Doctrine and Conduct (3)

Going off on a tangent from the previous posts about the Jewish sh'ma and the relevance to Christian living of the doctrine of 'One God', I just want to say something about the way we teach this.

I have been associated with Christadelphians for all of my life, and for most of it I never heard the word ‘Unitarian’ used to describe Christadelphian theology. In fact, in the preface to John Thomas’s major work on ‘God manifestation’ – Phanerosis – the publisher describes him as being “neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian”. I think it’s only been the current generation of Christadelphians – and then still only a handful - who have started to borrow the term ‘Biblical Unitarians’ to describe Christadelphian theology. The avoidance of the term ‘Unitarian’ may have been to avoid any association with Universalist Unitarians, but I think it was more likely to avoid any confusion with the view held by many Unitarians that Jesus was fully human but in no way Divine, and had a human father. By describing the Godhead in terms which were “neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian” I think John Thomas, for all his faults, may have been trying to come to terms with the union of divinity and humanity in Jesus without ignoring either and without falling into the Nicean trap. (However, I think modern Christadelphians have now mostly lost sight of the “neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian” distinction.)

I do think it would be helpful to present to the Christian world an understanding of the Godhead without polarising people at trinitarian or unitarian extremes, or labelling any alternative view as ‘idolatry’ or ‘apostasy’ or ‘heresy’. If only we could explain the relationship between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit in clear, positive, Biblical and relatively simple terms without condemning any other view I think a “neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian” explanation of the relationship may have wider appeal than we might imagine.

Doctrine and Conduct (2)

The final point of my last message was this:

The Law of Moses made a "doctrinal statement" about Israel's "one God" and immediately said how they were to respond to this "doctrine" - by loving God. Jesus emphasised that the way to do this was through following Him and loving others. The doctrine has no relevance without the behaviour.

So what was the "doctrinal statement" being made in the sh'ma - "'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" - and how does this connect to the behaviour which is commanded?

I suggested that the sh'ma could be simply a statement of monotheism - i.e. there is one God - or it could be saying that Israel's God is unique, a one-of-a-kind God. These statements are not mutually exclusive of course, so the sh'ma could be saying both. However, as someone else pointed out so well, the first half of the sh'ma has no purpose without the second and Jesus gave this doctrine a greater depth of meaning by adding a new dimension. The sh'ma connected the Oneness of God with the command to love Him with our whole being, and Jesus added to this the commandment to love our neighbour as ourselves.

It seems to me then that the Jesus Creed is saying something like this:

God is One. On one level He is also "at one" with His whole creation because in Him we live and move and have our being*. There is a connectedness between everything in creation, and between the created and the Creator, and the created only finds true meaning when it realises and acknowledges this connection and responds by loving the Creator with its whole being. When the connection - the "union" or Oneness - is lost on a spiritual level between the Creator and the created, it can be restored again, but only through love. The Creator loves His creation, and when the created loves its Creator the connection begins to be restored on the spiritual level. The connection is made complete when the created discovers their part in Creation and loves themselves, others, and God. Everything is made complete, perfect and whole through love**.

God is One - He is whole, complete, and perfect. His purpose in creation is for everything to be part of the Oneness, to be "at one" with Himself in perfect unity, or Oneness, through love.

When we put the "doctrinal statement" that "God is One" in its context we see that it is really a statement about the unity which should exist in creation, and between the created and its Creator. It is not so much a statement about God as it is about God's relationship with His creation.

* Acts 17:28

** Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you. (2 Corinthians 13:11)

And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. (Colossians 3:14)

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:18)

Doctrine and Conduct (1)

It's an age-old discussion amongst Christadelphians: which is more important, doctrine or conduct?

The consensus, I think, is that both are important and neither one more than the other. Well, that's the theory at least. Just to quote myself:

“Practical teaching without sound theology is as impoverished as sound theology without practical teaching. The New Testament doesn’t make the distinction between orthodoxy [correct doctrine] and orthopraxy [good practice] that we often do, nor is there any hint in the Scriptures, as far as I can see, that God will forgive bad behavior more readily than poor theology, or vice versa. We need to teach them both and teach them well.”

In practice, however, the almost universal experience of Christadelphians is that wrong doctrine is treated far more seriously in the ecclesias than bad behaviour, and that candidates for baptism are instructed more thoroughly in doctrine than in Christian living. *

In this short series of posts I'd like to look at the teachings of Jesus and the early church to see where their emphasis was, and how this is relevant to Christadelphians in the twenty first century.

I will begin by looking at what has been called "The Jesus Creed" from Mark 12:28-31.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

This creed of Jesus begins with the creed of Israel - the sh'ma - recited twice daily by the orthodox, from Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one". This is one of the most quoted verses in the Christadelphian armoury against trinitarianism.

The sh'ma says: YHVH elohainu YHVH echad = YHVH [is] our God YHVH [is] one, OR YHVH our God [is] one YHVH, and the English translations offer both alternatives.

Either way it doesn't make a lot of sense to the English ear. It seems to me that the sh'ma isn't saying "there is one God" or "there is one YHVH". That would be a simple statement about monotheism, but that's not what the sh'ma says, regardless of whether or not monotheism is true. Rather, it is a statement about God, not about how many gods there are.

The first part seems relatively easy. YHVH elohainu = YHVH [is] our God.

Then the sh'ma makes a statement about this God of Israel and says He is "echad = one". From my Christadelphian background this also appears to be simple: God is one not three. But why on earth would the Torah be refuting an idea that wasn't going to be conceived for centuries? It would be an absurdity to argue that the Torah is really saying "in centuries from now a group within a sect of Judaism called Christianity will describe God as being Three, but in fact they will be wrong - He is One". Apart from being an anachronism it would have no relevance in the context.

On the other hand, it could be a statement about God's uniqueness in much the same way as the Son is described as "the one and only" (John 1:18 - at least in some manuscripts). So the sh'ma would be saying "YHVH is our God, and YHVH is unique". That would at least make sense.

But I sense that the sh'ma is saying something even more than "YHVH is unique, a one-of-a-kind God", true though that is, because the next verse begins with a vav - "and". YHVH is one AND you shall love YHVH ..." So the statement is relational: we are to love because He is echad=one. Turn that into simply an anti-trinitarian statement and it sounds absurd: "God is one [not three] so therefore love Him" (as if we can love Him because He is One, but not if He were Three).

I was discussing this with a former Christadelphian (Allon Maxwell) who made a great point:

Without the second half [of the sh'ma] the first has no real purpose.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength."

If we don't get that second half of the SHEMA right, knowing how many Gods make one won't help at all. And worrying about how to pronounce it properly has all too often become a side track which diverts attention from learning how to love Him properly!

I think it's really important to get Allon's point: the first half of the Jesus creed has no purpose without the second.

Scott McKnight (“The Jesus Creed” 2004) demonstrated nicely that Jesus actually emphasised the point of Israel’s creed for His followers and elaborated it by adding Leviticus 19:18 - the commandment to love others – in addition to the commandment to love God. This highlights where Jesus saw the emphasis.

So the Law of Moses made a "doctrinal statement" about Israel's "one God" and immediately said how they were to respond to this "doctrine" - by loving God. Jesus emphasised that the way to do this was through following Him and loving others. The doctrine has no relevance without the behaviour.


* As an aside, I am reminded of a sign I've sometimes passed on a local Christadelphian hall: "Sincerity without truth cannot save". I've been tempted to pin a note to their door saying "Truth without sincerity cannot save either. In fact, neither truth nor sincerity saves - we are saved by grace".

The Middle East conflict (4)

The idea that Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA get a mention in Ezekiel 38 is very popular with some Christadelphians (following John Thomas), so while on the subject of Ezekiel 38 I though I'd take a look at this one.

