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 Exclusivism (in fellowship). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exclusivism (in 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, July 07, 2007
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".
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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."
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:
- Paul is not advocating any public or corporate action here. He is not telling a congregation that they should excommunicate or disfellowship any one.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- "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)
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.
Friday, July 06, 2007
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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)
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 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.
Monday, June 05, 2006
"Be perfect"
Many Christians understand Jesus' sermon on the mount as an "ideal" for Christian living, albeit an unrealistic or impossible ideal. This view is reinforced by the time we get to the first 'climax' in the sermon: "Be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matt 5:48). This seems like an impossibly high ideal if Jesus is speaking of moral perfection. However, the word translated "perfect" (Greek teleios) means "complete, whole, full-grown or fully integrated". In the context it means to be all-inclusive. In the sermon it follows the command to love our enemies (and connects to it with a "therefore"): "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous ... Therefore, be perfect ...". Jesus is saying that God loves both the evil and the good person, both the righteous and unrighteous person. We too should love our enemies as well as our friends. "Therefore, be all-inclusive, as your Father is all-inclusive".
In earlier messages I've emphasised that Jesus' message was the Gospel of the Kingdom. The sermon on the mount is the largest body of teaching in the gospels and encompasses the core teachings of Jesus. It begins with a reference to the Kingdom (the beatitudes begin and end with "... for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven"). Understanding the sermon on the mount is crucial to understanding the Gospel of the Kingdom.
John Thomas, and Christadelphians generally, have been right in identifying the centrality of the Kingdom to the Gospel. However, in his "exposition of the Kingdom of God" (Elpis Israel) John Thomas pays little attention to the sermon on the mount. Christadelphianism primarily sees the Kingdom as something which is future, and the sermon on the mount as a code of behaviour which, if followed to the best of ones limited ability, will be rewarded with a place in the future Kingdom. Christadelphains do not see the sermon as being substantially about the Kingdom. To this way of thinking the Olivet prophecy (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) with its future eschatology and its apocalyptic language is kingdom stuff, but not the sermon on the mount. Apart from the words "the meek will inherit the earth" the sermon on the mount would rarely rate a mention in a Christadelphian exposition of the Kingdom. Yet Matthew says Jesus came "preaching the Kingdom of God" (4:23) and immediately launches into his account of the sermon on the mount (chapters 5-7). This is the heart of Jesus' kingdom-message, and the first climax in the sermon is "Love your enemies ... be all-inclusive, as your Father is all-inclusive, loving good and bad, righteous and unrighteous".
This is the opposite of exclusivism, of withdrawing from others in order to maintain doctrinal purity. Jesus' kingdom-message here stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the Pharisees, and to John Thomas. In his exposition of the Kingdom Thomas missed this point completely.
If you missed my posts on the Lord's table, dealing with His table-fellowship practices, go back and read them now. You will see that in both His behaviour and in His sermon on the mount Jesus is teaching that Kingdom-people are inclusive, not exclusive. They are unconcerned with defilement by others because they radiate holiness. They look for common ground rather than points of disagreement. They tear down walls rather than erecting barriers. Theirs is a ministry of reconciliation, rather than withdrawing from others.
This message follows on from my series on early influences on Christadelphianism. If Thomas had remained connected with all those with whom he had so much in common and worked with them rather than against them, how different might things have been. If Roberts had recognised the talents and the contributions of early Christadelphian leaders rather than forcing them out of the community, how different might the community have been. Instead of the constant fighting, controversies, divisions and disfellowships, those who had been taught or influenced by Thomas might have recognised their place within a broader body of believers who genuinely endeavoured to restore the beliefs and practices of early Christianity. They may have had a greater influence for good on the Christian world than they did. Is it too late to change?
In earlier messages I've emphasised that Jesus' message was the Gospel of the Kingdom. The sermon on the mount is the largest body of teaching in the gospels and encompasses the core teachings of Jesus. It begins with a reference to the Kingdom (the beatitudes begin and end with "... for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven"). Understanding the sermon on the mount is crucial to understanding the Gospel of the Kingdom.
