEV)
• "Hold aloof from every Christian brother who falls into idle habits." (NEB)

The brethren in Thessalonica were simply commanded to refrain from extending hospitality to loafers and shirkers. They were not to feed them for the command was that "if any would not work neither should he eat". If one of these lazy brethren appeared at the front door just before mealtime he was to be offered a job instead of food. If he refused the former he was to be refused the latter. One who shunned honest toil was to be gently shunted from the dinner table.

The word "withdraw" is from the Greek stello which means "to avoid, to hold aloof." There is not the slightest hint of congregational, ecclesial or corporate action. There is no public or formal discipline. Nothing is done to the idle person. He is simply left where he is while the brethren step back from him. To "withdraw yourselves" means to step back, to retreat, or to retire from the scene. It does not mean to expel or remove. The phrase "have no company with him" (v. 14) is intended to forbid the extending of hospitality. It would preclude invitations to social gatherings to which the idle might flock and at which they would eat at the expense of others.

We should also note that the one from whom the brethren are to step back or hold themselves aloof is referred to as a brother, although a lazy one who is living in idleness. Paul twice refers to the lazy individual as a brother. There is absolutely no justification for the practice amongst religious purists of refusing to call a disfellowshipped person a brother. This practice in the Christadelphian community began with John Thomas and Robert Roberts who, after they had fallen out with a brother, thereafter referred to him as "Mr". But there is no Scriptural justification for it - a brother does not cease to be a brother just because you disagree with him, or even if you "withdraw" from him.

It is almost impossible to imagine how the tangled maze of disciplinary action - accusation, boycott, disfellowship, and congregational exclusivism - has grown out of this passage. When authoritarians seek justification for their bullying attitudes they undoubtedly find that the words "withdraw yourselves" provide a handy tool to satisfy their divisiveness and they appropriate them as a weapon in the arsenal of factionalism.

More on 'Chinese whispers'

Rumours are rarely true.

I mentioned in my previous post that over recent weeks I have heard some rumours which are so bizarre it surprises me that intelligent people could be instrumental in passing them on.

For example, I heard one rumour which said that on a missionary trip to China I spoke in Chinese by the power of the Holy Spirit!! As the rumour goes, as a result of this incident the brother who was with me refused to do any more missionary work with me. Well, not only is the story so utterly untrue, it is actually beyond belief. IF I could speak Chinese without learning it (and I certainly can't and don't speak Chinese, either with or without the Holy Spirit), then any 'miraculous' ability to speak it would surely be a sign that God was doing something wonderful, and it would be sheer madness for anyone to refuse to work with someone who was demonstrably working under the power of God. In fact, I'd think it would be a definite advantage in a mission field to have someone who could speak the local language, especially if he could do it without learning it! But it never happened, and nothing even remotely like it ever happened. I have no idea how absurd rumours like this start, but it seems quite malicious to me.

I generally try to ignore rumours, and the more absurd they become the more justified I feel in taking this approach. However, the recent scurrilous attacks by North Oaks (Qld) ecclesia on the Pine Rivers ecclesia, are not simply unsubstantiated rumours - they include complete fabrications of a malicious nature and it's about time people stood up to the intimidation and bullying from ecclesias like North Oaks. The Lord hates a sower of discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:16, 19), and the Arranging Brethren of the North Oaks ecclesia will one day have to give an account for their actions.

One has to wonder about the reasons North Oaks ecclesia has mounted their assault on the Pine Rivers ecclesia. We recently visited Pine Rivers and noted that the ecclesia seemed to be a particularly happy place. Their meeting room was packed to capacity, the youth group is growing, the worship was joyful and vibrant, and everyone we spoke with was positive and grateful for a place like this where they could worship, study the Word of God, fellowship and grow in grace. I understand that people who have not been to Christadelphian meetings for years are now finding a spiritual home at Pine Rivers. Others who have been bullied in the hardline ecclesias, or who find their stifling legalism just too much to bear, are also discovering that Pine Rivers is a place where they can learn about the way of grace, and where they find grace and acceptance. Now pressure is being put on some of these folks to return to the graceless ecclesias from which they'd escaped, and some are reporting intimidation and threats of exclusion from families if they don't.

