50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (3)

THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION (3)

“THAT THEY MAY BE ONE” - PRAYING FOR UNITY

It is common for public Christadelphian prayers from time-to-time to include a petition for Unity in the brotherhood. The requests are no doubt genuine and are almost certainly modelled on that of the Lord himself: “I pray ... that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be one in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20f). Why then have these prayers apparently gone unanswered?

One of the most beautiful descriptions of brotherly unity in the Scriptures is Psalm 133: “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” The Psalmist (almost certainly David in this case) provides two similes of that unity:

1. It is like precious oil poured on the head of the High Priest (Aaron), running down to the bottom hem of his priestly vestments;

2. It is as if the dew which falls on Mount Hermon (in the far north of Israel) were also falling on Mount Zion (in the south).

The fittingness of these symbols is fairly obvious. The anointing oil ‘united’ the High Priest’s head with the bottom hem of his clothing because it was poured in such abundance that it ran the full length of his beard and vestments. The symbol of the High Priest in particular is chosen because the other priests were only sprinkled with oil.

The dew on Mount Hermon was also noted for being particularly abundant. Delitzsch quotes a traveller who wrote “Nowhere in the whole country is so heavy a dew perceptible as in the districts near to Hermon” [1] . A natural feature of the land is that an abundant dew, preceded by warm days, might be diverted to Jerusalem by the cold current of air sweeping down from the north over Hermon. Hence, the whole land is united, symbolically, by the abundant dew.

The Psalm emphasises two important aspects of unity. First, the Psalmist three times uses a Hebrew word literally meaning “to descend”:

“It is like the precious oil that ran down on the beard ... going down to the hem of his garments; like the dew of Hermon coming down on the mountains of Zion”.

This is to emphasise that the source of unity is from above and that it descends on the brotherhood. In other words, true spiritual unity cannot be generated by a groundswell from below. It does not matter how we try to engineer it, or plan it, or negotiate it. Unity can only come from God. Then, the Psalmist reminds us that this unity is abundant (like the oil or dew in the similes).

To experience this unity in the Christadelphian brotherhood we must first acknowledge that it can come only from God and not through human endeavour. And then we must set out to discover this experience which God is prepared to provide abundantly.

William Barclay makes several valuable points about the passage in John quoted above. He asks:

“What was that unity for which Jesus prayed? It was not a unity of administration or organization; it was not in any sense an ecclesiastical unity. It was a unity of personal relationship ... a unity in which men loved each other because they loved him, a unity based entirely on the relationship between heart and heart.” [2]

He further comments on the failure of ecumenism to achieve this unity in Christendom. His comments are also applicable to the failure of the Christadelphian brotherhood to achieve unity:

“Christians will never organize their churches all in the same way. They will never worship God all in the same way. They will never even all believe precisely the same things. But Christian unity transcends all these differences and joins men together in love. The cause of Christian unity ... has been injured and hindered because men loved their own ecclesiastical organizations, their own creeds, their own ritual, more than they loved each other.”

Tragically, it is true of the Christadelphian community that men have fought harder for the preservation of a particular Statement of Faith, or explanation of one, or for a certain style of worship, or hymn book, or manner of dressing, or one ecclesial organisation or another, than they have for the unity or peace or harmony of the Body itself. If these efforts had been focussed on preaching the Gospel what a different story could have been told!

If, then, our prayers for unity have not produced peace and harmony within the Body is there anything we can do in order to pray more effectively? Some of the Scriptural teaching on prayer is relevant here.

• Jesus taught: “When you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins” (Mark 11:25).

It is clear from this that our own forgiveness is conditional on our willingness to forgive our brethren for “anything”. Yet, when we read some of the literature and much of the correspondence which passes between ecclesias we see an unwillingness to forget what our brethren have said or done in the past. Some brethren or ecclesias seem to be unflinching in their determination to extract a recantation from others, and quote in lengthy detail from past letters or conversations, analysing it line-upon-line and word-by-word, to make a brother “an offender for a word”. [3] Their fervour to preserve ‘the Truth’ as they understand it may well be at the expense of the brother or sister ‘for whom Christ died’ whose preservation seems to be secondary to the conserving of a dogma.

The practical demonstration of a love which reconciles is FORGIVENESS.

So then, if we are to pray more effectively for unity in the brotherhood we must begin with a willingness to forgive our brethren for the pain they have caused us in the past, for the unkind things they have said about us, for the misunderstandings, the battles of words, the entrenchments behind indefensible positions, and all the other reminders of our humanity. And we must do this even if our brethren are unwilling to reciprocate with their forgiveness of us!

• James may have had the Lord’s words in mind when he wrote: “Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed” (James 5:16). There needs to be an admission of fault on all sides, and a realisation that both individual and communal ‘healing’ are dependent on an open and honest confession that we have not treated each other well. Prayer must then begin to focus on the needs of others, especially those from whom we have been estranged.

• If we read Paul’s prayers for the churches in his various letters we will notice that he makes a habit of praying for others. His prayers are always positive and include thanks to the Father for the contributions made by others. Note the repetition of thankfulness in these prayers:

1. “I thank God for all of you” (Romans 1:8).
2. “I always thank God for you” (1 Corinthians 1:4).
3. “I have not stopped giving thanks for you” (Ephesians 1:15).
4. “I thank my God every time I remember you” (Philippians 1:3).
5. “We always thank God when we pray for you” (Colossians 1:3).
6. “We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers” (I Thessalonians 1:2).

Even those churches which caused Paul real heartache are remembered in his prayers with thanks. When was the last time we prayed for our brethren in that way, especially those who oppose us over some issue? If we get into the habit of thanking God for all our brethren we will force ourselves to focus on their positive characteristics and the contribution they are making to the service of God.

• A useful model for prayer is to commence with PRAISE, to follow with THANKS and then to continue with INTERCESSION or PETITIONS. The following is one suggestion for applying this model to our prayers for our brethren and community:

PRAISE - focus on what God has done for the brotherhood, observe His hand at work among us for ‘the perfecting of the saints’, and praise Him for what He has already accomplished with us. In doing so, we should include in our prayer praise for what God has achieved through those brethren with whom we have a difference.