The argument goes that "the merchants of Tarshish and all their young lions" (v. 13) is a reference to Britain (Tarshish) and the English-speaking world ("the young lions"). The argument relies fairly heavily on some war-time posters from World War I which depicted Britain and the Empire as a lion with its cubs, and a fairly spurious interpretation of the word "Britanica" as "land of tin" (and Tarshish was a source of tin, according to Ezekiel 27:12). Some interpreters have Tarshish in Spain (Tartessus) or in Turkey (Tarsus).

According to 1 Kings 10:21 and 2 Chron 9:21 Solomon had “a fleet of trading ships [KJV “a navy of Tharshish” Heb. Tarshish ships] at sea along with the ships of Hiram. Once every three years it returned, carrying gold, silver and ivory, and apes and baboons [NIV] / peacocks [KJV].” The interesting thing is that “ivory, apes and baboons/peacocks” don’t come from Britain, or Spain, but Africa and India. In fact, according to Gesenius, the word “ivory” [Heb. shenhabbiym] literally means “the tooth [shen] of an elephant [habbiiym]”, but the word habbyim comes from the Sanskrit word ibha, not from a Hebrew root (the usual Hebrew word for “elephant” is piyl), so we should definitely be looking at India as the source of the ivory. There is some evidence that the Phoenician traders circumnavigated Africa and that ships from Tyre may have made it as far as India.

This would also explain why Solomon, and later Jehoshaphat, built ships at Ezion Geber (1 Kings 9:26; 22:48). “King Solomon also built ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea. And Hiram sent his men—sailors who knew the sea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon's men.” 2 Chron 20:36 says that these ships were built “to go to Tarshish”. The route to India would have been considerably shorter from Ezion Geber (modern Eilat at the tip of the Red Sea) than from Tyre.

Tarshish is also linked in the Bible with Ophir (e.g. 1 Kings 22:48). The Greek translators of the Bible rendered the Hebrew word Ophir with the Coptic word Sophir, meaning India, although the exact identification of Ophir has not yet been proven. Josephus also identified Ophir as India.

It seems to me from Ezekiel 38:13 that the grouping “Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish” suggests they are in the same area. If Sheba and Dedan are on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula (Sheba near Yemen and Dedan near Oman) then they would be in the vicinity of merchant ships sailing from Ezion Geber. The most likely identification for “Tarshish” would be somewhere near the Arabian peninsula, or even India, but definitely not Britain.

Incidentally, “merchants of Tarshish" does not mean the merchants were inhabitants of Tarshish. In the same way that “ships of Tarshish” described a kind of long-distance, sea-going, merchant vessel, so “merchants of Tarshish” probably described the kind of traders who would be interested in “a plunder and a booty” (Ezek 38:13). We don’t need to identify where Tarshish is, as the nation itself is not necessarily part of the confederacy, but, if it were, then it would be closer to the Arabian peninsula (Sheba and Dedan) than to Britain.

The Middle East conflict (3)

I've been asked for some clarification about the sequence of battles in the 'end times', particularly whether Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 38 are the same conflict.

There are several important differences between the descriptions of the invasions in Zechariah 14/Joel 3/Ezekiel 35/Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38-39.

• Gog invades when the people are dwelling safely, at peace, without walls or gates. The description of Israel’s condition in Ezekiel 38: 8-11 is remarkably similar to these prophecies of Messiah's reign:

• "Every man will sit under his own vine
  and under his own fig tree,
  and no one will make them afraid,
  for the LORD Almighty has spoken." (Micah 4:4)
• "In his days Judah will be saved
  and Israel will live in safety.
  This is the name by which he will be called:
  The LORD Our Righteousness." (Jeremiah 23:6)
• "I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety." (Jeremiah 32:37)
• "I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety." (Ezekiel 34:25)

This suggests that Gog invades after Jesus has commenced his reign.

• Zechariah 14 says the city is taken and the people go into captivity. Gog in Ezekiel 38 is defeated, but there is no mention of even an initial victory of any type, or a single drop of Jewish blood being shed.

• Zechariah 14 says the Lord will come to the Mount of Olives to deliver Israel from the invader. Ezekiel 38 says nothing about Israel being delivered. It seems that the invader is destroyed almost before he begins.

I don’t think there is anything in Scripture to suggest that the Messiah reigns unopposed and in peace from the commencement of His kingdom. In fact Psalm 2:2 suggests the opposite. ("The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.")

The way I envisage this being worked out is something like this:

1. Israel is invaded by a confederacy of her neighbours (Psalm 83). Jerusalem is taken (Zechariah 14:2 and Ezekiel 36:2).
   
2. Jesus will return to deliver Israel and Jerusalem from their captivity at the hands of this invading force made up of her neighbours (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinians).
   
3. The invader is defeated in Jerusalem (Joel 3 gives further details).
   
4. Jesus then commences His reign in Jerusalem.
   
5. Some time later, after Israel has begun to enjoy peace and safety, other Islamic nations (from “the four corners of the earth”) come against the Land and against the Lord. They are summarily defeated.
   
6. I have no idea how long it will be between the two conflicts. It’s possible that the western (‘Christian’) nations will be amongst the first to acknowledge the King in Jerusalem as the true Messiah. If so, they will give Him their allegiance and their tributes. Israel will become a wealthy nation, and the nations who have refused to accept Jesus’ sovereignty will come against the Land “to take plunder and to take a booty”.

The Middle East conflict (2)

I just want to clarify something from my earlier post, regarding Ezekiel 38. It seems that John picked up from Ezekiel that the Gog/Magog confederacy comes from the “four corners of the earth” (Rev 20:8). That’s another way of saying (a) they come from all points of the compass and (b) they are distant from Israel.

These are the directions they come from (relative to Israel):

Magog = north
Meshech & Tubal = north
Gomer = north
Togarmah “of the uttermost parts of the north”
Persia = east
Ethiopia = south
Libya = west
Sheba & Dedan = south
Tarshish = south

Hence, “from the four corners of the earth”.

None of these nations are neighbours of Israel, which I believe is significant. The nations occupying these territories today are all Islamic, which I believe is also significant.

A positive view of hell

I have been thinking for some time that the Christadelphian understanding of hell (which is shared with several other denominations as well as individuals in mainstream denominations which might 'officially' hold the traditional view) is more in keeping with a Grace-based understanding of the Gospel than the traditional view.

One of the cornerstones of the Gospel is "God is love" and "God so loved that He gave ... that we should not perish". Another cornerstone is that God is gracious and it is His pleasure to give us the Kingdom.

The 'annihilationist' view of hell (i.e the wicked perish and cease to exist) together with the 'conditional immortality' view (i.e. that immortality is God's gift and the soul is not inherently immortal) offer an understanding of life-after-death which is consistent with these foundations of Christianity (i.e. God's love and graciousness).

In my view, the understanding of resurrection and life-after-death which is held by Adventists, some of the Church of God groups, Christadelphians and others is not only a better interpretation of Scripture than the traditional views, but if presented well would also be more appealing to the large number of people who have trouble reconciling the idea of a loving God with eternal torments.

Unfortunately, Christadelphians often present this understanding of life-after-death in a negative way.

• "Immortality of the soul is unscriptural".
• "Christendom is astray from the Bible".
• "The soul that sins will die".

Lectures, booklets and the general presentation of the subject are sometimes slanted more to criticising other denominations and less towards offering hope. Presented negatively (attacking a "doctrine to be rejected") the Christadelphian understanding has the majority perishing without hope, and only an elite (who have correctly understood this doctrine, and others) being saved from extinction.

But taught positively, the same doctrine emphasises a loving God Who wants everyone to be saved, Who makes it easy for us to be saved, Who empowers and enables us to do what it takes to be saved, and Who demonstrated His commitment to our salvation through His Son.