Perhaps the hardline Brisbane ecclesias, like North Oaks, are themselves feeling threatened by the steady drift of their members towards a grace-based way of faith and away from their legalism. Perhaps their ecclesial rulers feel threatened that they will lose their power base if this drift turns into an exodus.

For years the hardline neo-conservative Brisbane ecclesias relentlessly attacked the Brisbane (Petrie Terrace) ecclesia, and refused to fellowship with them. Their campaign targeted one brother in particular, and they managed to divide the ecclesias across an entire continent as a result. When they finally resumed fellowship with Petrie Terrace ecclesia I predicted it wouldn't be long and they'd find a new target to bully (a leopard doesn't change its spots). It seems I was right and they've now identified their next victim.

Truth in reporting

I haven't been blogging for a while as I've been busy with several commitments. I have a few posts partially written, and I hope to finish them soon and get back to some regular blogging.

However, some very recent happenings among the Christadelphian ecclesias in the Brisbane area (Australia) have prompted me to post something about truth in reporting. We often hear things through the "grapevine" and wonder whether they are actually true or have simply been churned out by the rumour mill.

I guess we're all familiar with the game of 'Chinese whispers' where something whispered to one person in the room then makes it's way around a group of people, each time being slightly distorted until the end result is something which is so distorted from the original message that it bears no resemblance to it.

Sometimes we just dismiss misreporting as a kind of innocent game of Chinese whispers. But what if an untruth was started deliberately and maliciously?

Over recent months I've heard rumours about myself which are contradictory and so far from the truth that I cannot imagine how they could possibly have started. The recent rumours have included things which are so bizarre that I cannot understand how any intelligent person could seriously pass them on, yet they do! (I may give an example of this in my next post.)

I want to give just one example here of what I believe is simply troublemaking of the worse kind.

On 25 April this year I received an email from someone I don't know, but who I later discovered is an Arranging Brother of the North Oaks ecclesia in Queensland. He said he'd heard a rumour that I believed in the trinity. I replied immediately and told him quite clearly that the rumour is untrue, and added "In fact, I was instrumental in having a lengthy work disproving the trinity translated into Urdu for use in preaching by the Christadelphians in Pakistan. That's hardly something I would do if I believed in the trinity!"

Not satisfied with this answer he emailed again and asked "As for beleiving in the trinity and being a trinitarian probably these could be different its like saying I believe the same as a roman catholic but im not a roman catholic which is it. (sic)"

It seemed to me that this fellow was determined to believe the rumour rather than anything I could say to the contrary, so I sent this reply: "I fail to see how believing in the trinity and being a trinitarian could be different, unless you've come up with a new kind of hair-splitting that's beyond my comprehension. I definitely don't believe in the trinity and I'm not a trinitarian. I don't think I can make that any plainer and it's 'saying it as it is'."

That seemed to satisfy him. He replied the same day and said "thank you for clearing up the trinity problem". He then added: "I can now say without a doubt you do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity. This is what happens unless we get actual words then people don't believe us I will not make my own judgment its what you have said "I definitely don't believe in the trinity and I'm not a Trinitarian" if people ask me I can now say exactually (sic) what it is".

Having given me the impression that he was now going to report accurately what I'd said, you can imagine how surprised I was to learn that the next day he wrote to another Queensland ecclesia (Pine Rivers) "On behalf of the arranging Brethren of NorthOaks Ecclesia" with this comment: "We believe that he [Stephen Cook] probably will fellowship those who believe in the Trinity". Although he'd sent me four emails over the previous two days he never once asked whether I would or would not "fellowship with those who believe in the Trinity", and didn't ask me even a single question about who I would or would not fellowship. What he thinks I'd "probably" do is pure speculation. And even though he thanked me "for clearing up the Trinity problem" it's clear that he still had a problem - but the problem now was that I hadn't given him the answer he was looking for!

The simple fact that he speculates about what I'd "probably" do (even though he didn't ask me when he had the opportunity) rather than reporting what I'd said (even though he said he would report "exactly" what I'd said), indicates to me that he wasn't really interested in the truth, just in getting some 'evidence' he could use against me.

