Healthy church life

The Australian National Church Life Survey published an interesting list of 12 core qualities of healthy churches.

Faith and Worship
1. An Alive and growing faith
2. Vital and nurturing worship
Our Life Together
3. Growth in belonging and involvement
4. An active concern for those on the fringe of church life
5. Care for young people
Community Connections
6. A focus beyond ourselves
7. Serving the wider community
8. Discussing faith and inviting others to church
9. Integrating newcomers
Vision and Purpose
10. A clear owned vision for the future
11. Openness to new possibilities
12. Empowering and inspiring leadership

How does your church/ecclesia rate against this list?

The Bishop of Durham makes news on heaven-going

There is an interesting interview with N.T. "Tom" Wright, Bishop of Durham, in the Feb 7 2008 issue of Time magazine. The article is available online.

The article has some interesting stuff, including the following:

It therefore comes as something of a shock that Wright doesn't believe in heaven — at least, not in the way that millions of Christians understand the term. In his new book, Surprised by Hope (HarperOne), Wright quotes a children's book by California first lady Maria Shriver called What's Heaven, which describes it as "a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk... If you're good throughout your life, then you get to go [there]... When your life is finished here on earth, God sends angels down to take you heaven to be with him." That, says Wright is a good example of "what not to say." The Biblical truth, he continues, "is very, very different".

While Wright apparently believes in an "intermediate state" between death and the resurrection, he emphasizes that the teaching of the New testament is primarily about resurrection and a renewed earth.

Wright says that people deny the idea of bodily resurrection when they talk about their "souls going to Heaven." He says:

If people think "my physical body doesn't matter very much," then who cares what I do with it? And if people think that our world, our cosmos, doesn't matter much, who cares what we do with that? Much of "traditional" Christianity gives the impression that God has these rather arbitrary rules about how you have to behave, and if you disobey them you go to hell, rather than to heaven. What the New Testament really says is God wants you to be a renewed human being helping him to renew his creation, and his resurrection was the opening bell. And when he returns to fulfil the plan, you won't be going up there to him, he'll be coming down here.

This article may interest a lot of people reading this blog, especially those from an Abrahamic Faith or Christadelphian background. It has been said that Tom Wright's views on Christology are closer to Abrahamic Faith and Christadelphian ideas than the views of most trinitarians. Now it seems the Bishop of Durham may also be somewhat closer to Abrahamic Faith and Christadelphian thinking on the resurrection and the Age to Come than he is to many people in his own communion.

Wright ends the interview with these words:

In almost all cases, when I've explained this to people, there's a sense of excitement and a sense of, "Why haven't we been told this before?"

Those final words reminded me of the title of Greg Deuble's excellent book "They Never Told Me THIS in Church!"

I'm wondering if there is a really positive way of talking about life-after-death without being confrontational, yet arousing people's interest in something they've never heard before. I mean, the popular Christadelphian approach to the subject ("the churches are wrong", "Christendom is astray", "you don't go to heaven when you die", "you're loved ones are nowhere", "we're right and you're wrong") can be more than a little off-putting for some people - which I guess is why people are staying away from Christadelphian lectures in their droves. And then with many Christadelphians comes this little rider: "and if you don't get this right there is no hope of salvation for you".

A Christadelphian friend of mine recently put it this way: "The teachings unique to Christadelphians are important and true and should be stated - but to use them to condemn other Christians is completely opposite to their intention and continues the division we have been guilty of." (Although I should let my friend know that most of the doctrines he thinks are "unique to Christadelphians" are also held by many others - there is very little which is "unique").

Surely there is a way to positively teach about subjects like life-after-death, the oneness of God, and the humanity of Jesus without judging people who disagree as non-christian and beyond the pale. Perhaps the Bishop of Durham will ultimately succeed where Christadelphians have failed.

Why are some churches so appalling?

I was shocked to read last week that a radical American church planned to picket Heath Ledger's memorial service because of his portrayal of a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain.

Members of the church (which I won't name - they don't deserve any publicity) said Ledger is now in hell. These so-called Christians have shown absolutely no respect for a family that’s coping with a terrible loss. They are insensitive, uncaring and totally devoid of any sympathy for grieving friends and family. It's Christians like these who make a lot of people question whether there really is a God. Who would want to believe in a God who has followers like this? One journalist wrote:

"Further comment feels unnecessary, other than perhaps to wonder whether the "church" will ever realise that their continued existence is the most eloquent argument against the existence of any deity. And then to accept the answer would be a no."

The appallingly sordid bad taste of a group of people who bring shame on the whole body of Christ is a shocking reminder that people will judge Christianity by what they see - Christians! And in this instance what they see even makes other Christians sick.

John wrote that "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:8). If these so-called Christians don't know how to show love, respect and kindness to a family which has just suffered a tragic loss then they have demonstrated to us all that they don't know God.

What's in a name?

This week I came across a Christadelphian meeting place quite by chance as I was driving along a road I have not been on for quite some time. It wasn't the building which caught my attention. In fact, the building was stark and uninviting and I initially thought it was an industrial site. However, the sign caught my eye.


I guess I was initially somewhat surprised to see a Christadelphian meeting place described as a "Bible Learning Centre", as I haven't come across this before. It got me to thinking about how this name was obviously chosen because that is the main emphasis of this ecclesia - in other words, what mostly goes on here is learning about the Bible.

Interestingly, I also recently visited an ecclesia which has a very different sign. This meeting describes itself as the "Pine Rivers Worship Centre". This tells me that the main focus of this ecclesia is worship.


Do the different names tell us anything about any possible differences between these two ecclesias? I think so. I must say that I have actually visited one (the "worship centre") but not the other, so what I'm writing here is mostly just my impression from the sign.

Apart from the fact that the "War with Russia is Inevitable" sign is a dead giveaway (to a Christadelphian) that this is a Logos ecclesia (does any other kind of ecclesia flog this prophetic dead horse?), the emphasis on "Bible learning" tells me that for this ecclesia knowledge about the Bible would be the most important thing to them. On the other hand, to the folks at the "worship centre" how they worship the God of the Bible is presumably the most important thing to them.

The two signs tell me that one ecclesia is interested in matters of the head ("learning") while the other is more focussed on matters of the heart (as worship involves the emotions as well as the intellect). One ecclesia would emphasise getting their facts right, while the other would want to be in a right relationship with the One they worship. The first might help me to know about God, but the second might help me to actually get to know God. If I was looking for salvation I might get the impression from one sign that there was stuff I had to know (and with "learning" and "seminars" I might wonder about whether I would have to sit for an exam), while the other sign suggests that I'm likely to find a nurturing environment ("caring and sharing") with more group support and the potential for friendships and relationships.*

One sign tells us that war is inevitable (and to most people this is a bad thing, although the sign leaves us wondering if the people who run the seminars here think this is good or bad) while the other sign tells us that they are about "caring and sharing". One promises death and destruction, the other offers hope.

One sign tells me that the Bible contains unpleasant information (war is inevitable) while the other sign tells me that there are people who care about me (and my kids). The people at the worship centre have obviously found something which they think is good, which is why they want to worship the One who has shown them "the way, the truth and the life", and why they want to share it with me. I'm not sure why the other folks are telling me that a war is coming. Are they trying to help me avoid it (but can I avoid it if it's "inevitable"?) or are they prophets of gloom and doom? I wonder if they have long beards and wear signboards like the guys in the cartoons ("The end is nigh!")?