John Thomas, and Christadelphians generally, have been right in identifying the centrality of the Kingdom to the Gospel. However, in his "exposition of the Kingdom of God" (Elpis Israel) John Thomas pays little attention to the sermon on the mount. Christadelphianism primarily sees the Kingdom as something which is future, and the sermon on the mount as a code of behaviour which, if followed to the best of ones limited ability, will be rewarded with a place in the future Kingdom. Christadelphains do not see the sermon as being substantially about the Kingdom. To this way of thinking the Olivet prophecy (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) with its future eschatology and its apocalyptic language is kingdom stuff, but not the sermon on the mount. Apart from the words "the meek will inherit the earth" the sermon on the mount would rarely rate a mention in a Christadelphian exposition of the Kingdom. Yet Matthew says Jesus came "preaching the Kingdom of God" (4:23) and immediately launches into his account of the sermon on the mount (chapters 5-7). This is the heart of Jesus' kingdom-message, and the first climax in the sermon is "Love your enemies ... be all-inclusive, as your Father is all-inclusive, loving good and bad, righteous and unrighteous".
This is the opposite of exclusivism, of withdrawing from others in order to maintain doctrinal purity. Jesus' kingdom-message here stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the Pharisees, and to John Thomas. In his exposition of the Kingdom Thomas missed this point completely.
If you missed my posts on the Lord's table, dealing with His table-fellowship practices, go back and read them now. You will see that in both His behaviour and in His sermon on the mount Jesus is teaching that Kingdom-people are inclusive, not exclusive. They are unconcerned with defilement by others because they radiate holiness. They look for common ground rather than points of disagreement. They tear down walls rather than erecting barriers. Theirs is a ministry of reconciliation, rather than withdrawing from others.
This message follows on from my series on early influences on Christadelphianism. If Thomas had remained connected with all those with whom he had so much in common and worked with them rather than against them, how different might things have been. If Roberts had recognised the talents and the contributions of early Christadelphian leaders rather than forcing them out of the community, how different might the community have been. Instead of the constant fighting, controversies, divisions and disfellowships, those who had been taught or influenced by Thomas might have recognised their place within a broader body of believers who genuinely endeavoured to restore the beliefs and practices of early Christianity. They may have had a greater influence for good on the Christian world than they did. Is it too late to change?
For those of you who may have been receiving my articles on "Understanding Jesus' Teachings" I apologise for the hiatus in writing. I plan to resume the series shortly with some articles on the sermon on the mount and the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
The Lord's table - postcript : eating in an "unworthy manner"
At the end of the section of his letter to the Corinthians dealing with "the Lord's table", Paul wrote: "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27).
What is it to eat in "an unworthy manner"? Some Christadelphians have used this verse to defend their idea of "guilt by association" and as a reason for denying the bread and wine ('Communion') to people who do not share the same doctrinal distinctives, and even to other Christadelphians who disagree on doctrinal details.
In the context of the Corinthian division between rich and poor (see previous message) it seems certain that in Paul's mind to eat or drink "in an unworthy manner" would be to do so in such a way that our Lord's teachings about bringing together all classes and types of people (characterised by His pattern of 'table fellowship') were ignored. The Corinthian rich treated the poor with contempt, and so their meal was 'not the Lord's supper' according to Paul.
Any religious service, regardless of whether or not 'Communion' or 'breaking of bread' is a feature, if it flies in the face of our Lord's inclusiveness by denying participation to any member of the Body of Christ, is 'not the Lord's supper'. There is no reason to think that a mere token consumption of a morsel of bread and a sip of wine is 'the Lord's Supper', especially if it is based on exclusivism and denies access to anyone.
In fact, those Christadelphians who are exclusive in their fellowship practices may themselves be guilty of eating and drinking "in an unworthy manner". To celebrate breaking of bread "without recognizing the body of the Lord" is to bring judgment on ones self. Paul is saying that those who are 'in Christ' are the body of Christ and must be treated in love.
What is it to eat in "an unworthy manner"? Some Christadelphians have used this verse to defend their idea of "guilt by association" and as a reason for denying the bread and wine ('Communion') to people who do not share the same doctrinal distinctives, and even to other Christadelphians who disagree on doctrinal details.
In the context of the Corinthian division between rich and poor (see previous message) it seems certain that in Paul's mind to eat or drink "in an unworthy manner" would be to do so in such a way that our Lord's teachings about bringing together all classes and types of people (characterised by His pattern of 'table fellowship') were ignored. The Corinthian rich treated the poor with contempt, and so their meal was 'not the Lord's supper' according to Paul.