The same doctrine can be taught either as "your loved ones aren't in heaven" (sad) or "no one is being tortured in hell" (great news!). It can be taught either as "God dislikes the world so much that only a handful of humanity will be deemed worth saving" or as "God loves the world so much that He will do anything so you can share eternity with Him".

Same doctrine. Different packaging. One is grace-less, the other grace-based.

But when a beautiful doctrine which offers hope for the world is taught by grace-killers, you end up with something unappealing and discouraging and with a perverted view of God.

Let's rescue the doctrine of the resurrection and teach it positively and well.

The Middle East conflict

The recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon has attracted a great deal of attention, as expected, from Bible readers who are interested in prophecy. I recently shared some thoughts about Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 with some friends, and I thought I'd post them here as well for a wider audience.

I was born at about the time of the ‘56 Suez Crisis (so I don't remember it!), but I do recall very vividly the 6 day war in 1967. As part of a Christadelphian family I remember hearing throughout the war that Jesus was about to return any day (and I wondered at the time why I still had to go to school if the Kingdom was about to begin!)

I also remember that during the Yom Kippur war in 1973 there was a great deal of excitement again, and an expectation that the end might be near, although the excitement was less intense than in 1967.

It’s interesting to see in all these conflicts how the 10 nations of Psalm 83 are lining up for an invasion of Israel, as well as the ‘outer circle’ of Ezekiel 38 getting ready for the next wave of attack. I believe that every conflict in the middle east has been significant as the nations are positioning themselves ready for Armageddon.

By “the 10 nations in Psalm 83” I mean the 10 tribes/nations which are listed in the Psalm, and not 10 corresponding modern nations. I believe a mistake made by some interpreters of prophecy (including many Christadelphians) is to look for the modern descendants of peoples mentioned in prophecy, rather than trying to identify the land they occupied. So, for example, some Christadelphians follow John Thomas’s error in identifying “Gomer” in Ezekiel 38 as France, on the reasoning that the descendants of Gomer, the Gauls, migrated westwards and settled in France, or “Magog” as Germany because the decendants of Magog, the Scythians, later settled along the banks of the Danube (or even more unlikely is his identification of ‘Tarshish’ as Britain). In my opinion, prophecy should be interpreted by looking at the territory the named tribe or nation occupied at the time the prophecy was given, and to identify the modern nation occupying the same territory.

By following this hermeneutic we don’t need to find modern-day descendants of the Amalekites, for example – we need to identify who occupies the territory which the Amalekites occupied at the time the Psalm was written. By the same rule, we won’t find any Philistines living anywhere today, but we do find a hybridised group of Egyptians/Syrians/Jordanians living in the territory of Philistia and calling themselves by the latinised/anglised name for Philistia (Palestine).

The territories occupied by the nations/tribes named in Psalm 83 are roughly as follows:

1. Edom – in modern Jordan
2. Ishmaelites – in modern Saudi Arabia
3. Moab – in modern Jordan
4. Hagrites – the territory bordering modern Jordan and Saudi Arabia
5. Gebal – probably modern Golan Heights and nearby in Syria
6. Ammon – in modern Jordan
7. Amalek – in modern Sinai peninsula and the Negev
8. Philistia – modern Gaza Strip, part of the Palestinian authority
9. Tyre – in modern Lebanon
10. Assyria – modern Syria and Iraq

The important thing to notice, I think, is that the Psalmist here lists a group of nations/tribes which immediately surround Israel on all sides. The nations of Ezekiel 38, on the other hand, are a great distance from Israel, although they too are found in all directions. While the “Gog and Magog” of Revelation 20:8 is probably a prophecy about a different event, John picks up the point from Ezekiel that this confederacy comes from “the four corners of the earth”. There is no correspondence or overlapping between the nations of Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38.

What I see by comparing the main prophecies of the final conflict is this sequence:

1. An invasion of Israel by her immediate neighbours (Psalm 83; Zechariah 14; Ezekiel 35; Joel 3) - an ‘inner circle of nations’
2. Jerusalem is taken captive (Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 35)
3. The Lord returns and delivers Jerusalem, and rescues Israel from its surrounding enemies, and establishes His Kingdom.
4. Israel dwells in peace, “safely” and “without walls or gates” (Ezek 38:8,11).
5. An invasion of Israel by an ‘outer circle of nations’ - “from the four corners of the earth” (Ezekiel 38)
6. The outer circle of invaders is defeated.
7. The Kingdom expands peacefully (Psalm 72).

It’s significant that both the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ circles of nations described above are all Islamic nations.

It’s also interesting that the only list of 10 confederate nations or tribes anywhere in Scripture is in Psalm 83. These may be the ‘10 toes’ of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, or the ten heads or ten horns mentioned elsewhere, but I wouldn’t push the point.

Listening prayer

There has recently been some discussion on the Truth Alive forum about listening in prayer for the voice of God. I think I may have touched on this earlier on this blog, perhaps under the "Intimacy with God" thread. It's something I'm often asked about, and I frequently have Christadelphians ask me for suggestions on how to listen for the voice of God.

I recently came across a helpful model for "listening prayer" based on the Lord's prayer, in Kingdom Ethics by Glen Stassen and David Gushee (Intervarsity Press 2003). The Lord's Prayer has a sevenfold structure, so it lends itself to being used in this way - taking one section each day for a week.

Here are some extracts from this book which may be helpful.

Sunday (or day 1):

Hallowed be your name.

Ask God to give you an idea concerning how God's name could be hallowed in your day - through what you are inspired to do, or what you pray someone else might do; for a small, thoughtful initiative that you could take.

Monday (or day 2):

Your kingdom come.

Consider how God's kingdom (understood as the reign of God) might come in your own life in the next 24 hours, and how your own behaviour might be out of step with the reign of God

Tuesday (or day 3):

Your will be done.

Ask for God's guidance for how you might be able to do God's will in a way you might not have thought of, or would not have been empowered to try, if you had not listened in God's presence.

Wednesday (or day 4):

Give us today enough bread for the coming day.

As well as our own needs, this prayer demands our attention to the needs of those around us. In listening prayer open your mind so God might give you a vision of human need that you could help meet during the next 24 hours.

Thursday (or day 5):

Forgive us our debts (as we forgive our debtors).

Ask to be made aware of a part of your life where you could use some forgiveness, and of another person in your relationships who could use some forgiveness from you. or from someone else whom you could help do some forgiving. Ask for God to give you a word of forgiveness that you can take to heart, or that you can speak to someone else.

Friday (or day 6):

Do not bring us into a time of trial/temptation.

Confess to God some temptation in your life, admit you cannot solve it yourself, and ask for God to make you aware of how the vicious cycle works and how you can be delivered. Or you can pray for someone else's empowerment to avoid temptation, or for a supporting word to come to you to mention to that other person.

Saturday (or day 7):

Deliver us from the evil one.

Ask that you be made aware of God's delivering action in your life or the life of someone else, and how you can participate in God's dynamic presence to deliver.

A path for healing

I read with interest this morning that actor-director Mel Gibson has issued an apology to Jews for anti-Semitic remarks made to an officer who arrested him for suspicion of drunk driving.

In his apology, Mr Gibson said his actions Saturday went against his Roman Catholic beliefs.

"The tenets of what I profess to believe necessitate that I exercise charity and tolerance as a way of life," he said. "Every human being is God's child, and if I wish to honor my God I have to honor his children. But please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith."

Of further interest to me was the comment that Mr Gibson said he wants to meet with Jewish leaders to make amends.

"I'm not just asking for forgiveness," he said. "I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one-on-one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing."

In his statement Mr Gibson referred to "the consequences hurtful words can have" and said:

"I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery. Again, I am reaching out to the Jewish community for its help. I know there will be many in that community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed."