THANKS - list those things which our brethren have done for which we can be grateful. We should even thank God for conflicts and differences of opinion if they help us to re-examine our own opinions or attitudes. In doing so we will help to produce a positive result from these experiences.

INTERCESSION - this is praying for the needs of others. By praying for others before praying for own needs helps us to keep our own wants in perspective and enables us to look for ways of serving each other. Having prayed for another person the inevitable consequence is that we will want to help them. However, we must be careful here not to tell the Almighty what other people need and then proceed to give it to them. The object of this type of prayer is to become sensitive to the needs of others and to look for the Father’s leading in how we may help to accomplish His purpose with others.

PETITIONS - or requests for help. We should include requests for the Father to help us in overcoming our prejudices and preconceived notions about our brethren. We need help in trying to understand the points-of-view of people with whom we differ, and in developing an empathy for their needs. We may need help in being able to forgive, or to apologise for past actions or words.

Any prayer should stimulate the person praying into action. We cannot pray that God will achieve such-and-such and then sit idly by and want no part in the accomplishment of it. I believe that if we are to pray communally for unity in the Body then we must also pray for it individually, perhaps in the ways I have suggested, with a genuine concern for our individual brothers and sisters in all ‘fellowships’ and branches of the Vine. We will not need to work for an artificial unity of organisation or administration, because the unity which descends from above will transcend all differences, being a joining together of true disciples in love.


[1] Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 3, William B. Eeerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, 1973. p 319.
[2] William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Volume 2, The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1975, p218. (His emphasis).
[3] This expression is from Isaiah 29:21 and, in that context, referred to those who cross-examined their brethren in such a way that they could turn their own words against them. I am reminded of being questioned at length by the Arranging Brethren of one ecclesia who wanted to determine my understanding of the word “at” in clause 24 of the BASF!

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (2)

THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION (2)

Removing the Cause of the Quarrel

It is abundantly obvious that previous attempts at reconciliation have failed. Even the so-called ‘reunion’ of 1958 never really worked and many ecclesias in Australia today have their own ‘basis of fellowship’ while still claiming adherence to the Unity Agreement. The basis of fellowship at some combined meetings. for example, ( including meetings during visits to Australia by the editor of The Christadelphian) is ‘the Unity Agreement’ with additional requirements. This is a contradiction. The imposition of any additional requirements means, of necessity, that the Unity Agreement is not the basis of fellowship. Similarly, Melbourne Youth Gatherings and a past Melbourne Conference have imposed additional requirements for fellowship, despite a resolution by participating ecclesias at an earlier Conference Business Session [1] that the basis of fellowship would be the Unity Agreement without addition or further explanation. Let’s be honest. Either ecclesias accept the Unity Agreement as adequate, or they don’t. They can’t have it both ways. If the Unity Agreement has failed to achieve its objective, and clearly it has, then we need to look at a different basis for fellowship.

First we should examine why the Agreement failed. No agreement, contract, partnership or marriage will succeed unless there is a commitment to it by both parties. Perhaps one of the primary causes of an increasing divorce rate in this country is that the Legislators have made it relatively simple to obtain a divorce and many people enter marriage with the expectation “if it doesn’t work we can easily get a divorce”. Hence, in many marriages, there is no real commitment to make it work. The analogy with fellowship is, in fact, a Scriptural one. The word used in the Greek New Testament for ‘fellowship’ is koinonia. In the contemporary colloquial Greek koinonia is very commonly used of a business partnership, of marriage and of a person’s relationship with God. [2] Fellowship in the Biblical sense is essentially a partnership or a sharing in something, and without a commitment by all parties the partnership will fail.

I would suggest that the Australian Unity Agreement has failed chiefly because of a lack of commitment to the idea of Unity. In fact, the history of the Christadelphian community has shown that the brotherhood has never been terribly committed to the idea. The existence of so many 'fellowships' is testimony to that: we have Central, Dawn, Berean, Old Paths, Apostolic, Wayfarer, Advocate/Unamended, Amended, Antipas, and Family Journal fellowships, and probably others. Some of these fellowships you may never heard of, although I'm sure we could also add a few more! It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. The Australian Christadelphian Shield once published a chart showing all the divisions in the Christadelphian community throughout its history. [3] The Editor noted that “the diagram represents an embarrassing skeleton in the Christadelphian closet” and rightly commented that “controversy is so often the result of emotion, pride, personalities, dogmatism, lack of listening, lack of love, lack of thought for the common good, lack of glory to God”. It is also a tragic situation of which the brotherhood should be ashamed.

Before we could ever be committed to unity we would have to decide that we wanted it. Not some of us; all of us. We would have to be prepared to make compromises. We would have to accept that other brethren are perfectly entitled to maintain different points of view, or standards of dress, or styles of worship, or ways of expressing their faith in Christ. We would have to become more tolerant, more flexible, more understanding, more empathetic, more caring, more loving. We would have to find ways of demonstrating to our brother or sister that we are genuinely concerned about them, their welfare and their salvation.

This is why the Unity Agreement didn’t work. It was a formality, a technicality, a legal document encompassing a credal formula which was open to interpretation. It could not, however, compel the parties to it to love each other. For a while the threat of exclusion from the ‘fellowship’ of the wider community was sufficient to encourage ecclesias to support the concept of ‘Unity’, but it didn’t take long for some brethren and ecclesias to realise that nothing needed to change. They could still insist that their interpretation of Scripture was the only valid one; if they didn’t like the way other brethren said or did things they could try to isolate them in various ways; they could criticise, condemn or denigrate their brethren; and they didn’t have to do anything at all to help their brethren in any way! And everything was fine because we had ‘Unity’.

