What did Christadelphians set out to be? (9)

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

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

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

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


3. With increasing organisation came an increase in authoritarianism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did Christadelphians set out to be? (8)

The events of 1864, 1873 and 1885 changed the direction of the movement. I have already looked at one of the consequences of these events which were to have a lasting influence in Christadelphianism:

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

There were two more major consequences, which I will look at over the next two posts in this thread.

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

Between 1864 and 1885 there were at least 6 divisions within the Christadelphian denomination, including the major divisions caused by the disfellowships of George Dowie in 1864, Edward Turney in 1873 and Robert Ashcroft in 1885. Other 'minor' divisions (although not minor for the individuals involved) included the following.

1. Charles Dealtry, who had been baptised by John Thomas, actively preached the Christadelphian faith between 1866 and 1868 and converted many people to Christadelphianism, especially in Whitby. He was denounced in 1868 for teaching that Jesus was the son of Joseph (although he was never disfellowshipped by any ecclesia). Roberts reported in The Ambassador that the converts made by "Mr. Dealtry" (he was no longer called "Bro Dealtry") in Whitby were to be "re-immersed and organized as a Christadelphian ecclesia".
2. An unnamed ecclesia in 1876 was challenged by Roberts for teaching a doctrine he called "No Willism". It emphasised the divinity of Jesus and included the idea that Jesus pre-existed as Jehovah of the Old Testament, and therefore could have no other will than that of God Himself. Roberts responded by emphasising the humanity of Jesus in a series of articles and by 1877 it was thought that "No Willism" had been stamped out.
   
3. Soon after a pamphlet was published by John Birkenhead entitled Letters on the Doctrine of God manifestation, and Extracts from the Most Recent and Advanced Writings of the Late JOHN THOMAS, M.D. It's clear that Thomas's Christology emphasised the divinity of Jesus to a greater extent than Roberts did, especially in his response to 'No Willism' which emphasised (or over-emphasised) the humanity of Jesus. Roberts responded to the pamphlet by querying whether Christ, as the manifestation of God, had a will of his own. He was clearly trying to link Birkenhead's ideas with the "No Willism" heresy he had endeavoured to stamp out. It's unknown how many people were affected, but Andrew Wilson commented that while the numbers were likely to be small "the amount of disturbance caused ... was substantial".
   

After 1885 the process of fragmentation continued, with another major division in 1894 (Resurrectional Responsibility).

Writing of the Christadelphian ‘proclivity for schism' in this period sociologist Bryan Wilson refers to a

"series of bitter schisms. Excommunication of members and of one ecclesia by another became a common pattern in the attempt to maintain purity of doctrine and association. Whilst undoubtedly some schisms were at least partly a consequence of struggles for informal influence between leading brethren, there was always a strong concern for obedience to the word of God which led to over-scrupulousness, to purging evil men who arose in the fellowship, and hence to divisiveness."

Bryan Wilson, Religious Sects a sociological study, World University Library, London, 1970, p 109.

In his Religion in Secular Society (C.A. Watts & Co, London, 1966, pp 211-212) Bryan Wilson writes of sects which

"have changed ... in a way rather less influenced by the immediate environment, and rather more in accordance with essentially internal pressures. Thus some revolutionist sects have tended over time...to become more preoccupied with the means of their own insulation from the wider society. They have tended to become more concerned with the condition of their own society, with their own inner holiness. Sometimes ... they have developed the proclivity for schism within, often over matters which to the outsider seem trivial in the extreme... The Christadelphians have shown marked tendencies in this direction." (My emphasis)

Robert Roberts himself confessed:

"A state of comparative prosperity ten years ago has been succeeded by one of strife, division and obstruction, and unutterable affliction has followed in the wake of ventures and expectations that seemed big with blessing"

(The Christadelphian, 1890.)

Bryan Wilson, in Social Aspects of Religious Sects (London University PhD thesis 1955), calculated on the basis of figures provided by Roberts in The Christadelphian that there were about 6,000 brethren in the 'central' fellowship in 1884, and less than 3,000 the year after. Andrew Wilson provides extensive statistical information to demonstrate the sudden and dramatic departure of a large number of brethren from Christadelphianism. In overall terms the loss was between 35% and 44% of the brethren in the U.K. compared to a national annual increase in population of about 10%.

Bryan Wilson wrote that "Barely a month passed without a division in some ecclesia."