I don't want to comment on MR Gibson's Catholic beliefs or the incident which led to his outburst. However, I personally think it is very commendable that he decided to not simply issue an apology, but to take it a step further in trying to understand why he came out with "those vicious words" in the first place and to seek healing, both within himself and with the people he has offended.

Personally I feel there is a good example and a lesson there for us. If we offend someone it's often not good enough to simply apologise. We also need to follow the path for healing.

I will build my church (7) - orthodoxy and orthopraxy

July was a particularly busy month for me and I didn't get to post anything on my blog at all. However, I'm in the process of going through a career change and this is currently enabling me to have some more free time and I'm hoping to be able to write more frequently in the future.

To fully know Jesus, and to know what Christianity is really about, involves active participation in community life and through developing relationships with other people, and not simply by learning propositional truths or facts about Christianity (even if we affirm there are propositional truths about Christianity). Christianity is not an idea - it's a way of life.

Jesus said "by this shall men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another" (John 13:35). He didn't say "the most convincing evidence of Christianity is fulfilled prophecy" or "people will know you are my disciples if you teach all the first principles simply yet thoroughly". What He said was, the only way to show people that you my disciples is to show them. We are called to live His teachings - to love one another.

Our best apologetic (and also our worst!), is our behaviour. Our behaviour towards each other can either attract people to the teachings of Jesus, or repel them. Bad behaviour can not only turn people away from the church, but also from the teachings which the church is supposed to put into practice. There are many people in the world who won't ever open a Bible because they look at Christians and don't like what they see.

I was interested to see that I was recently quoted in Anthony Buzzard's "Focus on the Kingdom" magazine (June 2006):

“Practical teaching without sound theology is as impoverished as sound theology without practical teaching. The New Testament doesn’t make the distinction between orthodoxy [correct doctrine] and orthopraxy [good practice] that we often do, nor is there any hint in the Scriptures, as far as I can see, that God will forgive bad behavior more readily than poor theology, or vice versa. We need to teach them both and teach them well.”

"I will build my church" (6) - the church, the kingdom and DTBR

For the unitiated DTBR means "doctrines to be rejected" and refers to those clauses in the various Christadelphian statements of faith which define the faith "negatively" i.e. they are doctrines Christadelphians do not believe. In the Birmingham amended statement of faith, for example, clause 12 of "Doctrines to be rejected" says "That the Kingdom of God is 'the church.'"

In other words, Christadelphians reject the doctrine that the Kingdom of God is 'the church.'

As with many of the DTBR this statement stands alone without any explanation or clarification and has led to enormous confusion. Note that it does not say that Christadelphians reject the notion that the church is the Kingdom of God, but rather that the Kingdom of God is 'the church.' That might sound like pedantry, but it's an important distinction which many Christadelphians have noted.

In other words, the statement of faith rejects the view that any and all references to the Kingdom of God in Scripture are referring to the church; but that is not the same as saying that the church is the Kingdom of God. It's like the difference between saying "the ocean is made of water" and "this is water, therefore it's part of the ocean". The church can be part of the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God does not comprise only the church.

Confusing? It sure is. That's one reason why many Christadelphian ecclesias these days don't include the DTBR in their statement of faith - they raise more questions than they answer.

However, one of the casualties of this awkward way of defining "the truth" both positively and negatively (i.e. "Truth to be received" and "Doctrines to be rejected") is that it has led to confusion on several of the DTBR. They say what Christadelphians don't believe without necessarily saying what they do believe about the matter. Some people mistakenly read clause 12 as meaning that the church is not part of the Kingdom of God, and therefore react against any suggestion that the Kingdom has a present reality which is manifested in the church.

But Jesus came to establish the Kingdom, and to build His church. He called people to live in community as the people of God, now and in the future. The kingdom is "now" as well as "not yet" - it has a present reality, and a future consummation.

The church, the assembly of (new) Israel, the holy nation, the people of God, exists today as the first stage of the Kingdom of God.

The teaching of Jesus about this is so clear that the only reason I can think of why so many Christadelphians have missed this important truth is that they have been conditioned by this confusing and awkward negative clause in their statement of faith which steers them away from thinking in any terms which might identify the church with the Kingdom.

The church is made up of Kingdom-people, living Kingdom-dynamics. They live not only in expectancy of the Age to Come, but they are empowered, enabled and energised by the powers of the coming age to live a Kingdom-life today.

"I will build my church" (5) - the church and the kingdom

I commented in an earlier post that Jesus hardly ever talked about "church". What Jesus talked about repeatedly was the Kingdom, and it's not until we get to Acts that the word church/ekklesia is used as the usual way to describe the people of God.

And when Jesus talked about the kingdom, what He often spoke about was relationships and living in community.

In a post about Jesus' Gospel of Grace I wrote this about the Matthew 13 Kingdom-parables:

Matthew groups several parables together in a collection of stories beginning with the words “the kingdom of heaven is like …” (Matthew 13). An interesting thing about these parables is that none of them speak specifically about the kingdom as our reward or of a kingdom in the way we might think of one: as a nation or country. In fact, they don’t seem to be speaking about a future kingdom at all, but describing how the kingdom is preached, how it begins, and the characteristics of the people who respond to the kingdom-message, the citizens of the kingdom. In fact, Jesus says almost nothing about the future kingdom after His second coming.

In another post about Jesus' Kingdom-parables in Matthew 13 I wrote:

While the parable of the wheat and tares reveals how the kingdom co-exists with evil in the world, the parable of the fish in the net reveals how both good and bad people exist together in the community of people who have been “caught up” by the good news of the kingdom. The Jews expected the Messiah to destroy all the godless nations and gather together a holy people. But Jesus came “not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17) and brought together a group of people who were rejected by society. Rather than destroying these “godless” people, Jesus called them into His kingdom. His invitation went out to all kinds
of people, and the “net” caught up all sorts of people. Sorting out the good from the bad must await the last day, when the kingdom will become a perfect community.

Immediately after writing that "Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom" (Matt 4:23) Matthew immediately launches into his account of the sermon on the mount (chapters 5-7). At the heart of this sermon is the message to love our enemies and to be all-inclusive. The creed of Jesus, based on the creed of Israel, is this:

"The most important [commandment]," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." "

(Mark 12:29-31).

The sermon on the mount encapsulates much of the ethical teaching of Jesus. Here, and in many of the parables, stories and sayings, Jesus teaches about living in relationship with others, friend and foe. But His message was not just about getting on with people: His primary concern was about building a community of people whose relationships with each other are modeled on and flow from the example of God Himself in His dealings with His people. Jesus Gospel of Grace, for example, was about acting graciously to others in response to God's grace to us.

In preaching about the Kingdom Jesus taught about forgiveness, reconciliation with others, friendship and living in community. The Kingdom of God consists of people who are living these Kingdom-dynamics. Even stories which are specifically described as parables "of the Kingdom" are actually about God's inclusiveness, and the "righteous" and "sinners" co-existing together. They emphasise the diversity of people in the Kingdom, and the acceptance of people rejected by society (and by religious leaders). The Kingdom preached by Jesus is about justice for the disenfranchised, and the integration back in to the community of the outcasts.

This is the new Israel - the restored, rebuilt people of God. A community of God's people as God intended it to be.

Jesus taught that this new Israel, the Kingdom of God, the assembly of God's people, would come in two stages. Like the prophets of Israel He taught about the Age to Come, and taught His disciples to pray "Your Kingdom come" (Matt 6:10). But He also taught that the power of this coming Kingdom was breaking in to the present age - "the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt 12:28). The writer to the Hebrews picks up the point and speaks of believers as "those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age" (Hebrews 6:4-6).

The "now" kingdom reality is a "taste" of the "not yet" final consummation in the age to come. The citizens of the Age to Come are living now as the community of God.