Many ecclesias, of course, are quite prepared to accept that other brethren and ecclesias do have differences of opinion on non-fundamental issues, and yet are prepared to acknowledge that these differences create no barrier to fellowship. These ecclesias are prepared to accept another Christadelphian at his or her word when they say they share the same faith. These ecclesias are not part of the problem.

The following steps must be taken before Unity in the Christadelphian brotherhood can be achieved.

1. Christadelphians must want Unity. They must do more than think Unity would be a nice ideal. There must be a genuine yearning for it.

2. There has to be a realisation that there can only be real fellowship between brethren when each of us, individually, has true fellowship with the Father and the Son. For reformation to occur in the brotherhood there must be a reformation in each of our lives. We must dedicate ourselves to prayer, meditation on the Word and to righteous living. Ronald Dunn wrote about ‘revival’ in the church:

“Revival has never come because men placed it on the calendar. It has come because God placed it in their hearts.” [4]

His words apply equally to reformation in the Christadelphian community. Unity and genuine fellowship can only be experienced if God has placed it in our hearts.

3. We must pray for Unity. It is a sad truth, however, that in some parts of our community there must first be a revival of praying. By this I mean there has to be a greater intensity of personal prayer. The only way to improve the quality of prayer in our meetings is to improve the quality of prayer in our personal lives. We must learn to talk with each other more frequently and openly about the power of prayer and learn to pray together.

“The church must learn to live in a kneeling position, for in order to pray for revival there must first be a revival of praying.” [5]

4. Once we recognise that fellowship and Unity come from God and not from human endeavour we will want to dissolve all our Unity and Fellowship Committees. We will view our man-made documents, our Statements of Faith, Unity Agreements, Resolutions and Creeds with the correct perspective. We will see them for what they are: man-made, fallible and inadequate. By then we will have come to learn our priorities and begun to focus on the growth of Spirituality. We must follow the apostle’s instruction to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18), constantly renewing our commitment to truth and experiencing a deeper understanding of the Word of God.

5. We must trust in God. We must accept him at his word that he will meet all our needs [6]. With this trust we will submit ourselves to him and accept the Divine arrangements as the only ones suitable for our Body, realising that “God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be” (1 Corinth 12:18). Instead of attempting to cut off some parts, or trying to isolate them from the rest of the body, or dividing the body into segmented parts, we will endeavour to understand why God has placed them there and what contribution they are intended to make. We will seek to discover each one’s talent and to learn from them, realising that each member has a story to tell about his or her encounter with God.

Then we can experience real Unity and fulfil our ministry of reconciliation.



[1] Resolution passed at the Conference Business Session, Sydney, 1988. This meeting had to be held in Sydney due to the cancellation of the Adelaide Conference over an inability by the Adelaide ecclesias to reach an agreement on the basis of fellowship at the Conference.
[2] William Barclay, New Testament Words, SCM Press, London, 1964, p173.
[3] The Australian Christadelphian Shield, Editorial, November, 1993.
[4] Ronald Dunn, Don’t Just Stand There ... Pray Something!, Alpha, England, 1992, p217.
[5] Ibid, p232
[6] For example, see Romans 8:32, “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things” and 2 Peter 1:3, “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness ...”

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (1)

Australian ecclesias are currently looking at ways of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Unity Agreement in 1958. The festivities began in 2006 which was the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Adelaide Conference where a decision was made to attempt the process of unification.

The Unity Agreement has never worked in Australia. Almost from the beginning ecclesias began to divide along 'party lines', and for many years there were 'block disfellowships' where entire ecclesias were disfellowshipped because of the beliefs of one member, and where any ecclesias which refused to disfellowship the ecclesia concerned were themselves effectively disfellowshipped.

For many years the 'Logos' ecclesias were a separate sub-group, refusing to fellowship or associate with the majority, including some of the largest ecclesias in the country, while claiming to be in the 'Central fellowship' and upholding the Unity Agreement at the same time. For many years they refused to fellowship the Sydney (Shaftesbury Rd) ecclesia, the Brisbane (Petrie Terrace) ecclesia, and the Beverley Hills ecclesia, and refused to associate with any ecclesia which accepted these ecclesias in fellowship.

'Unity' during this period was a farce.

For a while it seemed that things were moving in a more positive direction. The Logos ecclesias accepted Sydney and Brisbane ecclesias back into fellowship. After the Beverley Hills ecclesia was disbanded no attempts were made to block the former members of Beverley Hills ecclesia from joining other ecclesias. The ecclesias commonly called 'Logos' ecclesias even distanced themselves from the Logos magazine and its former editor (having been embarrassed by doctrinal extremes and allegations of moral failure). For a while it looked as though the period of 'block disfellowships' was over. However, it didn't take long for the same bullying intimidation of ecclesias to raise its ugly head again, most recently in South East Queensland. There have been some disturbing signs that very little may have changed and there is still a heavy-handed attitude to fellowship and conformity in some circles. What has changed is that the former 'Logos' ecclesias have now joined (and perhaps dominate) the inter-ecclesial organisations such as the Australian Christadelphian Committee (now known as the Association of Australian Christadelphian Ecclesias, Inc), and are consequently in a position to inflict their extreme views on the brotherhood at large.

Against this background I thought it would be timely to post here some articles which I wrote some time ago on "The Ministry of Reconciliation" (published in the Christadelphian Forum magazine between December 1993 and August 1995). The articles have been slightly modified to bring them up to date. I hope this will be a positive contribution to the celebrations around the 50th anniversary of the Australian Unity Agreement, especially my Unity Agreement for the Twenty First Century (to follow).

THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION (1)

The teaching of the New Testament makes it clear that we are not only to preach about what God has done and will do, but that we are to demonstrate by our way of life what God is doing. There are many powerful exhortations in Scripture to witness by example, to be an imitation of Christ, so that when others look at us they will see a reflection of Jesus.

Jesus taught us that the most powerful and effective way to preach the Truth is through our relationships with each other. “All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another” (John 13:34f. Note the emphasis of the KJV “By this shall all men know ...” Rotherham places a decided stress on the words “By this”[1]). The emphasis indicates that it is by this means alone that we will be able to demonstrate to “all men” that we are the true disciples of Jesus. Not by argument or persuasion, but by the quality of our relationships with each other.