Neither of the two signs use many words, but in their choice of words they tell us a great deal about the different groups that meet there.


* Because I do know about Logos ecclesias - and was actually raised in one, so I know a great deal about them - I know that this ecclesia would believe that you must have all the right beliefs, down to the details, in order to be saved. Correct knowledge is a life and death matter to them, so if you get the slightest thing wrong then you would be unwelcome there.

Yours is the kingdom of God

I recently came across this great quote from a book by Catholic theologian Albert Nolan.

Jesus Before Christianity
by Albert Nolan, pages 57-58, 1992

The gospel or good news which Jesus brought to the poor and the oppressed was a prophecy. He prophesied a future event which would be a blessing to the poor. This event was not merely the coming of God’s “kingdom” but the coming of God’s “kingdom” for the poor and the oppressed. “Yours is the kingdom of God” (Lk 6:20).

Jesus’ basic prophecy is contained in those passages of the gospel which we call the beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor
because yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now
because you shall be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now
because you shall laugh. (Lk 6:20-21)

… If great hopes for the future were awakened in the poor by Jesus’ activity, even greater hopes must have been awakened by his prophetic words. But these hopes had originally nothing whatsoever to do with heaven - at least not as a place of happiness and rewards in the after-life. Heaven in the time of Jesus was a synonym for God. The “kingdom” of heaven means the “kingdom” of God. Having rewards or treasures in heaven means being in the good books of God. Literally heaven was the sky, the place where God and all other spirits dwell. All dead people go into sheol, i.e., the underworld or the grave. Even those who believed in rewards and punishments in the after-life (before the general resurrection) pictured this as something that happened in two different departments of sheol. The virtuous were in the bosom of Abraham in sheol, and a great chasm separated them from the wicked, who were in another part of sheol (compare Lk 16:23-26). The Christian belief in heaven originated after the death of Jesus with the idea that he had been taken up into heaven or exalted to the right hand of God.

But the good news of the “kingdom” of God was news about a future state of affairs on earth when the poor would no longer be poor, the hungry would be satisfied and the oppressed would no longer be miserable. To say “Thy kingdom come” is the same as saying “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10 par).

Christadelphians will agree with this Catholic theologian that the kingdom of God will be on earth, and not in heaven after death. But before getting too excited that you have the agreement of a Catholic scholar, take careful note of his main point.

The really great part of this quote, in my opinion, is that Nolan has picked up that Jesus did not come simply to say "the Kingdom of God is coming", but rather "the Kingdom of God is coming for the poor, the oppressed, the rejected, the mistreated, the disenfranchised, and those who don't measure-up to the standards imposed by the religious".

I think Christadelphians have got the Gospel half right: the Kingdom of God is coming. But for whom?

Weeping and gnashing of teeth

The expression "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" is a puzzling one, and one which has engendered fear into generations of believers. It's an image associated with being "cast into outer darkness" and rejection. It's a favourite of "hell-fire and brimstone" preachers, and one which is often quoted in order to bring people into line.

So, what is “gnashing of teeth?” The Greek word that is translated as “gnashing” is from a word that means “to bite” and describes the snarling of a wild animal as it attacks. In all of the passages where the Greek terms for gnash or gnashing are used in the New Testament or in the Septuagint they are always used of anger, rage, pain or anguish. They are never used of sorrow, grief, remorse or regret.

The expression "weeping and gnashing of teeth" occurs only seven times in the Bible: six are found in the gospel of Matthew, one in Luke.

"I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8:11-12).

"The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42).

"This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:49-50).

"'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" (Matthew 22:12-13).

"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 24:50-51).

"For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 25:29-30).

"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!' There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out." (Luke 13:27-28).

A similar reference to gnashing of teeth occurs in Acts:

When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth (Acts 7:54).

This is the only passage in the New Testament where the term "gnash" (verb) is used apart from the common formula, "weeping (noun) and gnashing of teeth." It is a significant passage because it sheds light on the meaning of the associated term "gnashing of teeth." This verse describes an incident where the religious leaders were furious with Stephen. They were full of anger and hatred which very soon led to their violent crime of stoning him. To "gnash the teeth" as it is used in this passage has nothing to do with sorrow or regret or grief or remorse. It describes their anger and hatred. They were like angry growling animals about to devour their prey.

Who is it that is being "cast into outer darkness" where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in Jesus' parables? On two occasions Jesus spoke about the "sons of the kingdom", or citizens of the Kingdom (the NIV has "subjects of the kingdom"). One of these was an occasion when He spoke of "weeping and gnashing of teeth".

The background to this saying was an encounter with a Roman centurion - someone outside of God's chosen people Israel - and Jesus said of him " I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." He then went on to say that while many would come from outside and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom, the "children/sons/subjects of the kingdom" would be cast into outer darkness where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's evident that He is saying outsiders (such as this Roman centurion) would be welcomed into the kingdom while those who thought the kingdom was their "right" would be rejected. But when we look at some of the other similar sayings we see that it was not all Israel who would be cast out, but a particular class within Israel.

It was not only "Gentiles" who were "outsiders". The Pharisees and religious leaders also excluded people with disabilities (the blind, the crippled, the deaf), those with infectious diseases such as leprosy, people who colluded with the Romans (such as tax-collectors), people who didn't measure up to their standards of holiness or who rejected some of their doctrines (the term "sinners" included people who disagreed with them as well as those who were guilty of breaking the Law) as well as Samaritans and Gentiles. In fact, they took the name "Pharisees" because it meant "the separated" - they were "pure in doctrine and conduct", or so they thought.

Consequently many of Jesus' sayings and stories were directed against this elite class within Israel: the religious leaders, the pure, the separated, those who felt that they alone were the "true Israel". For example, after Jesus told the parable of the talents Mark and Luke tell us that "the teachers of the law and the chief priests ... knew he had spoken this parable against them" (Mk 12:12; Lk 20:19).

In these sayings Jesus is saying that it was those who were regarded by the religious leaders as being "outsiders", those whom they rejected, that are to be made welcome in the Kingdom. On the other hand, the "insiders", the doctrinally pure, those who have separated themselves from the ones who don't measure up doctrinally or in their behaviour, are to be "cast out". As a result of being rejected there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth". This is not a weeping of remorse or sorrow, but of anger and resentment.

Something you've hopefully already noticed from reading earlier posts on this blog is that when Jesus told stories or parables about the kingdom He wasn't always speaking of some future time in the Age to Come. Most of Jesus' kingdom-sayings were about the here-and-now, and how kingdom-people should prepare for the Age to Come. Of course, some of His stories were about the future, such as the one in the list below where He said "this is how it will be at the end of the age." The context will determine whether Jesus is speaking about the hear-and-now or the age to come.

So it is that the religious purists who will be rejected "at the end of the age" will go away angrily "gnashing their teeth" with rage because that is how they behave now. In Stephen's day they directed their anger and rage against this faithful follower of Jesus (and his Greek name suggests that he was a Gentile, an "outsider"). Throughout history we have seen "religious" people directing their anger against other believers who don't measure up to the standards imposed by the purists. The same is evident today.