"I will build my church" (4) - the church in Hebrews

The writer to the Hebrews was writing to a similar (or same) group of Jewish Christians as was Matthew. It's significant that the sole mention of the church/ekklesia in Hebrews is in the context of comparing and contrasting the assembly of Israel in the wilderness and the community of the new Israel.

After writing of Israel gathered at Mt Sinai, he goes on to say:

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect ..."

(Hebrews 12:22-23).

This supports the interpretation that on the lips of Jesus the word "church/ekklesia" was a reference to the community of Israel, which He would restore. We need to understand this word in its Jewish context, not from its Greek origins.

"I will build my church" (3) - the church in Matthew's Gospel

As noted earlier, the only references to the word church/ekklesia on Jesus' lips are two places in Matthew's Gospel.

Before looking at them, we should ask "why Matthew"? In other words, why didn't Mark, Luke or John use the word in their accounts of the Lord's life? To answer that, we need to understand that each Gospel-writer was writing to a different audience, and their language and choice of sayings, stories and incidents in the Lord's life reflect the language, backgrounds and interests of their particular audience as well as telling us something about the writer himself.

Matthew wrote for an audience of Jewish Christians. He quotes frequently from the Jewish Bible - the Law and the Prophets - in a way which indicates that his audience was familiar with it. He starts his account of the life of Jesus by establishing Jesus' pedigree, and His claim to the Kingship of Israel. Matthew writes to people who are familiar with offering sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple (Matt 5:23-24), and possibly still did at the time of writing. Of the four Gospel writers it is only Matthew who records these words of Jesus: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt 5:17). His audience had been raised on the Law and were very sensitive to any suggestion that it was no longer relevant. In fact, it's almost certain that Matthew's audience was Jewish Christianity, as distinct from Gentile Christians. They identified more closely with Peter and James than with Paul. They believed in Jesus as the Messiah of Israel while still maintaining their Jewish customs and culture. Jewish Christianity was quite distinct from Greek, Roman or African Christianity and its likely that each had their own customs, traditions and practices.

So when we read the word "church/ekklesia" in Matthew, we should realise that Matthew is using this word in the way the Jewish Christians would have understood it. The word ekklesia literally means an assembly, and Stephen used this word in Acts 7:38 when referring to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness. So when Jesus was talking about winning back "a brother who has sinned against you" He says to first speak with him one-on-one, and if that fails to then take one or two others, and if that fails then "take it to the assembly" (Matt 18:15-17). He is saying that in order to bring about a reconciliation we should involve the whole community if necessary. Now to Matthew's audience that "assembly" may well have been the local synagogue, the gathering-point for much of the life of the community. At the time the words were spoken there was no "church" in the sense of a Christian meeting, and the word would have been an anachronism in this sense. Matthew's "church" was the local community, probably assembled in a synagogue.

Stephen's use of the word ekklesia to describe Israel (Acts 7:38) makes use of the Greek word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate the Hebrew word for the assembly of Israel. Ekklesia was understood in its Jewish sense, not a Greek one.

To Stephen, and Matthew, the church/ekklesia was Israel.

When Jesus said to Peter "on this rock I will build my church/ekklesia/assembly" (Matt 16:18) He was referring to the Kingdom of God about which He was preaching. He was using Old Testament language to refer to the assembly of God's people and was drawing on Prophetic language which described Israel as a tent or building which had collapsed and which would be restored by the Messiah. James used the same Prophetic language at the Jerusalem Council:

"Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
that have been known for ages.

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

(Acts 15:13-19).

The "assembly" which Jesus said He would build was to be the restored ruins of David's fallen kingdom. It was to be a new Israel, made up of both Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus use of the word ekklesia in Matthew's Gospel refers in one instance to the local contemporary community assembly in Israel, and in the other to the new assembly of God's people which He would establish. It's prophetic language - Kingdom language. There is no hint in either place that Jesus has in mind an institutionalised organisation which would become known as "the church".

"I will build my church" (2)

Nearly six months ago I began a series on this theme, but only got as far as the first post.

I plan to take it up again, so here is a brief overview of what I plan to write about.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus hardly ever talked about "church"? In fact, the word church occurs only twice in the Gospels, both times in Matthew. What Jesus talked about repeatedly was the Kingdom, and it's not until we get to Acts that the word ekklesia/church is used as the usual way to describe the people of God.

I'd like to explore what Jesus meant by "church" when He said "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18).

• What exactly did Jesus intend to build?
• Is this reflected in the way anyone actually does church?
• Is it reflected in Christadelphian ecclesias?

This series will also tie together some threads from the series I've written about the characteristics of Christian leaders (i.e what leadership means in the church Jesus is building) and the earlier posts on the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Lord's table.

House church "heretics"

Matt Green of Ministry Today has commented on George Barna's Revolution released last year and his controversial vision of the future that sees 70 percent of the church worshipping in non-traditional settings such as house churches within the next 20 years.

He noted that an argument against the house church movement popped up in a recent article in the Washington Post, where it is suggested that house churches are more vulnerable to heresy, because they lack the accountability of established churches and denominations.

Matt Green writes:

The Reformation was a movement of doctrinal purification that emerged from the decay of institutional heresy. Apparently the strong "leadership" of generations of popes, bishops and priests was inadequate to protect the church from doctrines and practices so bizarre they would be considered downright cultish by today's standards. An indulgence anyone? In fact, as many would argue, the leaders were the ones who concocted these abberations to begin with! It was when the exclusive right to interpret the Word of God was pried from the grasp of clergy that the laity discovered that they had been duped. Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers - believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy. However flawed, the house church movement is one attempt to correct this imbalance.

Well, those of us who believe that the Gospel needs to be rescued from institutional Christianity would find agreement with that.

Green goes on to say:

No, house churches are the least likely seedbeds of heresy. In fact, they are the natural offspring of the Reformation's cry: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda ("The church reformed and always to be reformed"). As with any renewal movement, there will be pockets of excess and room for correction. For instance, in the coming years, the house church movement will have to tackle challenges of elitism, leadership, accountability and - of course - heresy. But like the rest of the Body, they won't be facing these alone (see Matt. 18:20).

My favourite comment in his article is this:

"... doctrine (like political power) should not be preserved by an ecclesiastical elite. It must be articulated, taught, transmitted and understood by the laity."

"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?

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.

Early influences on Christadelphianism (9) - further conclusions

The Christadelphian community has been plagued with controversy and division since its inception. In an earlier series of posts (What did Christadelphians set out to be?) I looked at some of the early Christadelphian leaders who were forced out of the community.

There is some evidence that George Dowie (disfellowshipped by Roberts in 1864) and Robert Ashcroft (disfellowshipped by Roberts in 1884) in the UK allied themselves with Benjamin Wilson's group - the Brethren of the One Faith - in the US. (I've also wondered about how and why copies of Edward's Turney's Christadelphian Lamp found their way into the archives of the Church of God General Conference at the Atlanta Bible College - perhaps Turney, who had been disfellowshipped by Roberts in 1873, also made contact with believers in the Age to Come movement in the US).

These connections are interesting for a couple of reasons:

• It shows that these men saw themselves as part of a movement which was wider than Christadelphianism, and they had a great deal in common with people in similar groups from which John Thomas had separated. Perhaps their own rejection at the hands of Thomas and Roberts compelled them to look again at the reasons why the leaders of the Age to Come movement in the US had similarly been rejected by Thomas, although this is speculation on my part.

• It suggests that in taking a heavy-handed approach to brethren whose opinions differed to his own Robert Roberts was simply following a pattern which had been set by his mentor John Thomas.

Together, Roberts and Thomas were building a 'denomination'. Roberts tried to organise the denomination into an organisation with rules, a creed and a headquarters in Birmingham (with himself firmly in control). His organising abilities were such that he was successful to some extent, although almost half of all Christadelphians in the UK left his central fellowship in 1884-85 and the community has been splintered ever since.