The reason why North Oaks wrote to Pine Rivers ecclesia, apparently, was to object to some of their members facilitating an event where I was to be one of the speakers. Incidentally, this event was a meeting of non-trinitarians where I spoke against the trinity! And now they are actively lobbying the other Queensland ecclesias to have Pine Rivers ecclesia ostracised because some of their members invited me to speak at the gathering. I don't know if they've stopped telling the lie about me being a trinitarian, but today I learned that they've invented (or are actively passing on) at least two more lies about me!

These truly are worrying times for Australian Christadelphians. My advice to anyone who may have been approached or lobbied by North Oaks ecclesia in an effort to ostracise Pine Rivers ecclesia is to think carefully and prayerfully about what you are being asked to do, and to ask yourself if you can trust any information coming from an ecclesia with a divisive and disruptive agenda.

Characteristics of Christian Leaders (8)

It's nearly a year since I last wrote something under this thread, but in response to some recent events and questions from readers I'm picking up the theme again.

I am convinced that Jesus did not come to build a ‘church’ (as in an institution or organisation), as I've probably made clear in my posts under other threads - He came to establish a community He called ‘the Kingdom of God’. Institutionalised churches generally aren’t communities, and nor are rule-keeping, legalistic, dogmatic denominations (unless we use ‘community’ very loosely in its broadest sense).

The King James Version of the Bible was intentionally mis-translated on King James’s instructions to ensure that the ‘authority’ of the Bishops - and more importantly from his perspective, the King – was maintained. So we have ‘bishops’ and ‘deacons’ instead of ‘leaders’ and ‘servants’, and we have verses which instruct Christians to "obey them who have the rule over you". A lot of Christadelphian ‘rulers’ have latched on to King James’s self-serving distortion of the Bible to serve their own interests, and so we have the mess that we see in Christadelphia today.

Hebrews 13:17 is one of the passages often quoted to enforce submission to the decisions of Arranging (or Managing) Brethren (and sometimes even committees such as the Bible Missions!). "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

We should first look at verse 7 which says “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation”.

There are a couple of things we should note about verse 7:

(a) It is in the past tense but has been translated to read as though it were in the present tense.

(b) The word over (“rule over you”) in this verse has no corresponding word in the Greek and was added by the translators (humon means “of you” not “over you”).

(c) The phrase, "them which have the rule over" is a paraphrase of one Greek word - hegeomai - a verb - meaning to lead, to go before as a guide. In a Christian context hegeomai is descriptive of the act of guiding, going on ahead, leading the way as an example, not sitting as overlords.

(d) It is referring to those who have died in the faith, not to living individuals presiding over the body of Christ.

Hebrews 11-12 is filled with accounts of those who have gone before us as examples of those who have walked by faith. The reader is exhorted to remember such, to reflect on their faith, calling to memory "the end of their conversation" (or "the outcome of their way of life" NIV). These were some of the exemplary guides, the hegeomai that were to be remembered. So Heb 13:7 is saying “remember those who have gone before and follow in their footsteps”. The NIV has “remember your leaders ...” and “leaders” in this context means those who “led” the way.

The KJV translators also changed the intent of verse 17 to suit the King. The Greek word, peitho that was translated obey appears only 55 times in the New Testament. It is only translated obey seven times. The word peitho is in the passive voice and simply means be persuaded, as the following lexicons demonstrate.

"Peitho: To persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe. To make friends of, to win one's favour, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one. To tranquillise. To persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something. Be persuaded. To be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing. To believe." (Thayer and Smith’s Greek Lexicon)

"peitho, to persuade, to win over, in the Passive and Middle voices, to be persuaded, to listen to.... (Acts 5:40, Passive Voice, "they agreed"); The obedience suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion." (W. E. Vine Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

Acts18:4 is a good example of how this word is used in the NT: “And he (Paul) reasoned (dialegomai…'To think different things with one's self, mingle thought with thought. To ponder, revolve in mind. To converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss'. Thayer and Smith's Greek Lexicon) …in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded (pietho) the Jews and the Greeks." Here Paul is reasoning with Jews and Greeks in the synagogue. He did not command them to obey him. Rather, he persuaded them.