Any religious service, regardless of whether or not 'Communion' or 'breaking of bread' is a feature, if it flies in the face of our Lord's inclusiveness by denying participation to any member of the Body of Christ, is 'not the Lord's supper'. There is no reason to think that a mere token consumption of a morsel of bread and a sip of wine is 'the Lord's Supper', especially if it is based on exclusivism and denies access to anyone.
In fact, those Christadelphians who are exclusive in their fellowship practices may themselves be guilty of eating and drinking "in an unworthy manner". To celebrate breaking of bread "without recognizing the body of the Lord" is to bring judgment on ones self. Paul is saying that those who are 'in Christ' are the body of Christ and must be treated in love.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
The Lord's table (9) - the Last Supper (continued)
I've been asked to write some more material on the theme of our Lord's table fellowship practices, especially in relation to the 'Last Supper'.
I plan to write something on 3 things in particular:
1. Who was at the last supper? It's important to answer this question because some people claim that the intimacy of the occasion, the limited number (our Lord and 12 'guests'), and the secrecy surrounding the preparation of the meal indicate that when it comes to celebrating communion our Lord set an example of exclusivism (which should consequently be imitated by the church, so the argument goes). This flies in the face of Jesus' pattern of inclusivism, so the question of who was there is important.
2. The Last Supper and the sacraments. Did Jesus intend that bread and wine should be used as sacraments? What was the reason for using these two 'emblems' and how should the church observe communion today?
3. This was obviously no ordinary meal. So what was so special about it, why was it different, and how, and what are we meant to learn from it?
I'm going to be very busy next week so I will try to post as much as I can beforehand. My apologies in advance if I don't get to write much. I also haven't forgotten the other series I've started but not yet finished. It will all come together, eventually, by God's grace.
I plan to write something on 3 things in particular:
1. Who was at the last supper? It's important to answer this question because some people claim that the intimacy of the occasion, the limited number (our Lord and 12 'guests'), and the secrecy surrounding the preparation of the meal indicate that when it comes to celebrating communion our Lord set an example of exclusivism (which should consequently be imitated by the church, so the argument goes). This flies in the face of Jesus' pattern of inclusivism, so the question of who was there is important.
2. The Last Supper and the sacraments. Did Jesus intend that bread and wine should be used as sacraments? What was the reason for using these two 'emblems' and how should the church observe communion today?
3. This was obviously no ordinary meal. So what was so special about it, why was it different, and how, and what are we meant to learn from it?
I'm going to be very busy next week so I will try to post as much as I can beforehand. My apologies in advance if I don't get to write much. I also haven't forgotten the other series I've started but not yet finished. It will all come together, eventually, by God's grace.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Clean and unclean - Jesus' reaction to exclusivism
The religious leaders of Jesus' day considered themselves to be the proud custodians of a rich spiritual heritage. Of all the people of the earth God had called them - Abraham's descendants -to be the light of the world. But their exclusivism went even deeper. Within the chosen people there were people who had to be avoided because contact with them would cause righteous people to become contaminated. For good reason the Law prohibited contact with lepers and people with certain diseases, and by the time of Jesus they would have seen hidden lessons in the rules about which foods could be eaten and which could not ("clean" and "unclean" foods) about avoiding certain kinds of 'unclean' people: sinners, prostitutes, adulterers, tax collectors, homosexuals, etc.
They had a theory of contamination by contact which extended to guilt by association, so Jesus Himself, although he was "without sin" (Heb 4:15) was branded a sinner because He ate and socialised with 'sinners' (eg John 9:16).
A powerful example of how Jesus reacted to this contamination belief is in Luke 8 where we read about a woman who had had a disorder for 12 years which would have made her 'unclean'. Under the law she would have to avoid contact with other people. For example, she could not go into a busy street or market because she would contaminate anyone she touched. In a courageous act of faith this woman ventured out into a crowd in order to see Jesus. She tried to go unnoticed and came up behind Jesus and touched the edge of his cloak. Immediately she was healed of her disease. The most amazing thing about this story is not that she was healed by touching Jesus - awesome though that is - but in Jesus' reaction to it. "Who touched me?" He asked. His disciples clearly thought it was a ridiculoius question because they pointed out that He was in a crowd with people pressing and crushing against Him and each other. But Jesus said "someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me" (v. 46).