However, the men from whom Thomas had withdrawn were part of a movement which sought to restore early Christianity. The Christian Connection of Elias Smith and Abner Jones tried to discover and restore the beliefs and practices of the first century church. In doing so they emphasised the Oness of God and the mortality of the soul as key parts of primitive Christianity. Joseph Marsh, who was baptised and ordained in the Christain Connection, contributed a great deal in teaching about the restoration of Israel and the Age to Come and establishing the Age to Come movement. The churches established by Barton Stone, Thomas Campbell and Alexander Campbell became known as the Restoration Movement because they were also endeavouring to restore primitive Christianity. To some extent they were successful and Christadelphianism owes many of its practices, beliefs and traditions to this movement.

Restorationism, the Age to Come movement, Adventism, the One Faith movement ('the Abrahamic Faith') and Christadelphianism were linked together and were part of a broader attempt to restore original Christianity. Each group or movement has been successful to varying extents, but does any one group have 'the whole truth'? I doubt it, and I believe there is still a great deal to be learned and gained from interacting with others whose spiritual journey has taken them down a slightly different path.

Almost every doctrine of Christadelphianism can be found within this movement because Christadelphianism came out of it. John Thomas didn't 'discover' anything new or unique or original. He learned it all from being involved with a community of believers, and not from studying the Bible alone. Surely there is a lesson here. I believe that Christadelphians as individuals and as ecclesias will develop, grow and prosper only to the extent that they see their place within the broader body of Christ and interact with others who have things in common, seeking ways to unite rather than reasons to divide, looking out rather than within, and building rather than tearing down.

Early influences on Christadelphianism (8) - conclusions

When we look at the various people who influenced John Thomas's thinking and with whom he was associated at various times, and the reasons why he separated from them, we see a pattern emerging.

Just to briefly recapitulate:

• For some time Thomas was very friendly with George Storrs, the foremost proponent of conditional immortality (the mortality of the soul) in the US. After disagreeing about the importance of baptism they parted company, and Thomas wrote some critical words about "Mr" Storrs (no longer "brother Storrs").
  

• It appears that John Thomas and Joseph Marsh were close friends for some time. After Thomas was re-baptised he tried to persuade Marsh to do the same. Marsh did not see the need to be re-baptised every time he changed his mind or learned something new, and disagreed with Thomas about this. Thomas persuaded Marsh's church to disfellowship him and later published some very unkind and critical comments about "friend Marsh".

• Although they agreed on most things Thomas parted company with Benjamin Wilson mainly over the issue of whether the dead would be raised mortal or immortal. He subsequently published a series of personal and defamatory attacks on Wilson, including comments about Wilson's financial affairs.

Here is the pattern I see:

1. If Thomas was unable to persuade someone to agree with him he spilt from them, regardless of whatever they already had in common. Peter Hemingray (John Thomas: His Friends and His Faith) draws a similar conclusion. Referring to the split with Storrs he says: "John Thomas heard and was associated with many of the clamoring voices of the American Reformation, of whom George Storrs was one, but in the end he withdrew from them all" (p. 140, my emphasis).

2. After parting company with these men (and sometimes before parting company) John Thomas published highly critical comments about them. The criticisms were not only of their beliefs, but were often personal and defamatory. (In fact, I'm puzzled why Hemingray titled his book John Thomas: His Friends and His Faith - these men would hardly have considered Thomas their "friend" after the way they were treated. John Thomas: His Enemies and His Faith might have made a more accurate title).

3. Thomas almost always actively preached amongst the congregations associated with his former "friends" and tried to convince their supporters to withdraw fellowship from them and join his emerging denomination. This was so obvious to Thomas's contemporaries that one of them wrote:

"The doctor [Thomas] is very hard on the Adventists, Millerism, and Storrism. I fear he is ungrateful. For had it not been for the Advent movement, I do not believe that this day he would have a corporal's guard of followers. A broken-down ex-Campbellite, he goes north to take advantage of the movement, and is now building on other men's foundations, and all the while exposing its rottenness! Such at least is my opinion of his course."

(Nathaniel Field, Thomasism, Number III,
Expositor and Advocate, Vol 29 No 24, May 15, 1859, 665)

In an editorial addition to this article Marsh wrote of Thomas's "manifest ingratitude to those who raised him from obscurity to his present notoriety among us".

Hemingray, a defender of John Thomas, substantiates this conclusion with a comment that

"before 1843 almost all his followers had been from the ranks of the Campbellites: after this time, they increasingly came from the Millerites" (p. 111).

By "Millerites" he is referring to the Adventists and the Age to Come movement (including the supporters of Storrs and Marsh).

Preaching amongst the churches from which he had "withdrawn" caused a great deal of resentment, for understandable reasons.

Was Thomas right to withdraw from people with whom he disagreed? Some would say that in doing so he was establishing the importance of "doctrinal purity". But how far does one need to go before the faith is "pure"? While Christadelphians would generally agree that withdrawing from Storrs over a matter as 'fundamental' as baptism was the right thing to do, it becomes questionable whether Marsh's refusal to be re-baptised was in the same category. By the time we get to the withdrawal from Wilson over mortal/immortal emergence it becomes even more questionable. In fact, to this day Christadelphians in North America are divided on that one and the question is still not settled.

Pragmatically, it might have been better if Thomas had stayed in contact and on friendly relations with the people from whom he split. Given time he may have convinced Storrs of the need for baptism. If he'd worked with Marsh, rather than against him, they may have found agreement on re-baptism. If he stayed with Wilson who knows what their combined talents and energies might have achieved. By sticking with his 'friends' Thomas may have eventually persuaded them of the rightness of his views, or he may have learned from them and grown in knowledge. Instead, he helped to divide and fragment a movement which was growing and impacting the broader church and impaired its effectiveness.

Acknowledgements

Before going any further with my series on early Christadelphian history I really should acknowledge and thank my sources.

In addition to primary source material I owe a huge debt to Janet Stilson, an historian with the Church of God General Conference, for providing me with copies of rare periodicals from the period, and for information generally. The following articles have provided valuable details:

A Brief History of the Church of God General Conference
Janet Silson, David Graham, Mark Mattison
Journal from the Radical Reformation, Vol 1 No. 1, Fall 1991

An Overview of the Leadership and Development of the Age to Come in the United States: 1832-1871
Jan Stilson, M.A.L.S.
Journal from the Radical Reformation, Vol. 10 No 1, Fall 2001

The Development of the Church of God Abrahamic faith: 1845-1921
Jan Stilson, B.Th., B.S., M.A.L.S.
Journal from the Radical Reformation, Vol. 11 No 1, Fall 2002

The Publishing Heritage in the Age-to-Come Movement 1800-1985
Jan Stilson
The Restitution Herald, Vol 75 No 1, October 1985

I'm also indebted to Greg Demmitt, Pastor of the Lakeshore Bible Church, for information on the Christologies of Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone.

Early influences on Christadelphianism (7)

I came across this quote today which I thought was relevant to this series:

No movement remains untouched by other's thought.
The worst men hold some truth.
The same is true for religious movements, theological systems, and creeds.

Diversion - John Glas

This is my blog, so I can indulge myself. You may have picked up that I enjoy history. This brief diversion about John Glas has little to do with the series on early influences on Christadelphianism, except that Glas indirectly influenced the founders of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, and I am a physical descendant of John Glas (so please forgive me for the indulgence).

Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone were all ex-Presbyterian ministers who had been influenced by reformers in Scotland, specifically John Glas, Robert Sandeman (Glas's son-in-law) and Robert and James Haldane. Glas (1695-1793) became known as the founder of the 'Scotch Baptists' becaused they practised adult baptism by immersion. An ordained minister in the Presbyterian church, Glas was determined early on to make the Word of God his sole rule of conduct. When he began preaching a series of lessons from the Shorter Catechism (Presbyterian Manual) he noted there were strong differences in it from the Bible.