A short time later Jesus prayed: “I pray also for those who will believe in me ... that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). Here it is the oneness, the unifying nature of the brotherhood, which is evidence that they are in Christ and in God. Without the evidence of this relationship existing between the believers the world will not believe.

To this we can add the thrust of Paul’s words in 2 Cor 5:17-21. “... If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Paul’s appeal is clear. We are the instruments of God and have been empowered to act as His representatives in the world. Our message is to be one of reconciliation and our method is to be living examples of God’s righteousness ("that we might become the righteousness of God" i.e. “representatives of the Righteousness of God, endued with it and viewed as in it, and examples of it”[2]).

Paul’s words are meant to be understood as saying that God is making his appeal to the world to be reconciled to Him through us, and we do this by being examples of God’s righteousness. By our way of life we demonstrate the effects of being reconciled to God.

Of our reconciliation to God Leon Morris comments: “Reconciliation properly applies not to good relations in general but to the doing away of an enmity, the bridging over of a quarrel. It implies that the parties being reconciled were formerly hostile to one another. ... Now the way to overcome enmity is to take away the cause of the quarrel.” [3] The same must also be true of relationships between brethren. How can we demonstrate that we have been reconciled to God if we cannot (or will not) be reconciled with each other? This is the repetitive theme of John’s first letter: “Since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11).

To be reconciled with each other, in the words of Leon Morris, requires the removal of the cause of the quarrel. It is sadly ironic that the subject which has been at the centre of nearly every division and ‘withdrawal of fellowship’ in the history of our community has been ‘the atonement’. How can that which makes us ‘at one’ with God also be the cause of separation between brethren?


[1] J.B.Rotherham, The Emphasised Bible, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, 1967.
[2] Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, Guardian Press, Grand Rapids, 1976.
[3] Leon Morris, Reconciliation, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, 1980.

Wrested Scriptures (4) - "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

For as long as I can remember I've been hearing Amos 3:3 quoted in support of the argument that there must be doctrinal uniformity on all points in order for there to be "unity" in an ecclesia, or in order for an individual or ecclesia to be accepted "in fellowship".

The King James Version translates this verse: "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

As with the other "wrested Scriptures" I've already examined in this series, this verse is made to mean something totally different to what it was intended to mean, and this peculiar interpretation is reached only by taking the verse out of its context and then relying on a translation which is at odds with almost all other translators.

The Hebrew word translated here in the KJV as "agreed" is ya'ad. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon says this word (in the niphal tense) means:

1) to meet
2) to meet by appointment
3) to gather, assemble by appointment

Here is how some other translations render this verse:

• "Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment?" (Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible)
• "Can two people walk together without agreeing to meet?" (Contemporary English Version)
• "Do two walk together if they have not met?" (Young's Literal Translation)

Gesenius says it means "to come together at an appointed time or place". The "agreement" here relates only to the intention to meet together at a particular time and place. There is nothing in this word, or its context, to suggest that there has to be agreement about anything else in order for the parties to "walk together" or meet together. In fact, in other contexts this root word took on the meaning of an engagement or espousal to marry. It did not refer to the marriage itself, but rather to the intention to marry. Similarly, the word could be used of a summons to a court. It did not refer to the court trial but to the summons issued to appear for trial. In this case the parties did not meet together because they "agreed" but rather that they might debate their differences.

One commentator has noted the use of the verse in the context of divisions in the church:

"It is an interesting observation that those who head for Amos 3:3 for a text of unity, actually are not trying to promote unity at all. They are searching for grounds on which to justify their separation from others." (W. Carl Ketcherside, The Twisted Scriptures, St. Louis Missouri, 1992).

The passage in Amos goes on to say that God does not pour out His judgment on a city without first revealing His intention to His prophets (verse 7). The whole passage is about God declaring His intention, and not about reaching agreement.

One of the reasons why there is so much dis-unity in the Christadelphian community is that too many people have tried to create unity on their own terms by demanding that everyone else has to agree with them. Amos 3:3 is often quoted as "proof" that unity can only be achieved through doctrinal conformity. As long ago as December 1993 I wrote an article in the Christadelphian Forum magazine about the failure of the Australian Unity Agreement to achieve any kind of meaningful unity (and at the time "block disfellowship" was being practiced by several ecclesias which adopted the Agreement against other ecclesias which were parties to the same Agreement). In that article I wrote the following:

I would suggest that the Australian Unity Agreement has failed chiefly because of a lack of commitment to the idea of Unity. In fact, our history as a community has shown that we have never been terribly committed to the idea ...

Before we could ever be committed to unity we would have to decide that we wanted it ...

This is why the Unity Agreement didn’t work. It was a formality, a technicality, a legal document encompassing a credal formula which was open to interpretation. It could not, however, compel the parties to it to love each other. For a while the threat of exclusion from the ‘fellowship’ of the wider community was sufficient to encourage ecclesias to support the concept of ‘Unity’, but it didn’t take long for some brethren and ecclesias to realise that nothing needed to change. They could still insist that their interpretation of Scripture was the only valid one; if they didn’t like the way other brethren said or did things they could try to isolate them in various ways; they could criticise, condemn or denigrate their brethren; and they didn’t have to do anything at all to help their brethren in any way! And everything was fine because we had ‘Unity’ ...

We must want Unity. We must do more than think Unity would be a nice ideal. There must be a genuine yearning for it.

Perhaps I'll post the entire article on this blog later because it's still relevant, not only in Australia where the 'celebrations' for the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement have been marred by still more fellowship controversies, but also in North America where the unity discussions broke down (as I publicly predicted as soon as I knew of the involvement of certain brethren who were renowned for their refusal to compromise or negotiate).

I hear that the Australian celebrations have included references to Amos 3:3 and that, regrettably, the mistranslation of the KJV is being pushed in an effort to bully ecclesias who aren't conforming into accepting the exclusivist approach to fellowship. Hopefully common sense will soon prevail and there will be something to celebrate.