Putting this together, we see that the idea behind this expression is that those who are apart from God attack each other and try to tear each other, much like a pack of dogs fighting over a carcass. Without love there is just hatred and envy. Those who do not live by Jesus' teachings on love and grace bite and tear each other. Those who live according to God’s way help others, rather than tearing them down. In these stories of Jesus we are being told that the time will come when they will be left to themselves to tear each other apart. We don't have to wait until "the end of the age" to see this principle fulfilled. Communities, denominations and churches which splinter and divide do so because they are obsessed with their own standards of doctrinal purity or so-called holiness rather than reaching out in love to those who are in need of God's kingdom, and in the process they tear each other apart.

Do Christadelphians enjoy schism?

It's nothing new to most readers of my blog that Christadelphians are a deeply divided community, and have been since 1885, and possibly earlier. I've lost count of the various "fellowships" and splinter groups.

However, I was surprised to see that the article about Christadelphians on Wikipedia currently has more to say about "schisms" within Christadelphianism than it says about Christadelphian beliefs! (I say "currently" because wikipedia is a dynamic information site and everything could change by the time I finish writing this post).

The information appears to me to have been posted by a Christadelphian. It makes me wonder why some Christadelphians seem to take so much delight in the fact that it is a divided, troubled, conflict-riddled, argumentative community which has not only set itself against the world but against each other.

PRAYER WEEK FOR PAKISTAN

Pakistan is a nation in turmoil. Since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto there has been a great deal of uncertainty about political stability in Pakistan. Understandably, our brothers and sisters there are very concerned about the future. They are reporting that because of the destruction of infrastructure the power supply is very intermittent and some areas are going for long periods without power or gas. Communication has also consequently been disrupted. Food and essential commodities have escalated in price, with some basic items such as flour and milk increasing by 50-70%.

Pakistan has been one of the fastest growing areas of the Christadelphian brotherhood in recent years. Since 2002 there have been more than 800 baptisms and the spread of the Gospel in this nation of 170 million people has been phenomenal. To aid and support this amazing activity of God, especially during this time of crisis, we are asking for your prayers.

For each day during the week commencing 13 January 2008 we are asking for Christadelphians worldwide to unite in their prayers for Pakistan .

Each day will have a ‘theme’ to help you focus your praying.

To facilitate this, each day during the prayer week an email will be sent to supporters and friends with some relevant background information and suggestions for thanksgiving and prayer requests, so that worldwide we will praying along similar lines each day. The same email will be posted on their blog (see link in the right side panel).

If you are not already on the email list to receive updates, please let us know and each day during this week we will email you so that you can join in this fellowship of praying together.

A hard copy of these prayer suggestions for the full week can be posted to any brother or sister who would like to join us in the prayer-week but who cannot access email or the internet.

Please feel free to forward this message to any brothers and sisters who you feel would welcome the opportunity to partner with us in prayer for a full week for our brothers and sisters in Pakistan .

To be added to the email list for prayer suggestions and updates send an email with the word 'Subscribe' as the subject to pakistan.christadelphians@yahoo.com

ASSASSINATION OF BENAZIR BHUTTO

Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister of Pakistan, has been assassinated while campaigning for elections that were scheduled for 8 January. After returning to Pakistan in October 2007 Bhutto was hoping that her party, the PPP, would emerge as the dominant force in the elections, the first to be held since President Musharraf resigned as head of the army and became a civilian leader. Late last year, Ms Bhutto and Mr Musharraf had been working on a power-sharing agreement. The talks failed, leaving Ms Bhutto as the biggest political threat to President Musharraf, rather than an ally. Her death could leave a political vacuum.

There is now a great deal of uncertainty about political stability in Pakistan. Understandably, Christadelphians in Pakistan are very concerned about the future. One brother in Karachi contacted me to say: "When the news broken there were protests everywhere in the country, banks, vehicles and the official properties including police stations being set on fire ... traffic and cell services became jammed ... 7 people from the apartment where I'm living could not reach their homes for 4 hours after the incidents".

On Friday last, five Christians were kidnapped in South Waziristan by unidentified men. The victims were en route from Wana to Dera Ismail Khan when they were abducted from the Wana-Tank Road. The political administration has confirmed the kidnapping, and said all resources were being utilised to secure the release of the abducted people.

In the latest news it has been reported that thousands of Pakistanis have fled into Afghanistan with the security situation deteriorating in Pakistan's tribal regions over the past week. Hundreds of families, comprising some 6,000 mainly women and children, have been crossing the border. It is the first time so many people have crossed this way as for years it was Afghans fleeing fighting.

The New York Times has also reported that US Security advisers are discussing whether to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan in response to intelligence reports that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are intensifying efforts to destabilise the Pakistani Government.

For now Christadelphians in Pakistan have reported that they are safe from the turmoil following Bhutto's assassination, but they would value your prayers.

For regular updates about Pakistan Christadelphians visit their blog or email pakistan.christadelphians@yahoo.com

Agreement from an unlikely source

For years I have been saying that the Christadelphian statements of faith, including the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF), are imperfect. The very fact that the BASF has been "amended" is a clear indication that the original writer(s) didn't get it right, at least in the eyes of the people who made later amendments. And the fact that it has been amended more than once should be a warning that even the amended versions are also quite possibly wrong.

It seems now that I have an unexpected supporter: the editor of The Christadelphian magazine. In the June 2007 magazine he wrote:

"Creeds and human statements all contain inherent weaknesses, because they are framed by frail, earth-bound beings."

Michael Ashton

Wrested Scriptures (5) - "another Gospel"

It is often argued by some Christadelphians that any variation from the one true faith falls under this condemnation of Paul:

"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:6-9)

This text is interpreted to mean that unless someone is preaching the one true faith in its entirety then they are preaching "another Gospel". It's argued, for example, that trinitarianism is "another Gospel". So too is heaven-going at death. Some Christadelphians go even further and accuse other Christadelphians of preaching "another Gospel" if they hold different views on the atonement, the nature of Christ, resurrectional responsibility, inspiration, divorce and remarriage, the extent of the Kingdom, or even the identity of Gog and Magog!

What did Paul mean when he wrote about those preaching "another Gospel"?

The best way to get an overview of Galatians is to read it through in one sitting, preferably in a modern version. The Message is excellent for this purpose, and it won't take long at all to read the whole letter. If you read Galatians this way you will notice that Paul is very single-minded and that he really has just one objective in writing this letter. There was only one issue that he wanted to deal with in this letter and he gets straight to the point in the opening verses.

Paul doesn't leave us in any doubt as to the problem: certain teachers from Jerusalem had visited the churches in Galatia and attempted to bring them under some of the rules and regulations of Judaism. Paul is very outspoken in his opposition to this "Judaizing" of Christianity and makes it very clear indeed that the Gospel he preached, and through which the Galatians were converted, was a message of freedom in Christ. He tells them again that we are saved by grace, and not through the keeping of any rules or regulations. He explains that any human efforts to please God and gain salvation through rituals, law-keeping and 'legalism' of any kind will end in failure. No less than seven times he emphasises the importance of grace.

In contrasting the false teachings of the Judaisers with the message he preached, Paul says "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (5:4). To abandon the Gospel of grace is "apostacy" - a fall from grace. He says that if righteousness could be gained any other way than by grace then "Christ died for nothing!" (2:20-21).

Right from the start of this letter Paul makes it clear that this is about grace versus legalism. He says that the Gospel of Christ which they first heard and embraced was about "the grace of Christ" but that now they were deserting this Gospel of grace and "are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all" (1:5-7).

So its really quite plain here that the "other Gospel" which was being preached was about legalism, rule-keeping and attempting to gain righteousness through "works of the law".