Andrew Wilson summarised this period of schism this way (my emphases in bold):

"In the seventeen years between the formation of Baptised Believers in 1847 until the adopting of the editor's mantle by Robert Roberts in 1864, no divisions occurred within the movement. In the only slightly longer period of twenty-one years from 1864 to 1885 six major rifts disturbed the theological equanimity within Christadelphia, the last, in 1885, leaving the movement bereft of many members and devoid of momentum. There is undoubtedly some connection between these two facts: it is not impossible that the abrasiveness of Roberts's personality contributed to the friction involved, as some contemporary writers maintained. Second, Roberts's method of dealing with problems - on occasion involving the curtailment of exegesis by the imposition of a guillotine on further discussion - allowed these problems to be swept under the theological carpet, by very dint of having merely brushed them aside. Such strategies accounted, in part, for the recurrence, in similar and at times identical form, of problems throughout the history of Christadelphians." (p. 364)

What did Christadelphians set out to be? (5)

I referred in my previous message to an incident in 1873 when history would repeat itself.

Edward Turney (pictured) was the editor of The Christadelphian Lamp (later renamed The Christian Lamp). In 1873, two years after the death of John Thomas, Edward Turney and Robert Roberts fell out over their understanding of the theological significance of the death of Christ. Roberts, without the ascent of his "managing brethren" or the Birmingham ecclesia (of which he was a member), unilaterally announced in The Christadelphian that he "withdrew fellowship" from Turney and all who held his beliefs. Andrew Wilson in The History of the Christadelphians 1864-1885 commented that:

"By this action, Roberts established a precedent for dealing with doctrinal dissidence ... However, stirring deep in the sensitivities of Roberts's brethren was the impression that this type of action was altogether too summary and abrupt amongst a congregation of brethren. In 1885, many Christadelphians reacted to a repetition of Roberts's conduct of 1873 by forming an entirely new sub-sect, known as the 'Suffolk Street fellowship'."

The fallout for Christadelphians was significant. In 1872 more conversions to Christadelphianism (as baptisms) were recorded in Nottingham as a result of Turney's preaching than in Birmingham where Roberts was based. A similar situation occurred in Essex where all the baptisms prior to 1873 occurred at Maldon as a result of David Handley's preaching. (David Handley [1822-1886] shared similar views with Edward Turney). After 1873 the number of baptisms in Nottingham and Essex dropped off sharply, and the Christadelphian ecclesias in these areas never regained their momentum. Wilson noted that:

"Apart from the Inspiration Controversy, which came to a head in 1885, no other schism appears from official figures to have influenced the Christadelphian movement so much as the 'Clean Flesh' heresy"* (p. 345).

Turney's supporters eventually took the name "the Nazarene fellowship" and, as far as I can tell, no longer call themselves Christadelphians. The Nazarene Circular Letter published by them continues to this day with its main readership, apparently, being among the Christadelphian community, "many of whom quietly support it" according to one of its members. In his Thinking It Over (Birmingham, 1963) Ernest Brady, a previous editor of the Nazarene Circular Letter, noted from his discussions with Christadelphians on a private basis that "a large proportion of Christadelphians" were in agreement with Nazarene views.

I mention this incident in 1873 to demonstrate that a pattern was emerging in the Christadelphian community, with Robert Roberts becoming increasingly authoritarian, and removing prominent brethren who refused to submit to his authority. It began with the disfellowship of the very capable leader George Dowie in 1864, was repeated in 1873 with the ostracism of the successful preachers Edward Turney and David Handley and their supporters, and came to a head with the excommunication of the popular speaker and writer Robert Ashcroft and the 1885 division (more on that later).

The Believers Movement was changing.


* This was the name given by Roberts' supporters to Turney's views on the atonement. Turney and his supporters were sometimes called Renunciationists by Roberts' supporters as they had renounced some of their earlier ideas.

What did Christadelphians set out to be? (4)

Early on in the Believers Movement there was an emphasis on the simplicity of the Gospel, and a resistance to any attempts to define their beliefs in a creed or statement of faith. For example, in 1855 John Thomas published a letter in his magazine from a correspondant referred to only as ‘Mary B.R.’ which included a one-paragraph summary in less than 300 words of her understanding of the Gospel. She expressed a desire to be baptised. John Thomas replied:

“Mary’s confession of faith is very intelligible, intelligent, and scriptural, and reveals no reason why water should be forbidden that she should not be baptised”.

(Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, March, 1855, page 69).