In this verse pietho means “listen to the reasoning of your leaders” or “be persuaded by your leaders”, but not “obey them”.

The Greek word that was translated submit in verse 17 is hupeiko. It occurs only here in the NT and means yield. Hupeiko in no way infers any kind of outward force being placed on the person yielding. It is a voluntary act. In the body of Christ you cannot demand that someone “submit” to your authority. If you do, it proves that you really do not have authority. He is not fit to lead who is not capable of guiding.

The Message translates this “Be responsive to your pastoral leaders. Listen to their counsel.” This conveys the sense of deferring to the wise counsel of wise leaders more accurately than the authoritarian language of the KJV.

Verse 7 is a call to remember those who led the way (e.g the faithful in ch 11), and verse 17 follows the theme with advice to follow the counsel and example of the present generation of leaders.

Authoritarian leaders cannot be trusted. It seems to me that these two things are related: a bullying, authoritarianism which attempts to control other people, and immorality. We often see these go hand in hand. Alarm bells should always ring when we see authoritarianism in the Body of Christ. Behind it there will always be abuse of some kind.

Christadelphian authoritarianism today

I gave some examples in recent posts of the trend towards authoritarianism in the Christadelphian movement. However, these weren't isolated events in history - there is strong evidence of authoritarianism in some parts of Christadelphianism today.

Here is just one example. The Adelaide Suburban Young People recently sent a letter to their member ecclesias emphasising the need to ensure their young people "conform" (their word) to certain dress standards which they will "enforce at the door" (their expression). Their letter is below, with my emphasis.

Suburban Young Peoples’ Activities

16 January 2006

To the Recorders of the Adelaide Suburban, Glenlock, Mildura, Murray Bridge and Victor Harbor Ecclesias, and the IEAC.

Dear Brethren,
Loving greetings.

Over many years the Suburban Young Peoples Activities have become a valuable part of our Ecclesial life for young people. This facility provides a balance of activities to cater for their social and spiritual needs in a world that can give them nothing of lasting value. These activities draw together young people from a whole range of social and ecclesial circles, and yet united in a course of life, which can develop within them an appreciation for the ways of God. The worth of these activities in developing and promoting the spirit of the Truth in the Ecclesial environment both now and into the future is inestimable.

Amongst the young people, we have a wide variation of opinions on standards in relation to dress and attitude. Attention needs to be given to ensure our young people understand and conform to the accepted inter-ecclesial standards. This is nothing new and is something that has been constantly addressed in order to maintain a wholesome atmosphere in all that is done. Human nature is very persistent in attempting to promote “individual” standards based on current trends and not to conform to an agreed higher standard. It is essential to understand that the Suburban Young People’s environment is not the arena where these values are meant to be taught. They must be taught and promoted in the home environment, and supported by the Ecclesia so that they are naturally expected within the scope of the Suburban Young People’s activities. The wholesome atmosphere we have long enjoyed does not just happen, it has to be cultivated. Sadly non-compliance is often an issue and the work of hosting becomes exceedingly difficult when confronted by rebellion and the denial of respect for the rules and standards we ask our young people to respect.

We are seeking the renewed support of all Ecclesias who have young people from their meeting attending the Suburban Young People’s activities. Every young person and their parents should be aware of what is expected before they participate in these activities. The booklet “The Things We Stand For” plainly outlines the acceptable standards for young people’s activities. These booklets, along with introductory letters to each young person when they first attend and their parents should be considered and understood so that areas of non-conformance are minimised at all activities. Attendance at Suburban Young People’s functions is open to any young person fifteen years of age and is conditional on adhering to these standards. Please be aware that they must have already turned fifteen to be eligible for attendance.

There are a growing number of young people attending from Ecclesias which have not traditionally been associated with our Suburban Young People’s activities. They are most welcome to join us but are subject to the same rules and standards as everyone else. Young people involved with them should make them aware of the accepted standards before leaving home as we prefer not to have to deal with these issues at our first point of welcome.