This event is more than another miracle of many. Through it Jesus challenges an entire worldview. Under the Jewish law this woman would have contaminated anyone she touched, including Jesus. Defilement flowed from the unclean to the clean. But Jesus turned this around when He said power flowed from Him - from the clean to the unclean.
So in Jesus' worldview holiness - not sin - is contagious. He went beyond this and removed the authority of the laws of clean and unclean foods which had become the basis for the guilt-by-association theory (Mark 7:19 - He declared all foods clean). Later, after His ascension, He appeared to Peter in a dream and told him to eat animals which were 'unclean' and Peter thereafter preached the Gospel to a Gentile whom he would previously have considered 'unclean' and used this as the justification for eating and associating with Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18).
For many Christadelphians the guilt-by-association theory is as powerful as it was for the Pharisees of Jesus' day and they have failed to understand Jesus' teachings about this. Their belief prevents them from associating with non-believers, but worse still it is used as the justification for disfellowshipping people who disagree with them on doctrinal details, fail to uphold their 'standards', or who mix with Christadelphians in 'other fellowships'. The theory goes that if they don't expel these people that they too will be contaminated by their 'sin'. If you don't cut out the cancer the disease will spread. However what Jesus taught was the opposite! Holiness spreads, power goes out from Him to all He touches, and from them to all they touch with the Gospel. Paul said that unbelievers could even be sanctified by their believing partners (1 Corinthians 7:14) and uses Jesus' teaching on uncleanness to make his point: "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy".
They had a theory of contamination by contact which extended to guilt by association, so Jesus Himself, although he was "without sin" (Heb 4:15) was branded a sinner because He ate and socialised with 'sinners' (eg John 9:16).
A powerful example of how Jesus reacted to this contamination belief is in Luke 8 where we read about a woman who had had a disorder for 12 years which would have made her 'unclean'. Under the law she would have to avoid contact with other people. For example, she could not go into a busy street or market because she would contaminate anyone she touched. In a courageous act of faith this woman ventured out into a crowd in order to see Jesus. She tried to go unnoticed and came up behind Jesus and touched the edge of his cloak. Immediately she was healed of her disease. The most amazing thing about this story is not that she was healed by touching Jesus - awesome though that is - but in Jesus' reaction to it. "Who touched me?" He asked. His disciples clearly thought it was a ridiculoius question because they pointed out that He was in a crowd with people pressing and crushing against Him and each other. But Jesus said "someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me" (v. 46).
This event is more than another miracle of many. Through it Jesus challenges an entire worldview. Under the Jewish law this woman would have contaminated anyone she touched, including Jesus. Defilement flowed from the unclean to the clean. But Jesus turned this around when He said power flowed from Him - from the clean to the unclean.
So in Jesus' worldview holiness - not sin - is contagious. He went beyond this and removed the authority of the laws of clean and unclean foods which had become the basis for the guilt-by-association theory (Mark 7:19 - He declared all foods clean). Later, after His ascension, He appeared to Peter in a dream and told him to eat animals which were 'unclean' and Peter thereafter preached the Gospel to a Gentile whom he would previously have considered 'unclean' and used this as the justification for eating and associating with Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18).
For many Christadelphians the guilt-by-association theory is as powerful as it was for the Pharisees of Jesus' day and they have failed to understand Jesus' teachings about this. Their belief prevents them from associating with non-believers, but worse still it is used as the justification for disfellowshipping people who disagree with them on doctrinal details, fail to uphold their 'standards', or who mix with Christadelphians in 'other fellowships'. The theory goes that if they don't expel these people that they too will be contaminated by their 'sin'. If you don't cut out the cancer the disease will spread. However what Jesus taught was the opposite! Holiness spreads, power goes out from Him to all He touches, and from them to all they touch with the Gospel. Paul said that unbelievers could even be sanctified by their believing partners (1 Corinthians 7:14) and uses Jesus' teaching on uncleanness to make his point: "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy".
Saturday, August 27, 2005
But it can't be for everyone!
In my previous post I said there were two main movements which developed early on in the first century of the Christian church:
1. Exclusivism
2. Gnosticism
I commented on Gnosticism - the belief that salvation was obtained by understanding certain truths which were hidden from those with a superficial knowledge. A modern counterpart to Gnosticism is that we are saved by having "correct doctrine" and that only those people who believe "the truth" as it is defined by the particular group will be saved. Some Christadelphians come perilously close to being Gnostics in this sense.