This explains why Paul says that "if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed". Later he said that "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (3:10). Legalism brings a curse on those who try to live by rule-keeping.

In earlier posts in this series I noted that many of these "wrested Scriptures" are used by the very people the texts are speaking about and given another meaning contrary to the one that was intended and turned against the believers. Paul wrote: "some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves" (2:4). Not surprisingly then this passage in Galatians 1:6-9 is also often used by legalists in their attempts to rob believers of their freedom in Christ and to bring them into bondage to a doctrinal creed, a style of worship, a manner of dressing, an organisational structure, or some other man-made way of practicing religion.

God doesn’t tinker with the mind (2)

The following reply by Tim was posted to the Truth Alive forum in response to Russ Brierly's article. Tim makes some good points and I felt they were worth re-posting here.


Hi Russ,

I'm sorry you didn't get your article published, but I agree with much of what you write regarding the Spirit of God. The work of the Holy Spirit in us today is an area that much of the Christadelphian body resist, just as the Pharisees of Stephen's day also always resisted the Spirit of God, because the active working of God's Spirit would mean change that threatened all the human traditions that we find. For taking these verses as they are written and experiencing the presence of God I myself was disfellowshipped. Yet they do mean exactly what you say.

A lot of explanations other than what they say have been presented to me. For instance it has been suggested to me that they only applied to the first century Christians. It is suggested we now only get the action of God's working of His Spirit today through the medium of the Bible. Others suggest that the words really mean the 'spirit-word' a phrase which is to be found nowhere in the Bible. Yet it is hard to see how the direct working of God could easily be replaced by the indirect effect of our reading the Bible and our interpretations of it within the limitation of words.

The issue of freewill is a little bit more complex. If everyone has freewill, then it means a lot of Christadelphians are willfully denying God in their lives by resisting God's Spirit. In my experience that is not so. Many simply do not understand. The idea of God working on our hearts is foolishness to them. they cannot understand how God could work in them and because they have no faith they cannot believe first and understand second through experience. So they are trying to understand something that we learn from within in our hearts with their minds. They are trying to understand too much first without taking the words exactly as they read.

In practice we do not have freewill, yet it is also true that we aren't automatons either. We have a will and we are conscious of having a will and of making choices. Yet we are also under the influence of certain things which cloud our ability to have fullness of will. We are influenced by our religious upbringings and traditions for instance. Certain people can have a bearing on our opinions. Our human nature creates a 'natural thinking' which affects us and the world we live in places pressures on us which affects our thinking and willingness to believe certain things. We are affected by what nutrition we take in, our state of fitness and health and much more. We certainly need strength from above to begin to overcome and challenge all the elements which resist God and his message.

From an Old Testament perspective we most certainly do have freewill, but from a New Testament perspective we do not. That is because the Old Testament was a shadow to bring people to Christ, whereas in the New Testament we find the reality of Christ and his Spirit spelt out more clearly. Since the Christadelphians tend to focus on the Old Testament they frequently miss the relevance of Christ and replace it with a focus on empirical doctrines which do not save. The Spirit of God is very much about Christ and how he and the Father now dwell in us. The Spirit is 'God in us' and 'Christ in us' and the 'Spirit in us' and the Bible says in Corinthians that 'no one can call Jesus Lord except through the Holy Spirit'. We have to have a real relationship with God and not simply one with the Bible that he inspired people to write. It is not the Bible which saves us, but knowing the risen Christ and whilst we can learn about Christ from reading the Bible we have to come to 'know Him' something which is very different.

It is very difficult to get through to many Christadelphians, because they are so entrenched in the idea that they and they alone have the correct interpretation of scripture and no one else can teach them anything. I believe it is this arrogance that has to be overcome before people will understand the issues that you are talking about. In our natural minds we are spiritually blind. None of us can come to God on the basis of our strength or intelligence or ability to correctly interpret scripture and unless we feel God's drawing we cannot come to him, because we naturally think we can see when we cannot, we can hear when we cannot. God has put us all in the same position of helplessness and yet the BASF doesn't recognise this and claims that people who are idiots cannot be saved. That's the inevitable consequence of having a form of religion where salvation is dependent upon your intellectual understanding. Yet in scripture the mentally ill often understood more than the most intelligent leaders of the Jews, because its not about our intellect, but about giving up the heart and to many Christadelphians there is no difference between the two. In essence you are changed by how much you read the Bible and understand it, not by how much you have given up the heart.

It all goes also against the tenor of the scripture, because in the Bible we find it is the poor and weak and despised of this world who are most likely to have faith. That's because they have least reason to trust in the flesh. It has let them down too many times. However they are the ones least likely to have that access to the bible, that training in reasoning techniques, that heightened ability to balance the text. A book-based method is also contrary to what we read in the acts of the apostles and it would have frustrated the fast spread of the gospels. They themselves talked of being 'led by the Spirit'. Yes they had the Old Testament scriptures (the New was not yet written) and they used it to reason with the Jews and see the progression of God's purpose, but primarily it was an oral message spread with a power don't see today in the main. I think it has less to do with the Spirit only being there to give us the New Testament and more to do with the body of Christ not having the necessary faith and wisdom which comes from experience and which we are still learning.

If the spirit comes purely through the medium of the Bible, then a body of people as well read and studious as the Christadelphians should by now have the perfect faith, yet what we see in practice is often a set of traditions and an adherence to doctrine and statements of faith which is stultifying. Something is missing and that missing something is power and spirit and life and every time someone realises that they will be more and more ready to be drawn to the leading of God's Spirit. Whilst they stand in the power of their intellect and interpretations and traditions they aren't ready to turn to God with all the heart. They have no need for Him. They've got the Bible and they can read and they are happy to believe that if they know the Bible enough they have God. That isn't necessarily the case. I could read everything about you and I would know all about you, but I wouldn't know you and more importantly you wouldn't know me. You might be happy to have a relationship with me simply by reading all about me. To me though that wouldn't be a relationship and its not what Son meant by him and his Son making their home with us. It's a little bit more personal and intimate than that.

Without the Spirit of God we are really serving God through the fleshly mind. We may have learn through mental discipline to keep the body physically in check, but it's an arduous and unrelenting way to try to serve God. You won't keep up your mental progress unless you read the Bible enough for instance. You have to be sure that you have the right interpretations and read the right translation of the Bible and balance it rightly. It is not like a relationship with God where you can feel your closeness and distance from him. You will always feel as if you aren't good enough and feel you must always read more and try harder. If you should have a mental breakdown you are in real difficulties, because it's only with a strong mind that your method will work. If you cannot absorb the Bible or get strength from its ideas you are now in a very helpless situation. In fact this constant pressure to move forward through knowledge could break you mentally, because without the Spirit of God we are under law and the object of law is to get you to give up and have faith. To deny the conclusion as an organisation is to make it very difficult for people to come to the real heart knowledge of God which matters.

God will not take this resistance of his Spirit lightly I don't believe. I hope he does find a way to draw the Christadelphians forward and it may happen as the world closes in as it is doing and we find we need more than words and interpretations and find we need God's real presence.

Much love and blessings in Jesus, your brother,

Tim

God doesn’t tinker with the mind

The following article by Russ Brierly was recently posted on the Truth Alive forum. Russ makes some really good points and I personally think this article is a good contribution to the discussion of the Holy Spirit in the Christadelphian community. The article is re-posted here with his permission.