This confession did not speak of the mortality of man, the nature of the devil, the relationship between Jesus and the Father, the work of the Holy Spirit, or many other matters considered to be ‘fundamental’ by many later Christadelphians. Yet John Thomas commended it as ‘an intelligent confession’ and adequate for candidacy for baptism.

One of the prominent brethren in the Believers Movement in Scotland was George Dowie (1824-1895), being persuaded of John Thomas's views by March 1853 (a year before the 14 year old Robert Roberts was baptised in Aberdeed, Scotland). Andrew Wilson comments about him that:

"Dowie wished to preserve the exciting, experimental debatability of issues which had existed for his peers and himself in the period 1848-1864".

History of the Christadelphians: 1864-1885, Shalom Publications,1997, p. 325)

It seems that the Scots ecclesias generally were made up of such independent-minded individuals, and Dowie (pictured) was held in high esteem. He was a close friend of the Roberts family (and his signature is on Robert & Jane Roberts marriage certificate as a witness), but by 1864 they had fallen out.

For some years George Dowie published a magazine called The Messenger of the Churches (from 1858 to 1870) which circulated both in Scotland and England. Dowie published a hymn-book for the Believers in 1864, five years before Roberts produced his Golden Harp. He also wrote and published other literature for the Believers and was regarded as something of a leader, especially among the Scots Believers' churches.

Around this time John Thomas began to publish his views on the Revelation in a 3 volume series called Eureka (volume 1 was published in 1861, volume 2 in 1866 and volume 3 in 1868). Dowie disagreed with much of Thomas's interpretations, and presented an alternative view in his Messenger. Thomas made it clear to Roberts that he wasn't pleased. Relationships between Thomas and Roberts were already "frosty" (and Roberts refers to this in his autobiography). In 1864 Roberts wrote to Dowie saying that he no longer regarded him as a brother, and shortly afterwards there was a thawing in the frost between Thomas and Roberts. Later that year Roberts began publishing his own magazine, The Ambassador (later renamed The Christadelphian).

It would be unreasonable to infer from this incident alone that Roberts disfellowshipped his old friend in order to advance his own position within the Believers Movement (soon after to be renamed Christadelphians), were it not for the fact that history was to repeat itself with the disfellowship of another prominent brother, Edward Turney, in 1873 and the popular and charismatic Robert Ashcroft in 1884. (I will write further about these incidents in subsequent messages).

What is noteworthy about the disfellowship of Dowie is that it actually had nothing to do with his interpretion of Revelation - the reason for Thomas's displeasure. In an article published in April 1864 Dowie alluded to a belief in a personal devil. This gave Roberts the excuse he needed to be rid of Dowie and to regain Thomas's approval. A fellow Scot, James Cameron, pointed out that Roberts used the 'personal devil' matter as a sudden and opportunist ground for disfellowship. Until that point this had not been a cause of disfellowship and Roberts own brother-in-law pointed out his inconsistency in that another person known to Roberts was not disfellowshipped even though they held identical views to Dowie regarding the devil.

Several years later when Roberts visited the Aberdeen ecclesia (by this time known as Christadelphians) a confrontation took place and Roberts refused to break bread there because they had not endorsed his judgment in the case of George Dowie. It seems that many were not happy with the new tightening up of doctrinal views, especially when it was largely being controlled by a magazine editor, and not by consensus of the brethren.

An interesting thing about this incident is that it was apparent that not all the Believers held the same views as Thomas and Roberts about the devil, but that they did not regard differences of opinion about this as cause for separating. Another group which grew out of, or parallel with, the Believers Movement is the Church of God General Conference, sometimes called Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. To this day some Abrahamic Faith individuals and churches hold views similar to Christadelphians on the identity of the devil, while others believe the devil to be a fallen angel. This is not a cause for division and the two views exist happily side-by-side in the same church or denomination. (The Church of God General Conference [COGGC] also resembles the Believers Movement churches more closely than later Christadelphians in that they generally practice open communion rather than closed communion)*.

Incidentally, it seems that George Dowie died as a Christadelphian. After the division in 1885 when many ecclesias broke free of Roberts' authoritarianism he joined an ecclesia not under Roberts control.

In summarising what Christadelphians set out to be, my point # 4 is this:

Christadelphians set out to have a simple faith and to tolerate diversity of opinions on many matters.

* The COGGC holds many of the same doctrinal distinctives as Christadelphians. For example, they are non-trinitarian, believe in conditional immortality, the second coming, the restoration of Israel, and the kingdom of God on earth.