There are currently a number of things that need to be addressed so that we can continue with a clear understanding of our position on dress and behaviour.

• There is a growing trend towards sloppiness in dress. The booklet “The Things We Stand For” clearly outlines what is required. For classes formal wear comparable to that of a Sunday morning meeting.
With particular reference to the boys, a collar and tie is expected to be worn. Jeans and sneakers are not classified as formal wear and should not be worn at study classes. Shirts must be of a suitable style to enable them to be tucked in as untucked shirts are unacceptable.
For the girls, modest dress is required. Interpretation here is always a problem but common sense needs to be used. Obvious immodest dress is unacceptable and anything that is borderline should be avoided. The hosts’ decision on an individual basis is final and must be respected. Remember that the style of dress should also be formal, not sloppy or provocative.
• Head coverings are required to be worn by all girls, whether baptised or not. It seems the wonderful principle of the head covering is largely misunderstood. We will address the principle with the young people separately but please be aware that it is a standard which is not negotiable.
• It is our intention to enforce matters of dress at the door. There would be no problem if young people all adhere to the simple requirements. There can be no real excuse for non-conformity. There may be parents that are unsupportive of our position on these matters but the accepted standards are not negotiable. Please put in the effort as it is not our desire to make a show of any young person. If they fail to wear a tie or head-covering, the hosts will provide one for them. There is no satisfactory excuse.
• Attendance at study classes is for the primary purpose of scriptural learning. Everyone attending must do so on the basis of respecting the purpose of this activity. We are finding that some are distracting others or disrupting the proceedings with childish behaviour. Disinterest in the meeting should not be displayed. This can result in a number of things such as foolish behaviour during hymns and prayers, frequent toilet breaks, constant talking throughout the meeting, notes back and forth, SMS messaging to others in the meeting, laughter or other forms of distraction. Sadly It is often evident amongst the same minority group each meeting.
• The Study class meetings start at the set time of 7:30 pm but many see no need to make the effort to arrive on time. Some even arriving half an hour late. This on its own is a distraction as seating is sought for the late comers. Parents need to ensure their young people leave home with adequate time to arrive well before the start time. This will help to set the proper sense of decorum of the meeting.

The hosts have been appointed to oversee these activities for the good of the whole group. We enjoy the role we play, and it is a very positive work as we watch young men and women develop within the activities of the Truth. We understand the many trials and experiences our young people face in a world that is so determined to defile their conscience and destroy the Godly principles. At times, some of this influence can become evident in their behaviour. The responsibility of the hosts is to make decisions to maintain an appropriate level of decorum.

If disciplinary action is required, the decisions of the hosts must be respected by the young people, and supported by their parents and their ecclesias. In the first instance the matter will be discussed with the young person. If this cannot be resolved, then the issue will be raised with their parents. If no improvement in the situation is evident, the matter will be referred to their home Ecclesia and the young person instructed not to attend any Suburban Young Peoples’ activities until the matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the President. This may also include referring the matter to the IEAC for direction. We would hope that such measures would never be necessary, but if the course of action is known, there can be no surprises or excuses.

As a whole, we have a wonderful group of young people. In all that we do, we seek to glorify our Heavenly Father. To that end we would seek your earnest support to maintain the spirit which strives to imitate the example of our Lord, who served his Father in the spirit of holiness with a zeal and passion in self denial.

Could you please distribute this information amongst your ecclesia so that all parents and young people understand the seriousness of the matters we have raised. Additional copies of the booklet “The Things We Stand For” are available on request.


On behalf of the Adelaide Suburban Young People
Bro Rob Scott (President)

It's made clear that the young people will not be permitted to think for themselves, and that even their parents opinions will not be taken into consideration. The role of parents has been taken over by the authorities in the youth group. "There may be parents that are unsupportive of our position on these matters but the accepted standards are not negotiable." The rules have been made and will be enforced. Even visitors from unaffiliated ecclesias will be "subject to the same rules."

No wonder that their young people are restless and inattentive in the classes when those in control are demanding adherence to "rules" rather than providing a message which is stimulating, relevant and life-changing.