He came to realise that the church was composed of those who had experienced the grace of Christ, had separated themselves from the world and gathered themselves in the church. He could see no place for State involvement in church affairs, and this brought him into conflict with the Civil authorities. In 1725 he started an independant church which he called a Society of Believers.

His teaching was regarded as close to treason and Glas was brought before a number of synod meetings before being suspended as a minister and deposed from the church ('the right boot of disfellowship'). However, in 1739 the General Assembly broke precedence and revoked the sentence of deposition and restored Glas as a minister, although it didn’t restore his licence as a minister of the church of Scotland. He was allowed to continue in ministry with independant churches. This showed a sign of softening of their stand against Congregationalism. With the assistance of his son-in-law the message spread and churches sprang up all over Scotland.

Sandeman migrated to North America where he established a church which later joined the Restoration Movement.

Incidentally, I am descended from one of John Glas's 15 children.

Early influences on Christadelphianism (6) - Barton Stone

Barton Stone (1772 - 1844).

Stone was one of the founders and prominent leaders in the Restoration Movement which gave birth to the Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ (together with Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott). This movement was influenced by the Christian Connection and others, and emphasised the need to return to original Christianity. Hence it became known as Restorationism. It grew from two main roots as the result of the preaching of the Campbells on the one hand and Stone independantly on the other. They subsequently combined their efforts, so Restorationism is sometimes called the Stone-Campbell Movement. It is the group John Thomas almost always called the Campbellites.

Stone was a great evangelist and once led a revival in which 20,000 people took part. By 1826 there were 15,000 members in 300 congregations founded by or associated with him. John Thomas was a member of the Restoration Movement ("Campbellites") from 1834 until his final split from them in 1847. There is no evidence he ever met Barton Stone. Interestingly, however, Stone rejected much of trinitarianism although he believed in pre-existence. Alexander Campbell rejected pre-existence. One can only wonder to what extent the discussion of this doctrine in the Restoration Movement of which John Thomas was a member influenced his own views on the matter.

Early influences on Christadelphianism (5) - Age to Come Adventism

Several people contributed to the development of Christadelphian theology. It is often claimed that John Thomas "discovered" the Truth and revived apostolic Christianity. However, almost all the "distinctive" doctrines of Christadelphianism were being taught and believed in the US and Britain even before John Thomas began to take an interest in these subjects. This list gives a brief overview of some of the most prominent writers and teachers of these ideas, but is hardly exhaustive.

• George Storrs (1796-1879) - taught 'Conditional Immortality', that is, that the soul ceases to exist at death and that resurrection, not heaven-going, is the hope taught in the New Testament. Storrs taught that the wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction, not eternal hell-fire. Storrs was prominent in the Adventist movement which gave rise to the Advent Christian Church and the Sevent Day Adventist church. (He also influenced Charles Russell who founded the Bible Students, out of which came the Jehovah's Witnesses). He was probably the most influential preacher in America in teaching the mortality of the soul. John Thomas knew him and Storrs published articles by Thomas in his magazine The Bible Examiner. The relationship appears to have been friendly for some time, until Thomas severely criticised Storrs for not being baptised (1853). He stopped referring to him as "brother Storrs" and he became a "Mr". They parted company.

• Elias Smith (1769-1846) - founded the Christian Connection together with Abner Jones. Smith was non-trinitarian and rejected the immortality of the soul and the popular views of hell. John Thomas belonged at one time to a church in Philadelphia (1833-34) founded by Elias Smith. In 1837 Alexander Campbell wrote in his magazine that John Thomas's views on the mortality of the soul had come from Elias Smith, although Thomas claimed that he had developed these ideas before reading Smith's works. However, it was while he was a member of the church in Philadelphia founded by Smith (1834) that Thomas wrote 34 questions to his father (a Congregational minister) indicating he was developing new ideas on the Kingdom of God and the nature of the soul.

• Joseph Marsh (1802 - 1863) - I wrote about Marsh in an earlier post. He had been connected with Elias Smith and lated edited the magazine founded by Smith. As well as being non-trinitarian and believing in the mortality of the soul, Marsh also taught the restoration of Israel, the second coming and the Kingdom of God on earth. His book "The Age to Come" was so influential that he is sometimes attributed as the founder of the Age to Come Movement. John Thomas knew him, and had stayed in his home, although the relationship ended on a very sour note when Thomas persuaded Marsh's church to disfellowship him.

• Benjamin Wilson (1817 - 1900) - referred to in a previous post, held and taught almost all the same "distinctive" doctrines as John Thomas, although disagreeing on whether the dead would be raised mortal or immortal. Thomas considered the difference important enough to part company with him.
  

The various individuals and congregations associated with Marsh and Wilson are sometimes referred to collectively as "Age to Come Adventists". Storrs, Miller, Smith and others were influential in the development of Adventism, emphasising the second coming of Christ but rejecting the idea of a future Kingdom of God on earth. Hence, the Adventists who believed in the restoration of Israel and the establishment of the Kingdom on earth in the Age to Come, became known as "Age to Come Adventists". The followers of Marsh generally used the name "Church of God", while Benjamin Wilson preferred "Brethren of the One Faith". Some of the congregations associated with Wilson also used the name "Abrahamic Faith". These groups often associated together, exchanged preachers and magazines, and sometimes shared church buildings. Many of the first Christadelphian ecclesias came from this movement. The Church of God congregations which had been founded by Marsh united with the "One Faith"/"Abrahamic Faith" congregations in 1921 and formed the Church of God General Conference (also known as Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith).

One thing is certain: the core doctrines taught by Thomas were already being taught by other preachers and upheld in many churches, including the Oneness of God, conditional immortality (mortality of the soul), the second coming, the restoration of Israel, and the Age to Come. Even the impersonal nature of the devil, sometimes regarded as 'distinctively Christadelphian', was being taught before Thomas (I may come back to this later).

In a future post in this series I hope to draw some conclusions about why Thomas dissociated himself from so many people with similar beliefs, and what this meant for the development of Christadelphianism.

Early influences on Christadelphianism (4) - Benjamin Wilson

It did not take long for Joseph Marsh to recover from his troubles. Within a few months, Marsh began an evangelistic tour and attended a church conference at which he was appointed evangelist. After the death of Marsh in Michigan in the early 1860s, Benjamin Wilson and his nephew Thomas Wilson became more widely read and accepted among the leading exponents of the Age-to-Come doctrine, which among other things explained that the Jews would one day return to their land and become a nation. This doctrine was advanced long before the Zionist movement became a popular topic. Benjamin Wilson emigrated to the US from England in 1842 and settled in Geneva, Illinois, where he set up a publishing business. He was a skilled Bible scholar and had been trained in Biblical Greek.

After a few years, Wilson did what no man had done to date anywhere in the world. He produced an interlinear translation of the New Testament from the Greek text*. Under each line was a rough translation in English representing as closely as possible the meaning of the Greek language used in the passage. It was revolutionary, and very helpful to Bible scholars. The Age to Come people loved it. Problem was, it was not popular with the orthodox churches because it literally translated passages which had formerly been translated by others to represent orthodox teachings such as trinity, pre-existence and going to heaven.

An Overview of the Leadership and Development of the Age to Come in the United States: 1832-1871 by Jan Stilson, M.A. L. S

A Journal from the Radical Reformation, Vol 10, No. 1, Fall 2001

* The Emphatic Diaglott, published in 1864.

Benjamin Wilson edited and published The Gospel Banner and Millenial Advocate from 1853 to 1869 and his nephew Thomas Wilson edited and published The Herald of the Coming Kingdom and Christian Instructor (the two magazines combined in 1870). Both magazines were popular amongst believers in the Age to Come, and Benjamin Wilson travelled widely preaching and ministering to churches.