Angels and the Court of Heaven

I'm trying to get hold of a book or article which I understand was written by Christadelphian David Kingston with the title "Angels and the Court of Heaven" (or something similar). as I understand it this book/article proposes that the devil/Satan is an angel. I'm not sure if it's the same David Kingston who is a Christadelphian in Queensland. In any case, I don't have any contact details for him.

Does anyone know about this book/article, or how to contact the author?

I'm particularly curious as to how a Christadelphian who believes the devil/Satan is an angel might explain Hebrews 2:14.

If you can help with any information please contact me using the email address in my profile.

Wrested Scriptures (3) - "tell it to the church"

Matthew 18:15-17 is quoted so often as a 'formula' for dealing with disputes between brethren that it's quite common to refer simply to 'Matthew 18' and most people know at once that it is this 3 or 4 step process that is being referred to. If someone says the church or an individual should "apply Matthew 18" then it is understood that a suggestion is being made to follow these steps.

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Unfortunately, Jesus' words here are often quoted without their immediate context and consequently sometimes given a meaning contrary to their original intention. The preceeding verses are about rescuing lost sheep and acting with humility towards others. Jesus dramatically emphasised the importance of avoiding any action that might cause a brother to sin. These verses under consideration are followed in Matthew's account with a saying that we should forgive our brother, not seven times but "seventy times seven" (v. 22), and a parable about how our forgiveness should be generous, abundant and overflowing.

Yet this saying has often been used in a way which is far from gracious or forgiving. It is sometimes applied as a strict legal process ending in the offender being cut off from fellowship. I've seen the 'process' applied over a period of days. Here is an example based on real-life:

Step 1: A brother (or sister) has been rumoured to have committed some offence (or to hold some unorthodox opinion). An email is sent to them to ask if the rumour is true. ("If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.")

Step 2: It seems from the reply to the email that the alleged offender is denying the allegation (contrary to the information received from "a reliable source"), but there's something about the response which makes the enquirer suspicious that they are hiding something. A second email is sent, but this time a third party is copied in on the email. ("But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' ")

Step 3: The accused person becomes agitated that they weren't believed, or because rumours are being spread about them, and possibly because a third person has now become involved. They send off a quick response which is probably angrier in its tone than it might have been had they first slept on it. This just confirms in the mind of the enquirer that something is wrong. They forward the email on to the Arranging Brethren of the ecclesia. ("If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.")

Step 4: The Arranging Brethren discuss it at their monthly meeting, which just happened to be that evening, and agree that something needs to be done. A letter is sent to the offender before the week is out telling him that they want him to attend a special Arranging Brethren's meeting on the following Tuesday to answer the charges. In the meantime, because of the seriousness of the allegations, they advise that the brother has been suspended from all ecclesial duties.

Step 5: The accused brother takes offence at this heavy-handed approach and says he refuses to meet the Arranging Brethren until his accusers come to him face-to-face "in the spirit of Matthew 18". The Recorder sends urgent emails to all the Arranging Brethren, informing them of this development and of the brother's intransigence and his refusing to accept their authority. He's actually worse than they originally thought! They agree that "Matthew 18 has already been applied" (through the sending of two emails) and that as they have now reached the last step they have no alternative but to reluctantly withdraw fellowship ("if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")

That might sound exaggerated but this example is based on real-life incidents. Is this what Jesus meant by forgiving your brother seventy times seven? Is this what He meant about going after a lost sheep? Or humbling yourself like a child? Or suffering personal loss in order to avoid causing a brother to sin? All these things are in Matthew 18, so whatever we do with these few verses we must interpret and apply them in this context.

The first thing we must do is to put this 'process' back in its context and take note of the words which immediately follow.

"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

We should carefully note that these words are about "agreeing" and "coming together". Jesus hasn't changed the subject - this is actually the conclusion to the 'process' that He has just described. The whole object of the 3 or 4 steps in dealing with a brother who sins is to "win your brother over" (v. 15), to "agree" (v. 19) and to "come together" (v. 20). The climax comes in Jesus own asurance that if brethren follow these steps to resolve their differences and to be reconciled ("come together") it is because He is present and has been at the heart of the process of reconciliation.

This teaching is about forgiveness and reconciliation. It's obvious that the example above misses the point completely. So what is Jesus saying?

First, if a brother sins then go to him privately, face-to-face, and in a non-confrontational way and do whatever you personally can to help him get back on track.

If that fails, draw on the experiences of other mature Christians and use them as helpful resources.

If that doesn't help, then use the entire collective wisdom of the whole community of God's people ("the church" didn't exist as an institution at the time, so Jesus is either referring to the local synagogue [but then why not say "the synagogue"?] or, more likely, He is using a word from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible which means the community of God's people). In other words, get as much help as you can, draw on anyone you need to, get the whole community involved if necessary.

Finally, if that fails (and I imagine that that last step would take a very long time), then "treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector". What did Jesus mean by that? Was He suggesting that the offender should be treated with contempt and avoided at all costs? How did Jesus treat "pagans and tax collectors"?

• He called them to be disciples (Matt 9:9)
  
• He ate with them (Matt 9:10-11) and it shocked the religious leaders that he "fellowshipped" with such people
  
• He was their friend (Matt 11:19)
• He promised that they would go into the Kingdom ahead of the religious leaders (Matt 21:32)

The Synoptic Gospels all emphasise the special place the pagans, tax collectors and sinners occupied in the ministry and affections of Jesus. Can Matthew 18:17 be saying the exact opposite? Unlikely! I think what Jesus is saying is that we never give up in working for agreement or reconciliation. We forgive again and again and again ("seventy times seven"), maintaining a relationship with a brother who has sinned, and treat him as someone in need.