The main heresy which Paul resisted was Exclusivism. We encounter this movement in Paul's writings whenever he dealt with the problem of "the Judaisers". While many people think of Paul's writings to be dealing with legalism versus grace, the problem with the Judaisers was not so much one of legalistic observance of law as it was of exclusivism. Several New Testament scholars over recent years have contributed a great deal in this area, including E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and others. They have shown that Paul's argument with the Judaisers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism but was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. It was a controversy about whether Gentiles should be accepted into the new covenant people of God as Gentiles or whether they should first convert to Judaism and become Jews. Christianity, after all, was a Jewish religion.
Now, whether or not these new perspectives in contemporary New Testament scholarship on Paul's theology are totally correct, they certainly highlight what was a very real concern of Paul's.* Some members of the church were refusing to acknowledge other converts as genuine believers and required that they do "something more" in order to be accepted. The same doctrine exists today amongst those Christians who refuse to acknowledge other believers as genuine unless they adopt the beliefs and practices of their group or denomination. In it's denominational form it manifests as the view that "only Christadelphians/Jehovah's Witnesses/non-Trinitarians/Trinitarians can be saved". I've seen it go further amongst Christadelphians with the declaration that only members of certain Christadelphian fellowships can be saved! This attitude has produced what we could call "remnant theology" i.e. the view that only "a remnant" will be saved and that most believers are really deluded and only a handful really know "the Truth" which is essential to salvation. (I've actually heard of one Christadelphian fellowship who, when their numbers had dwindled to only 8 people, claimed that they would be the only 8 to be saved "just like Noah's ark"!)
But remnant theology is wrong. God's offer of salvation is inclusive, not exclusive. He is generous with his grace and offers life and life in abundance. Jesus' parables are often about the generosity of God and the lengths to which He will go to secure the salvation of a sinner. In The Revelation John sees a vision of the saved: "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language" (7:9). This is hardly remnant theology.
* For a good summary of whether the issue was exclusivism or legalism in Paul's writings see this article by Mark M. Mattison.
1. Exclusivism
2. Gnosticism
I commented on Gnosticism - the belief that salvation was obtained by understanding certain truths which were hidden from those with a superficial knowledge. A modern counterpart to Gnosticism is that we are saved by having "correct doctrine" and that only those people who believe "the truth" as it is defined by the particular group will be saved. Some Christadelphians come perilously close to being Gnostics in this sense.
The main heresy which Paul resisted was Exclusivism. We encounter this movement in Paul's writings whenever he dealt with the problem of "the Judaisers". While many people think of Paul's writings to be dealing with legalism versus grace, the problem with the Judaisers was not so much one of legalistic observance of law as it was of exclusivism. Several New Testament scholars over recent years have contributed a great deal in this area, including E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and others. They have shown that Paul's argument with the Judaisers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism but was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. It was a controversy about whether Gentiles should be accepted into the new covenant people of God as Gentiles or whether they should first convert to Judaism and become Jews. Christianity, after all, was a Jewish religion.
Now, whether or not these new perspectives in contemporary New Testament scholarship on Paul's theology are totally correct, they certainly highlight what was a very real concern of Paul's.* Some members of the church were refusing to acknowledge other converts as genuine believers and required that they do "something more" in order to be accepted. The same doctrine exists today amongst those Christians who refuse to acknowledge other believers as genuine unless they adopt the beliefs and practices of their group or denomination. In it's denominational form it manifests as the view that "only Christadelphians/Jehovah's Witnesses/non-Trinitarians/Trinitarians can be saved". I've seen it go further amongst Christadelphians with the declaration that only members of certain Christadelphian fellowships can be saved! This attitude has produced what we could call "remnant theology" i.e. the view that only "a remnant" will be saved and that most believers are really deluded and only a handful really know "the Truth" which is essential to salvation. (I've actually heard of one Christadelphian fellowship who, when their numbers had dwindled to only 8 people, claimed that they would be the only 8 to be saved "just like Noah's ark"!)
But remnant theology is wrong. God's offer of salvation is inclusive, not exclusive. He is generous with his grace and offers life and life in abundance. Jesus' parables are often about the generosity of God and the lengths to which He will go to secure the salvation of a sinner. In The Revelation John sees a vision of the saved: "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language" (7:9). This is hardly remnant theology.
* For a good summary of whether the issue was exclusivism or legalism in Paul's writings see this article by Mark M. Mattison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