He wrote: "I recently submitted the following article to one of the Christadelphian magazines. I got a pink slip on it and while I am not surprised at the pink slip on the one hand, I believe it’s indicative of a serious problem we have in the community, and that is the fear to discuss openly with Bibles in hand anything which resembles teaching on the subject of the Holy Spirit."

I agree with his conclusion that Christadelphians generally avoid this subject, probably through fear. As a result there is a great deal of ignorance about it in the Christadelphian community. Consequently I also feel that the Christadelphian community is impoverished through its neglect of a very important Bible subject.

I know that Russ would value feedback, and discussion is welcomed at the Truth Alive forum.

God doesn’t tinker with the mind

When discussing how God works in our lives recently with a group of brethren, the statement was made by one that “God doesn’t tinker with the mind.” I found this rather troubling for three reasons:

1. It leaves my spiritual growth and progress totally up to my own intellectual abilities.
2. My three-score and ten years on this earth has demonstrated that I possess a mind that does need “tinkering with” in a supernatural way.
3. It is not in accord with numerous scriptural passages, or perhaps one might go so far as to say, in accord with a total Biblical theology.

God works with us in many ways; through the words of wisdom and righteous examples we find in the scripture; through circumstances, something which we often refer to as providence; through our counsel with loving, God fearing friends; and through the direct impression of thoughts on our mind.

When we look at the concept of God working with us by direct impression of thoughts on our mind, we are talking about God bringing about a change of attitude from the worldly to the spiritual, from the natural to the Godly, from the un-holy to the holy. We are talking about God helping us overcome sin in all its forms. We are talking about God helping us deal with addictions and those things to which human nature can so readily become a slave.

In exploring this subject we are looking at the concept of indwelling – God and the Lord Jesus Christ dwelling in us in such a way that our thoughts, our resultant speech and actions, our very being and mindset are representative of Jesus Christ, the one whom we claim to be our Lord. When someone looks at us he should see the Lord Jesus in us just as the early disciples could look at Jesus and see God because God dwelt in him. Jesus spoke of this indwelling in the following manner when the disciples wanted to see the father; “The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.”

Temple of the Holy Spirit

Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” (1 Cor 6:18-20 NIV). Though most of the spirit gifts appear to have died out over time, the gift of the spirit that Peter refers to in Acts chapter two is very much alive. Paul talks about it as the “earnest of the spirit.” Another version terms it a “deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”

Perhaps Paul was making the transition in his own thinking away from the Jewish concept of the temple being the temple made of stone in Jerusalem as he listened to Stephen. Shortly before the witnesses who stoned Stephen laid down their cloaks at his feet Stephen cried out the words of Isaiah the prophet. These were words stating that the “most high does not live in houses made by men.” He was telling the stubborn Jews that their beloved temple is not the place where God chooses to dwell. As Stephen continued the quote from Isaiah, God himself asks, “where will my resting place be?” The Jews that knew well that prophecy of Isaiah would have know that the answer to that question is found earlier in that same prophecy: “For thus says the High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. (Isa 57:15 NKJV) Perhaps it was here that Paul began to see that God would dwell in the hearts of man and that his work would be accomplished through this indwelling, a teaching which shows up so strongly in his writings.

Help Those Who Are Being Tempted

God would indwell in the hearts of men through his power or spirit and this would be channeled through the Lord Jesus Christ to whom he had given all power and authority. In the same passage in Matthew where Jesus states that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him he also states his promise to his disciples that he would be with them always, a promise that we can claim today.

In John chapter fourteen Jesus talks about a “comforter” or “counselor” that would be sent to help the disciples. The Greek word is ‘parakletos’ and it refers to one who stands along side of another to comfort, aid and help. In John 14:18 Jesus indicates that he would not leave them as orphans but would come to them, this time in another form, a spiritual being with all power and authority and a desire to “help those who are being tempted” and provide strength to the weak and encouragement to the faltering. He is there to help us in our time of need as the following portion of scripture teaches us:

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” (Heb 4:14-16 NIV).

Christ in You, the Hope of Glory

Paul the Apostle writes many times of the uncommon power and energy at work in himself and the people he is writing to that is from God and the Lord Jesus Christ, a power that helps the disciple in his new life:

· Paul said, ”I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13 NKJV)
· In writing to the Colossians he says, “To them [the saints] God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Colossians 1:27)
· In talking about his work of admonishing and teaching everyone so that he may present everyone “perfect in Christ” he talks about “struggling with all his [Christ’s] energy which so powerfully works in me.” (Colossians 1:29)

God Who Works in You

Paul writes some very warm words to the Philippians encouraging them to continue in the faith. In doing so he assures them that God is working in them toward a good end and that good end is their salvation.

“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” (Phil 2:12-13)

To the Colossians he writes these words:

“And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. (Col 1:10-12 NIV)

The God Who Gives You Endurance and Encouragement

Romans chapter fifteen is a powerful chapter. Paul is encouraging the Roman brethren toward a spirit of unity so that they might glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with “one heart and mouth.” He starts verse five with the words, “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity….” We do not know the exact mechanics of how God will work to bring about the desired attitudes, but we do know that Paul states quite clearly that endurance and encouragement, which are attitudes or mindsets, are things that God works with in accomplishing his will among his people. Verse thirteen is a wonderful expression, found at the beginning and end of many of Paul’s letters, which conveys Paul’s conviction that God and the Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, work with the attitudes and spirit of those who would be disciples of the Lord Jesus.

Rom 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. NIV

Paul constantly recognized a power within himself that was not of himself that drove him to accomplish the things he accomplished for Christ. Consider this verse:

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them-yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.” (1 Corinthians 15:10 NIV)

We’d like to look at one more passage before we end our tour of a few of those passages that speak to the concept of indwelling. That passage is found in Romans eight, a chapter all of which speaks quite profoundly to the subject. We will look at verses six through eleven:

“The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” (Rom 8:6-11 NIV)

The question of free will.

This verse not only deals with indwelling, but it also deals with the question of free will. Fearing that the concept of indwelling takes away a persons free will is probably the biggest reason why some have difficulty with the concept of indwelling. It may appear to take away ones free will and make them into an automaton.

The opposite is the truth. We have free will and can exercise it as we choose. To choose to empty ourselves and let God work in us is a choice we make of our own free will. To refuse to allow God to work in us is also an exercise of our own free will. We have the choice all along, just as Jesus had the choice in his life.

We readily accept the concept of miraculous healing. We take the medications, we do what the doctor says, but we still look to God for the healing. We all know of times when the prognosis of the physicians has been very pessimistic yet the miracle of healing has taken place. And when it does occur, whether anticipated by the physicians or not, we give glory to God and recognize that he is the ultimate healer.

Why do we then have difficulty with the concept of God working with the mind or our thinking processes? Why do we work so hard at keeping God out of our mental processes? The answer of course is our human nature. To deny that God will “tinker with our minds” because we do not theologically accept the concept is far different from not letting God work with us because of our human weakness.

The concept of indwelling is seen not only throughout the scriptures but it is also firmly embedded in our statement of faith. It is part of the fabric of spiritual growth and faith-building. It is perhaps exemplified best in the words of David, a man after God’s own heart yet a very human being whose human nature too often ruled his being; “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.” (Psalm 51:10 NIV)

Russ Brierly

Australia's new Prime Minister-elect a "bookish Christian"

Kevin Rudd, a man who has been described by the media as "a bookish, intellectual Christian" has triumphed in the Australian general election against long term right-wing incumbent John Howard.