I really feel it's important that Christadelphians who have used these verses in Matthew 18 as part of their "disfellowship process" should re-look at them very seriously. I was recently astounded to see this teaching quoted to support a case for ecclesias standing together "collectively" in order to isolate another ecclesia which wasn't conforming. The minutes of a "Combined Meeting of the Arranging Brothers of 12 South-East Queensland Ecclesias" (on 18th June 2007) noted a recommendation that "all ecclesias should move forward collectively and not individually in the spirit of Matt 18" in order to put pressure on the ecclesia being discussed. Where on earth did they get the idea that to "move forward collectively and not individually" was the "spirit of Matt 18"?! It seems they have missed the point of Jesus' teaching completely!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note on dichostasia or "standing apart"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should note several things about these words:

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

Here are some ways other translations paraphrase this verse:

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

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

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


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

Wrested Scriptures (1) - "withdraw fellowship"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being happy

The Tibetan Dalai Lama is in Australia. From the newspaper reports it appears that the main thrust of his message is that the point of life is to be happy.

Perhaps most people would be surprised to learn that Jesus taught the same thing!

Unfortunately, the teachings of Jesus have been so shrouded in religious jargon that few people would associate Jesus' teachings with "being happy". Yet His most famous sermon - the sermon on the mount - begins with the word "Happy". The sermon on the mount was placed in Matthew's account of the life of Jesus in a way which indicated that this sermon was an encapsulation of Jesus' main message - the "good news of the kingdom" (see this post for the evidence of that). And He began this sermon with a series of statements about happiness.

But most people will miss this point - especially if they are reading from the most popular English translations which have the word "blessed" instead of the word "happy". The word "blessed" in Greek is makarios and the word "beatitude" often used in Christian literature and in some Bibles comes from a later Latin translation. The Amplified Bible (AB) translates the opening words of the sermon this way:

"Blessed (happy, to be envied, and spiritually prosperous - with life-joy and satisfaction in God's favor and salvation, regardless of their outward conditions) are the poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3)".

In subsequent verses the AB tried to capture the richness of meaning in this word by translating it these ways:

• enviably happy [with a happiness produced by the experience of God's favor and especially conditioned by the revelation of His matchless grace]
• happy, blithesome, joyous, spiritually prosperous - with life-joy and satisfaction in God's favor and salvation, regardless of their outward conditions
• Blessed and fortunate and happy

This is what William Barclay wrote about the word translated "blessed" or "happy":

Makarios describes that joy which has its secret within itself, that joy which is serene and untouchable, and self contained, that joy which is completely independent of all the chances and the chances of life. ... "No one," said Jesus, "will take your joy from you" (John 16: 22). The beatitudes speak of that joy which seeks us through our pain, that joy which sorrow and loss, and pain and grief, are powerless to touch, that joy which shines through tears, and which nothing in life or death can take away.
. . . The world can win its joys, and the world can equally well lose its joys. A change in fortune, a collapse in health, the failure of a plan, the disappointment of an ambition, even a change in the weather, can take away the fickle joy the world can give. But the Christian has the serene and untouchable joy which comes from walking for ever in the company and in the presence of Jesus Christ.
The greatness of the beatitudes is that they are not wistful glimpses of some future beauty; they are not even golden promises of some distant glory; they are triumphant shouts of bliss for a permanent joy that nothing in the world can ever take away.

("The Gospel of Matthew" Volume 1)

It's a pity that Christianity often fails to appeal to 'ordinary' people simply because it's presented with it's own jargon which makes little sense to people without a church background. I was recently give a rather nice little summary of the Christadelphian faith being used by an ecclesia which is making a real effort to present the Gospel more simply. Given its brevity I was therefore surprised to see it included the words "righteous", "grace" and "spirit" without explanation. These are all familiar terms to church-going people or Bible-readers, but not to the average person in the street.

Let's make a real effort to de-mystify the teachings of Jesus by avoiding terms which are confusing, ambiguous or devoid of the power that was originally intended. If we did that, then rather flocking to hear the Dalai Lama speak about "being happy" people might respond by saying "there's nothing new in that - after all, Jesus taught the same thing".

Dan Brown was right

Ever since Dan Brown wrote his popular novel The Da Vinci Code in 2003 there has been a great deal of criticism and controversy in a proliferation of books refutting, rebutting and reviewing his claims. Evangelical Christians and Catholics have both been vocal in pointing out the inaccuracies and historical errors in the book, although possibly for different reasons.

These subsequent books have debunked many of the myths in The Da Vinci Code. For example, a substantial part of the plot of Brown's book is based on the claim that "The Priory of Sion" was founded in 1099. In fact, the 'Priory' didn't exist before 1956.

While there is a brass line running north-south through the Church of Saint-Sulpice in Paris, it is not a part of the Paris Meridian, as claimed in the book. The Paris Meridian actually passes about 100 metres east of it. The line is instead more of a gnomon or sundial/calendar, meant to mark the solstice and equinoxes. The book also claims that at the explicit demand of French President François Mitterrand, the Louvre Pyramid in Paris was constructed with 666 panes of glass. The pyramid actually contains 603 diamond-shaped and 70 triangular panes of glass, totalling 673. And Mary Magdalene isn't buried beneath the pyramid.

The claim that Rosslyn Chapel was built by the Knights Templar is also false. It was actually founded by Sir William St Clair, third Earl of Orkney and Lord of Rosslyn, and its construction began in 1470, long after the Knights were suppressed.

In fact, there are so many historical and geographical errors in this book it is good to be reminded that it is, after all, a work of fiction (and not a particularly good one either, in my opinion). No one should take its claims seriously.

However, there are a few things which Dan Brown got right (but not many).

First, he tapped into a widespread interest in the community in matters of faith and religion. A lot of people are interested in the historical Jesus and in His teachings. This interest is also reflected in the substantial number of books about Jesus and early Christianity which have gone on to become best-sellers since the publication of The Da Vinci Code.