John Thomas first met Benjamin Wilson in 1856, although some years earlier they lived for a time in neighbouring cities in Illinois. At the beginning of their association Wilson and Thomas believed similarly. Joseph Marsh and Benjamin Wilson also knew of each other, although they apparently never met. Strangely, the followers of Marsh and Wilson succeeded in uniting their various congregations into the Church of God General Conference denomination in 1921, many years after their deaths.

While Thomas and Wilson had much in common, and got off to a friendly start, they eventually divided over the issue of whether believers would be resurrected mortal or immortal. Thomas insisted that it was necessary to believe in mortal emergence, although it seems that while Wilson and many of his supporters believed in immortal emergence they did not consider it to be a matter of fellowship. Thomas did. They went their separate ways.

Early influences on Christadelphianism (3) - Joseph Marsh

Unitarianism, of several types, seems to have developed in America at the end of the eighteenth century. Two or three groups shared a concern for a return to the "primitive gospel." One of these was the so-called Christian Connection, a minority revivalistic movement on the New England frontier. Another was the Freewill Baptists. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the two groups contemplated merging, since both held similar doctrines, inclined toward primitivism, and practiced open communion. But as they expanded westward across New York State, the "Christians" began more and more to show Unitarian tendencies, which alienated them from the Baptists and turned them toward the followers of Barton Stone — and occasionally toward the Unitarians.

Joseph Marsh was born in Vermont in 1802. Early in Marsh's life his family moved to New York, where his parents were disfellowshiped by the Methodist Episcopal Church for rejecting the Trinity. In 1823, Marsh was baptized into the Christian Connection. The following year he entered the ministry.

In 1841, Marsh wrote fourteen influential articles entitled "The Church of God" in which he encouraged a return of the Church to New Testament principles. Marsh became the leading writer for the emerging Church of God, publishing first the Christian Palladium (1838-43) for the Christian connection, then Voice of Truth (1844-47), the Advent Harbinger, and, finally, the Bible Expositor. Through the Voice of Truth Marsh promoted the doctrine of the Age to Come and the restoration of the Jews to their homeland prior to Jesus' second coming. In 1851 he published a major work called The Age to Come where he carefully elaborated his ideas. He is regarded by many as the founder of the Age to Come Movement.

John Thomas and Joseph Marsh knew each other, probably meeting in 1842, and many of Thomas's early contacts were already readers of Marsh's magazines. After Thomas settled in New York he and Marsh exchanged ideas through their respective magazines. Through this exchange the two became friends, or so Marsh thought. It's possible that they influenced each other as both men were going through a period of change and development in their ideas. They had many things in common, including belief in the oneness of God, the mortality of the soul, the restoration of Israel and the Age to Come. Their friendship and association together could have achieved a great deal in spreading this message. Marsh invited Thomas to Rochester. Thomas stayed in Marsh's home and preached in his church.

However, in 1847 Thomas decided to be re-baptised (he had earlier been baptised by Walter Scott of the Disciples of Christ) after changing his beliefs on several points. He tried to persuade Marsh to do the same, but Marsh was not convinced that his baptism was in any way inadequate. Not content to 'agree to disagree' Thomas turned to Marsh's church (the Church of God in Rochester, New York) and eventually convinced them to disfellowship Marsh. Thereafter they preached in different areas, and in 1858 Thomas published a letter referring to Marsh's supporters as his "parasites".

Marsh's writings had a wide influence and several congregations began in Illinois as a result.

To be continued ...

Unity and diversity

In his Unity and Diversity in the New Testament British New Testament scholar James Dunn concludes that there's a marked degree of diversity within the first-century Church; there are many different expressions of the Faith within the New Testament; there was no single normative form of Christianity in the first century. Their only unifying factor, he says, was their allegiance to Jesus.

In his Christian Unity and Christian Diversity Oxford professor John Macquarrie argues that diversity is just as essential as unity to the well-being of the Christian church.

'To combine unity with freedom is a very difficult task, and the temptations to uniformity are very great... A stark unity freezes the church and inhibits development. A sheer diversity would dissipate the church and cause her to disappear. Only unity and diversity together can be fruitful.'

G.K.Chesterton wrote somewhere that "All heresy is a narrowing down unduly of what is essentially a complex reality. Each part of the church needs the other parts."

What binds us together as Christians is not the 'purity' of our doctrinal viewpoint, nor the way we worship and serve the Lord, but our common allegiance to Jesus as Lord, and our being children of the same Father, united by the same Spirit.

Early influences on Christadelphianism (2)

I commenced this series of messages over two months ago, intending to write about the people and movements which influenced John Thomas and the early Believers in the formulation of Christadelphian doctrine.

I put this 'on hold' for a couple of months for two reasons:

1. An opportunity arose for me to visit the Atlanta Bible College and the Church of God General Conference headquarters, and spend some time in their archives. These archives contain some rare books and periodicals from the nineteenth century and I was privileged to look at some of the early literature of the movement which gave birth to Christadelphianism.
2. I had heard about a book by Peter Hemingray called "John Thomas: His Friends and His Faith" and after ordering a copy I waited until it arrived to see if there was any information which would add further light to my own research, or which might even prove some of my conclusions to be wrong.

Peter Hemingray's book arrived, coincidentally, soon after I returned home from visiting the archives of the Atlanta Bible College. It is an excellent, well-researched, interesting work and adds some valuable information not found in the earlier biographies of John Thomas. It confirms that I've been on the right track about the development of John Thomas's views and the reasons for his split from some of his 'friends'.

In the next few posts I plan to briefly summarise some of the main influences on the formation of John Thomas's views. It will show that John Thomas was part of a broader movement of believers who had been trying to restore first century Christianity and, in the process, 'discovered' the truth about the Trinity, the mortality of the soul, and the coming kingdom of God. John Thomas did not start this movement. He was not the 'discoverer' of any of these beliefs. He was part of a movement. For some reason he choose to break from the movement and the people whose ideas he had learned and start his own denomination. I also hope to explore some of the reasons why he did this and why 'Christadelphianism' came into being as a seperate denomination.

The James Ossuary

See the link below for breaking news supporting the authenticity of the James Ossuary inscription.

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_krumbeinsummary.asp

The ossuary inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" has recently been studied by Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein, a world-renowned authority. He has reached startling conclusions that will change the debate over this highly controversial artifact. Israeli antiquities collector Oded Golan is currently being tried in criminal court for forging the now-famous James ossuary inscription ("James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"). This new report by a leading German scientist, however, may blow the case out of the water.

The first Christadelphians and the causes of disunity

Earlier in the week I came across volume 1 of Edward Turney's magazine The Christadelphian Lamp, published in 1874 - the year after Robert Roberts disfellowshipped him and his supporters.

A letter to the editor from Samuel Coffman, (one of the brethren for whom John Thomas coined the name 'Christadelphian' so they could claim exemption from military service as members of a denomination of conscientious objectors) caught my eye. He refers to the views on the sacrifice of Christ being promulgated by Robert Roberts, and the 'considerable private discussions' he had had with Dr Thomas prior to his death, and complained of the tyrannical and suppressive spirit on the part of Roberts.

Within 10 years of the name 'Christadelphian' being chosen for the new denomination, and only two or three years after Dr Thomas' death, it seems that Roberts was foisting on the brotherhood his own new interpretation of the atonement with a 'condemned Christ' and making acceptance of it a condition for fellowship.

Letters and articles from Samuel and John Coffman which appeared in The Christadelphian Lamp show that these 'first Christadelphians' sided with Edward Turney and the Suffolk Street fellowship in opposing both Roberts' authoritarianism and his peculiar explanation of the atonement. One wonders how different the denomination would have been if the advice of one of these first Christadelphians to 'lay aside prejudices and extremes' had been heeded.