The new Prime Minister-elect has been open about his progressive Christian faith, but has argued that the role of faith is not to dominate the political arena but to contribute to it.

He declared last year in the journal The Monthly: "A Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity."

Rudd added: "A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed."

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald last October, Kevin Rudd wrote about German theologian and intellectual Dietrich Bonheffer, who was killed by the Nazis in the last days of the Second World War: "Sixty years after his execution, Bonhoeffer's gospel of social justice still speaks to us. Regrettably, much of this social justice tradition of Christianity has been drowned out by a new brand of political Christianity which is being systematically exploited in Republican America and John Howard's Australia."

He continued: "It is a brand of Christianity that celebrates private morality and personal prosperity alone - to the virtual exclusion of equity, solidarity and compassion."

According to some analysts Labor's victory will presage significant policy changes including more action on the environment and global warming, the likely withdrawal of Australian personnel from Iraq and a more compassionate approach to migration.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (21)

This post continues the series of suggestions as to how Australian Christadelphians could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement.

4. Above all, love each other

In looking at the "first principles" we need to take careful note of the cornerstone of our faith:

"The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'." Gal 5:14

All to often Christadelphians focus on doctrinal differences, even to the point of being nit-picking about the smallest detail. Ecclesias have divided over the most trivial things. I was once interrogated for months by the arranging brethren of one ecclesia to determine if I agreed with them about the meaning of the word "at" somewhere in the BASF! If we are obsessed with the tiniest details then it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, and to forget that the cornserstone of our faith is "love each other".

"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:8

It's time Christadelphians let go of the past and concentrated on the future: "forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead" (Phil 3:13). One of the best ways Australian Christadelphians could celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement would be to let go of all the minor differences which have hindered the work of witnessing to the risen Christ.

I am painfully aware that some Christadelphians are keeping "dossiers" on various people. One of them recently offered to show a brother the dossier he had on me! I've actually seen a document, put together by a Sydney sister, which purports to be a collection of heretical statements I've made but which includes writings by some other unknown person whom she has wrongly assumed is me. Someone once offered me a copy of a 200 page dossier they had been given on another brother, detailing his alleged sins and indiscretions (I didn't take up the offer!)

It's time this abhorrent practice was stopped.

"Love ... keeps no record of wrongs." 1 Cor 13:5

If Christadelphians are truly people of God, followers of Jesus Christ, then they will show the world that they are His disciples by loving each other. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35). No presentation of "the Truth", regardless of how well reasoned or how convincing will amount to anything if it is not based on a genuine love for one another.

If someone has "the Truth" then they will not keep dossiers on their brethren. There should be no record of wrongs.

Perhaps the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement could be celebrated with a huge bonfire as all these files and dossiers on other brethren are consigned forever to the flames.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (20)

This post continues the positive suggestions as to how Australian Christadelphian ecclesias could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement. In my previous posts I wrote about finding common ground and maintaining ecclesial autonomy.

3. Be Honest

The Australian Unity Agreement spelled out very clearly what the 'basis of fellowship' is for Christadelphians:

We agree that the doctrines to be believed and taught by us, without reservation, are the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures, of which the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (with positive and negative clauses and the Commandments of Christ) gives a true definition.

We should carefully note two important things which are spelled out here. First, the doctrines which Christadelphians believe and hold in common are "the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures". The Agreement says that the Birmingham amended Statement of Faith (BASF) is "a true definition" of this One Faith, not "the true definition". In other words, Christadelphians are united by their belief in "the first principles" and the BASF is just one definition of these first principles. Christadelphians accepting the Agreement are called on to agree with the first principles, and not the minor details or specific wording of the BASF. In fact, almost every Christadelphian would disagree with some detail or other in the BASF yet will accept that it gives a true definition of the first principles.

In other words, no attempt is being made here to insist on the specific wording of the BASF or of any of the minor details. It is only those doctrines which are mutually understood to be first principles which are to be believed and taught. There are many other acceptable summaries of these first principles. For example, one Christadelphian website has this sumary of beliefs:

• The Bible is God's word and the only message from him.It is without error, except for copying and translation errors.
• There is only one God - the Father. The Holy Spirit is God's power.
• Jesus is the Son of God, and a human being, through his mother Mary.
• By living a sinless life Jesus has opened the way of salvation from death.
• Jesus is currently in Heaven, on God's right hand. He will one day return.
• When he returns he will rule the earth and give immortality to those who have tried to follow him and do the will of God. His followers will help him to rule.
• Humans are 100% mortal, having no existence when dead. The reward for the faithful is eternal life on earth after Christ's return.
• Baptism is essential to gain this eternal life.

This brief summary illustrates that even the most conservative Christadelphians (because that website is owned and run by some extremely conservative Christadelphians) agree that the first principles can be summarised simply and concisely in about a dozen sentences. It is such simple and concise "first principles" that the Unity Agreement says Christadelphians believe and teach, and on which they are united.

The Unity Agreement goes on to say that any other summary or definition of the One Faith is also acceptable, provided it is in agreement with the BASF on the fundamentals, or first principles.

Acceptance of this basis would not preclude the use of any other adequate Statement of Faith by an ecclesia, provided this is in harmony with the B.A.S.F. understood as in Clause 1 (a) above.

For example, the summary from the conservative website above might be an acceptable one in the terms of the Unity Agreement (although it's not perfect - for example, the expression "Humans are 100% mortal" is clumsy [How can you be 50% mortal?]).

Secondly, what is clear from the Unity Agreement is that ecclesias are not at liberty to add to what was mutually agreed to be the "first principles" and to insist on acceptance of any other doctrine, idea or opinion. Any ecclesia, group or organisation which has additional requirements for fellowship is going beyond the Unity Agreement. You cannot say on the one hand that you accept the Unity Agreement and then on the other hand insist on someting additional. As soon as you add something, then you no longer accept the Unity Agreement.

If several parties come to an Agreement then one party cannot add something to it without the consent of all the parties. Yet this is precisely what several ecclesias and organisations have done. Some ecclesias, for example, have insisted on agreement with lengthy explanations of the BASF before they will agree to fellowship other Christadelphians. Some have added "doctrines" to their 'basis of fellowship' (such as statements about six literal 24 hour days for creation, or the availability of the Holy Spirit). The Australian Christadelphian Bible Mission (ACBM) demands agreement with a statement on divorce and remarriage and an additional doctrinal statement before they will accept someone as a 'field-worker'. The organisers of some combined ecclesial meetings have demanded acceptance of some additional doctrines which are not included in the Unity Agreement in order to participate. This is a contradiction. The imposition of any additional requirements means, of necessity, that the Unity Agreement is not the basis of fellowship. This situation got so out-of-hand that in 1988 a Conference Business Session passed a resolution that the basis of fellowship at future Conferences would be the Unity Agreement without addition or further explanation.

Of course, autonomous and independent ecclesias or organisations can have their own rules, standards or Statements of Faith. However, the moment they attempt to add to the Unity Agreement they can no longer claim to meet on that basis.

It's ironic that some of the ecclesias and organisations which are most vocal in advocating the importance of the Unity Agreement are often the ones which are guilty of breaking it by having additional requirements. In my opinion, this is simply dishonest.

If any ecclesia believes the Unity Agreement is inadequate (and any ecclesia which has added a doctrine or explanation to their basis of fellowship have, by that very action, admitted that they believe the Unity Agreement is inadequate) then they should honestly and publicly announce that they no longer accept the Unity Agreement and they will fellowship in future on a different basis. That would be the honest thing to do.

To celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement I suggest that all ecclesias claiming to meet on that basis should remove any additional doctrines or requirements which they have added along the way and return to the simple terms of the original Agreement, or be honest in saying that they meet on a different basis.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (19)

Digression: The G13

In my last post I referred to a group of ecclesias calling themselves simply "a group of thirteen ecclesias", or G13 for short. In the spirit of clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide I called for this group to be disbanded (clause 44 says that such groups "lay the foundation of a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life").

I recently received a letter from a brother in Queensland claiming to write "on behalf of the combined arranging brethrens group in Brisbane representing 13 Ecclesias". There was no letterhead, the group was unnamed, he did not say which ecclesias made up the group of 13, what his position was within the group, or what the purpose or objectives of the group were. Although he asked me several questions about my membership of an ecclesia and my fellowship status, he gave me no indication as to why he was seeking this information, why it was important to them, or how it would be used. The letter came across to me as intimidating.

I understand that around the same time he also wrote to at least one ecclesia seeking information about me.

I won't be replying to the letter.

There are at least 3 reasons I won't be replying:

1. To reply to this unnamed, unappointed, unaccountable "group" would be to give them legitimacy. In my opinion, self-appointed vigilante groups within the brotherhood are, in Robert Roberts words, a "collective despotism". To acknowledge them would be to condone the intolerable tyranny they are imposing on the brotherhood.
   
   
2. Bullies need recognition, and the best way of dealing with bullies is to deny them the acceptance they crave.
   
   
3. This G13 "group" has been stirring up trouble for at least two ecclesias in Queensland. If they think I will help them they must be mad.

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

Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when He said "let the dead bury their dead". In other words, ecclesias and people which are spiritually dying will spend more time burying those who are already spiritually dead than they will in learning from those who are alive and growing and could help them.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (18)

This post continues the positive suggestions as to how Australian Christadelphian ecclesias could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement. In my last post I wrote about finding common ground.

2. Maintain ecclesial autonomy

Under the heading "Fraternal Gatherings from Various Places" clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide says:

These are beneficial when restricted to purely spiritual objects (i.e., let the brethren assemble anywhere from anywhere, and exhort, or worship, or have social intercourse together); but they become sources of evil if allowed to acquire a legislative character in the least degree. Ecclesial independence should be guarded with great jealousy with the qualifications indicated in the foregoing sections. To form "unions" or "societies" of ecclesias, in which delegates should frame laws for the individual ecclesias, would be to lay the foundation of a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life. Such collective machineries create fictitious importances, which tend to suffocate the truth. All ecclesiastical history illustrates this.

The principles of ecclesial independence and autonomy have been cherished by Christadelphians since the movement began. This tradition was inherited from the Restoration Movement (the Churches/Disciples of Christ or "Campbellites" as John Thomas called them) who in turn inherited it from the radical reformation ("anabaptists"). It is well grounded in Scripture.

Christadelphian ecclesias are free to make decisions for themselves about how their meetings are conducted, their style of worship, the songs or hymns they sing, their speakers, how leaders or "serving brethren" are appointed, membership, and fellowship. In fact, the Ecclesial Guide provides some detailed and specific guidelines about 'fellowship' which ensures that an ecclesia has the right to welcome into fellowship someone who has been denied fellowship elsewhere. It emphasises that this is important in order to preserve the autonomy and independence of ecclesias. The principle of autonomy includes the right for each ecclesia to create or adopt their own Statement of Faith. Theoretically we could have as many unique Statements of Faith as there are ecclesias. The Australian Unity Agreement specifically reinforced the rights of ecclesias to have their own unique Statement of Faith.

However, these valued principles of autonomy and independence are easily eroded whenever groups of ecclesias band together in an attempt to impose their own ideas on other ecclesias. Unfortunately this happens all too often and ecclesias are sometimes pressured into adopting the same hymn book or worship style as their neighbours, or denying fellowship or membership to someone who is 'out-of-fellowship' elsewhere (for whatever reason). In the words of Robert Roberts this is imposing an "intolerable tyranny" on the brotherhood.

The fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement would be a good time to disband any "unions", "societies" or "groups" which interfere with ecclesial independence. Unfortunately, there are several of these groups in Australia. Most States have inter-ecclesial committees which facilitate exchanges of speakers, coordinate Conferences, liaise with the Government or regulatory bodies on behalf of ecclesias generally, and perform legitimate "fraternal" functions. Queensland, for example, has the South East Queensland Coordinating Committee, New South Wales has the NSW Christadelphian Committee, etc.

However, in addition to these bona fide coordinating committees some States also have "groups" or "meetings" which cause a great deal of trouble. Participation in these groups/meetings is by invitation only and is restricted to ecclesias which follow a particular party line. In Queensland, for example, there is a group which describes itself only as "the group of thirteen ecclesias" (or G13 for short). They meet to discuss the practices of ecclesias which are not in their "group", and generally stir up trouble. They have recently been targeting two ecclesias in their area and writing letters around the country trying to find some 'evidence' that they are fellowshipping out-of-fellowship individuals (and even if they did, the Ecclesial Guide specifically says they have the right to fellowship whoever they please).

Groups like these should be immediately disbanded if the ecclesias concerned are genuine about unity in Australia.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (17)

I'd like to finish this series with a few positive suggestions as to how Australian Christadelphian ecclesias could celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Unity Agreement. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the great work done by brethren of a previous generation. My own grandfather (George H. Darke) was actively involved in the work of reunion in Australia and was on one of the Unity Committees. I had the benefit of many discussions with him over subsequent years about what drove them in those days and how successful, or otherwise, their efforts had been.

1. Find Common Ground

The Australian Unity Agreement was designed to end a long period of division between two groups ('fellowships') in the Australian Christadelphian brotherhood. It recognised that there had been misunderstandings between the two groups for a considerable time because each group had remained relatively isolated from the other and had therefore begun to develop their own theological 'jargon', especially in relation to the atonement. Each group would use different words to explain the same concepts, so they each thought that the other group believed something different.

One of the achievements of the Unity Agreement was to produce an explanation of the atonement that both groups could agree with while either avoiding the 'loaded' terminology or explaining it in a way that enabled both groups to find common ground. Neither group was forced to renounce previously held ideas. There were no witch-hunts to find people who didn't agree. No ecclesia changed their Statement of Faith. In fact, the Unity Agreement specifically acknowledged that the various Statements of Faith which were in use at that time could continue to be used. It was acknowledged that these Statements of Faith were essentially saying the same thing, although using different wording. In fact, this situation has continued to the present day and Australian ecclesias continue to use various Statements of Faith.

This is something which is often overlooked by subsequent generations. The purpose of the Unity Agreement was to find common ground and to use language which was acceptable to all parties, rather than imposing the view of one group on another. It focused on what united, rather than on what divided. The ecclesias which refused to accept the Agreement, and thereafter separated themselves from all other Christadelphians in Australia, were those which insisted that they were right and demanded that others renounce their views. They regarded themselves as the only 'true Christadelphians' and the only ones which upheld the 'original' Christadelphian faith as it was defined by men such as Robert Roberts. They have remained isolated for fifty years, and their numbers have significantly declined.