Second, and perhaps even more noteworthy, Dan Brown realised that while there is an interest in Jesus and matters of faith generally, an enormous number of people do not trust the church to interpret such things for them. It seems, in fact, that they trust a fiction-writer more than they do the institutionalised church. Of course, Brown profited substantially by writing a book which tapped into the community interest in Jesus while at the same time further eroding the credibility of the church. This was actually a great deal more clever than anything in the book.

Third, Brown realised that there was a watershed in the development of Christianity in the fourth century, and that Christianity took a significant change of direction. Two significant landmarks in this development followed the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine (272-337 AD) to Christianity. By the Edict of Milan in 313 AD he legalised Christianity and made it the preferred religion of the Roman empire. Then, in 325 AD the Emperor himself presided over a council of Christian Bishops called the First Council of Nicaea which was held in Bithynia in modern-day Turkey. This Council set the church on a new course which was to irreversibly change the way Christians thought of their founder, and the way the teachings of Jesus Christ would be interpreted and applied.

Although Brown made some historical errors about Constantine and fourth-century Christianity, he at least realised that there was a change of direction after Nicaea. But he missed the main issue completely. The key to understanding what went wrong at Nicaea lies in understanding why the debate about the divinity/humanity of Jesus was important to the Emperor of Rome, why it was a political issue (more than a theological one), and why the victors at that particular Council sought to destroy their opponents and eradicate their writings and teachings. It had everything to do with power and politics and had nothing to do with Mary Magdalene.

To put it simply (something Brown didn't do) Christianity has been distorted by its neglect of the actual figure and teachings of Christ. It seems that a lot of people intuitively know this, and therefore do not trust the church to tell the truth about Jesus or faithfully interpret His teachings.

Brown's alternative, however, is sheer nonsense.

I believe that the success of books like The Da Vinci Code have created an opportunity for us to teach the same message which Jesus taught. Jesus didn't come to build a church. He didn't come to do three days work. He came to prepare people for His Kingdom. His message is surprisingly simple, and if we remove the clutter which the church added to His message, and take away the church's authoritarian structures and trappings of power, the teachings of Jesus are also amazingly attractive.

Jesus was undoubtedly an interesting speaker. Large crowds followed him, sometimes travelling long distances and going without food so they would not miss a word. His audience were impressed by the way in which He taught, as well as by His message and His unique personality. The reason He drew large crowds was a combination of what He taught, who He was, and how He taught. If only we could re-focus on His message and methods, and disconnect it from 'doing church', I believe that more people would be interested in looking at the actual teachings of Jesus.

More on 'Chinese whispers'

Rumours are rarely true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth in reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNITY IN FAITH

The expression in this title comes from Ephesians 4:12-13. Paul lists some of the offices in the early church and then provides the reason why Christ made these appointments: “God’s consecrated people should be fully equipped, that the work of service might go on, and that the body of Christ should be built up. And this is to go on until we all arrive at complete unity in faith in and knowledge of God, until we reach perfect manhood, until we reach a stature which can be measured by the fullness of Christ” (Barclay’s translation).[1]

The expression “fully equipped” (Greek katartizein) is one which was used in politics for bringing together opposing factions so that government could go on. It was used in surgery for setting a broken limb or putting a joint back into its place, and in the NT for mending nets (Mark 1:19). In other words, the term is one which is used for “putting a thing into the condition in which it ought to be”.[2]

Paul then uses an expression, accurately translated by Barclay as ‘arrive at’, which means to arrive at a destination. He is making it clear that this is a primary goal or ‘mission’ of the church. It is a threefold destination:

1. Unity in faith;
2. Perfect manhood;
3. A stature which can be measured by the fullness of Christ.

We will look at some of these terms in more detail.


UNITY IN FAITH

To some people this expression describes an agreement with tenets of religion, a common creed or Statement of Faith. However, the object of a creed or statement of faith is usually to define who IS in the group as well as who IS NOT. For example, the Birmingham amended Statement of Faith defines ‘the faith’ both “positively and negatively” with 31 clauses stating what the ecclesia does believe, and 35 “doctrines to be rejected”, or what it does not believe. The fact that the BASF has been amended betrays the historical reality that the original definition of ‘the faith’ had to be changed in order to exclude from fellowship those who differed with its authors on matters not already covered. Hence it is exclusive rather than unifying.

I believe Barclay has structured his translation of this verse correctly when he speaks of “unity in faith in and knowledge of God”. It is our faith, or trust in God and our personal knowledge of Him which unites us, not our acceptance of a summary of doctrines. Francis Foulkes got it right when he wrote: “Faith is not just the acceptance of a collection of dogmas, in the embracing of which unity will be found. It is something deeper and more personal. It is unity in the knowledge of the Son of God. We can never know any person simply with our mind; and knowledge of such a Person as is envisaged here must involve the deepest possible fellowship.” [3]

It seems that the early Christadelphians weren’t as exclusive in their fellowship as later generations. John Thomas, for example, continued to meet and fellowship with congregations belonging to the Disciples of Christ or Churches of Christ, even after renouncing his earlier beliefs and the teachings of the leaders of that denomination and being re-baptised. The first Constitution of what could be called a Christadelphian ecclesia was of the Royal Association of Believers in New York, of which brother Thomas was a member, in 1854 (the name ‘Christadelphian’ not being coined until 1864). The clause on ‘fellowship’ stated:

“Being the Lord’s table, and not the table of the Association, all of good report within the city or without it, who believing the gospel of the kingdom, have been immersed, are cordially invited to worship with us; the only privileges withheld being a participation in the direction of our affairs, and speech without previous invitation.” [4]

In this early Constitution fellowship, or “the privilege of Christian worship”, was distinguished from “membership” of the Association. Fellowship was open to “all of good report” who believed the gospel and had been immersed. No attempt was made to restrict fellowship to members only, on the grounds that it was “the Lord’s table, and not the table of the Association”. Membership was disallowed “to any immersed believers who cannot prove that they walk as becomes the kingdom of God and of Christ.”

In the case of both fellowship and membership the emphasis was on the need to have a good reputation and to live a lifestyle consistent with the Gospel. How times have changed when the emphasis of interviews for baptism or membership of an ecclesia is on what a person believes rather than on how they live! And what of those ecclesias who welcome visitors at the door with a card stating their doctrinal or fellowship position and asking for an endorsement before the visitor can proceed further! Have they forgotten that it is the Lord’s table and not their own?

The Association is defined as "an aggregation of persons who believe 'the things' covenanted to Abraham and to David, 'concerning the kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ', and have therefore been 'immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'." No further definition of the Gospel is included or appended. What constituted the Gospel was apparently understood by the members without having to be enshrined in a creed or Statement of Faith.


PERFECT MANHOOD

The expression “unto a perfect man” describes a mature adult. The Greek word translated perfect (teleios) means to be mature. The word ‘man’ describes an adult as distinct from a child (rather than a man as distinct from a woman) and is used to express this distinction in 1 Corinthians 13:11. It is necessary for the church to go through a process of growth and maturing. Divisions, quarrels and disunity are evidence of spiritual immaturity and childishness.

Growth, of necessity, means change. As we mature we inevitably change and adapt our thinking and attitudes. Some brethren, however, see their refusal to change one iota from the ideas and expressions of a previous generation as a strength. They see it as a sign of consistency. Having said “I still teach what I have taught for years” John Thomas, however, readily admitted that as he “learned from the word” he had changed his thinking on many matters. “Must a man never progress? If he discovers an error in his premises, must he for ever hold to it for the sake of consistency? May such a calamity never befall me! Rather let me change every day, till I get right at last.” [6]


THE MEASURE OF THE STATURE OF THE FULNESS OF CHRIST

The word translated ‘stature’ means age or physical stature and is used here figuratively of maturity. Our spiritual maturity can be measured by “the fulness of Christ”. Paul uses this same expression in 1:23 and Colossians 1:10 to explain that the church should be the full expression of Jesus Christ by being filled by him.

The context of this passage shows that the church is filled by Christ by making full use of the gifts and grace that he seeks to impart. Paul’s language here, including his repeated allusions to the human body, is similar to that in 1 Corinthians 12 where he describes one body with many parts. There he argues that “God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be” (v 18), and goes on to say that “there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other” (v 25). He concludes with a list of ‘office-bearers’ (v 28ff), similar to that in Ephesians, to emphasise that we all have different abilities and different jobs to do but that the same God is working in each one for the common good (see v 6f).

Now both these Scriptures are emphasising to us that we must value the contribution each brother and sister can make. Regardless of how different our abilities, or level of personal maturity or knowledge, we must recognise that God is working with and in each individual for the common good. Hence no part of the body can afford to be without another , or to cut itself off from the rest of the body (’The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!”’ v21). Yet isn’t that precisely what we attempt to do every time we ‘disfellowship’ an individual or an ecclesia, or group ourselves into ‘fellowships’?

Paul concludes his appeal to the Ephesians for “unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (4:3) with another allusion to the human body. “Speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (v 15f). His expression “held together” translates the Greek word sunbibazomenon, which is used of bringing things or people together, and of reconciling those who have quarrelled[7] . Like the supporting ligaments which hold a joint together and enable it to function correctly, so love enables those who have quarrelled to be reconciled. Has this been the missing ingredient in previous fellowship discussions?

Note that Paul stresses both here and earlier that the body depends for its growth on the Lord’s direction and arrangements. We can grow and prosper only to the extent that we follow his leadership and are in tune with him.


[1] William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1976, p.145.
[2] Ibid, p.149.
[3] Francis Foulkes, The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, Wm.B.Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1956, p121.
[4] John Thomas “Constitution of the Royal Association of Believers in New York” Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, January, 1854.
[6] From a letter written by John Thomas in 1848, quoted by Robert Roberts, Dr. Thomas: His Life and Work, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1954, p.153 (his emphasis).
[7] Foulkes, op cit, p.124.

Jesus walks into a bar ...

There is an interesting article in today's Sydney Morning Herald by journalist Barney Zwartz.

Titled "Jesus walks into a bar ..." the article refers to "an extraordinarily diverse and fast-growing Christian movement catering to the multitudes who reject the institutional church but want to follow its founder, Jesus Christ."

It goes on to say

They meet in cafes, clubs, homes, halls, parks or galleries. Rather than "church", they may meet as families, students, businesspeople or surfies. They may be affiliated to mainstream churches or they may be entirely independent. Most are committed and young.

The article quotes Dr Ruth Powell of the National Church Life Survey who says:

Many disenfranchised people under 50, the generation that left the churches, say they still want to follow Jesus, and know they still need others to help them, but have to find a new way, new structures. So all sorts of variants are happening under the radar. They are difficult to spot.

We then read about groups meeting for discussion or Bible study in cafes, clubs, pubs and other venues. Some of these people are new to Christianity while others are disenchanted with church although they still believe the teachings of Jesus are true.

Towards the end of the article we are reminded about Jesus' advice not to put new wine into old wineskins, or the wineskins burst, costing both wine and skins. Rather, put new wine into new wineskins.

I personally found this article to be very interesting and challenging. In fact, just before I read today's newspaper I sent an email to a friend saying:

As I see it one of the main reasons the Gospel as Christadelphians understand it isn’t more widespread is that it has been presented rather negatively. What I mean is, instead of saying “no one burns in hell” Christadelphians tend to preach “your loved ones aren’t in heaven” - mmm ... that would turn anyone off right away. And instead of preaching “Jesus was one of us” Christadelphians tend to go about by knocking those stupid churches that teach a lot of rubbish about 3 gods. That would hardly endear them to anyone. See my point?" I made the comment that "I reckon we need to find a way of saying what we believe in a way that’s not only positive, it’salso relevant. Then we need to find the right vehicle to communicate that message.

Well, as an out-of-church Christian myself I'd be interested in hearing your comments about meetings in cafes and pubs, and what is the best way of reaching people with a Gospel that's relevant to their lives. If you'd like to make a comment about that you can post a message on the Truth Alive message board, or send me an email.