In the fifty years since the Agreement was adopted by most Australian ecclesias there has been a tendency by some ecclesias and individuals to focus on the actual words used in the Agreement and to demand that everyone uses these words in the same way they do. They have forgotten that the Agreement was designed as a compromise, which used words with which everyone could agree, and avoided terminology which carried connotations which others would find unacceptable. They have also forgotten that with time words can change their meaning and can carry different connotations. The actual wording of the Unity Agreement may not carry the same meaning for people today as it did for Christadelphians fifty years ago.

That's why, in my opinion, the documents associated with the Unity Agreement are no longer relevant to most Christadelphians. What is important, and which should be celebrated, is that fifty years ago Christadelphians made a conscious decision and took a deliberate step to end their differences. They did this by finding common ground and finding a way to explain the important things on which they agreed, which everyone would find acceptable.

From my grandfather, who was actively involved in the work of reunion, I learned that many brethren of that time realised that the only way to end the years of mistrust was to take people at their word. If someone said they agreed with something, then they took them at their word. They didn't cross-examine them to find out if they 'really' agreed. Based on the teaching of Jesus that 'your "yes" should mean "yes"' they began with the assumption that everyone was being honest and if they said they agreed then they agreed. The Unity Agreement ultimately failed to produce sustainable unity in the Christadelphian community because brethren began to question the integrity of others. They doubted that some people were being honest when they adopted the Agreement, and began to say so. Trust rapidly broke down again and the ecclesias divided once more. Although they were often 'technically' in fellowship ecclesias soon regrouped and formed alliances and went back to behaving as two distinct sub-groups within one denomination.

There are possibly several ways in which Christadelphians in Australia today could recognise in a constructive way the work done fifty years ago, by looking again for the common ground. Here are some general principles which might be helpful:

1. Recognise that there can be several ways of saying the same thing, and that your way is not the only way, and may not even be the best way.
   
   
2. When listening to other people, or when reading what they have written, look for what you agree with, rather than what you disagree with. Realise that they may also be simply using different words to say something you'd agree with although you might say it differently.
   
   
3. When in discussion with individuals or ecclesias about different points of view, first acknowledge as many areas as possible where you agree.
   
   
4. Take people at their word. If a brother or sister says they believe something, or that they agree with you, don't ask other people for their opinion. Don't go digging for information to the contrary, and don't conduct a cross-examination. Accept what they say and don't question their integrity.
   

Here are some suggestions as to how ecclesias might actively encourage this way of thinking:

• Ecclesias which meet visitors at the door and present them with a doctrinal statement of some kind and ask for their assent before they can break bread should end this practice immediately.

• While the hard work of all the people involved with reunion should be acknowledged, the actual documents they produced are of little relevance today (except for historical purposes, and to give us an insight into how they got a result). The time has come to stop referring to the 1958 Unity Agreement as the 'basis of fellowship'.

• There has been a suggestion that the Unity Agreement should be reprinted and a copy given to every Australian Christadelphian. In my opinion this would be a waste of paper. It's unlikely to be read by most, and won't be understood by many who read it. It would be far better to encourage an exchange of ideas, some diversity of thinking, and brotherly love, rather than republish a document which belongs to another era.
  

To be continued.

Tell people!

Not everyone reads the comments attached to posts, but there was a recent comment which I really feel deserves to be publicised widely. It's a great story and very encouraging. It was made as a comment on my post about Australian light horse regiments in the liberation of Jerusalem in 1917.

So here it is again.

Hi Steve

I looked at your blog and read with interest re the events of 1917. In the British contingent present in the taking of Jerusalem in 1917, there were 3 very young soldiers who all commented on the strange sense of the presence of God and Divine significance in what happened in Jerusalem in 1917. They were Percy Kemp, Vic James and Johnny Eve. They each vowed to find the ultimate significance of these events, and contacted the Dawn fellowship in this connection. Those 3 young men were baptized after WW1, and were renowned in the Dawn fellowship for their evangelical zeal, which they maintained all their lives. Johnny and Vic never married and lived together in a terraced house in Eastleigh, a working class suburb of Southampton, maintaining a lifelong commitment to share the Gospel they had found with others. They lived in that same house all their lives after the 1920s, and for 60 years it was one of the most active centres of preaching one could imagine. They dedicated themselves to spreading the Gospel in a way I never quite saw in anyone else in the Western world. Through personal witness they baptized dozens of people over the decades, the descendants of whom are still within the Christadelphian community. As a zealous teenager, I used to visit Johnny in his home, whose few tiny rooms had been packed with over 50 of his converts at times. In awe, I naievely asked him how he'd converted such a huge number of people: "Like, did you have lots of special efforts? How did you advertise? In the local newspaper?". Johnny [and he always wished to be addressed as "Johnny", never "Brother Eve"] laughed out loud, and I can remember that laugh to this day. He mocked any such ways of preaching, and just said "Well, we TOLD PEOPLE!!". And that's it. Tell people, the good news. Johnny, dear dear Johnny, I salute you. Till the great day comes.

Much love in Jesus

Duncan

Emergency in Pakistan

The President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, has declared a state of emergency. The Constitution has been suspended. Private news channels have also been suspended.

Further information about the impact this will have on the Christadelphians in Pakistan has been posted to the Pakistan Christadelphians blog. If you have not been set up to access this secure blog, send an email requesting access to pakistan.christadelphians@yahoo.com

Please keep our brothers and sisters in Pakistan in your prayers.

Australian Light Horse in capture of Jerusalem

This year is the 90th anniversary of the capture of Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks in 1917 during the First World War.

The Australian Light Horse played an important role in the capture of Jerusalem and was the first formed regiment to enter Damascus.

A Regiment of the Australian Light Horse on the march near Jerusalem, in Palestine.
(Photo source: Australian War Memorial AWM B01619)

Fifty mounted men and women from the Australian Light Horse Association, including relatives and descendants of men in the original Light Horse Regiments, are currently retracing the march of the Australian riders during World War I. They plan to re-enact the charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Beersheba - one of the last successful mounted charges in Western military history - over the same ground on its 90th anniversary tomorrow.

The capture of Jerusalem and the liberation of Palestine from the Ottomans resulted in Palestine becoming a British mandate in 1922. These were important events in enabling Jews to return to their ancient homeland in larger numbers, and led to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Jerusalem was captured by Jordan during the War of Independence in 1948, and later recaptured by Israel during the Six Day War of 1967.

These events are significant in fulfilling Bible prophecies about the restoration of Israel before the coming of the Messiah. Australian readers may be interested to know of the role of the Australian regiments.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (16)

What is 'fellowship'? (8)

How can we make fellowship "just happen", or what can we do to facilitate it?

Now that we've looked at what happened in the New Testament churches when they got together I'd like to make some suggestions, based on the first century model, for Christians in the twenty first century.

It seems that meeting together over a meal was a central part of the fellowship of the earliest believers. This carried on the 'table fellowship' practices of Jesus, and also 'called to remembrance' the last supper. While sharing communal meals is a good way to facilitate the building of strong healthy relationships, I'm not suggesting that's all we should do. We learn from the Corinthian experience that even though they carried on the tradition of a shared meal it degenerated into something which Paul said was "not the Lord's supper". It also didn't take long for the church to replace this meal with a token or 'symbolic' meal, consisting of a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. The next step was to 'sacramentalise' it and to demand that the bread and wine should only be 'administered' by an ordained priest. The meal known as the Lord's table had progressively shifted from a full meal which was shared with family, friends and those who had been marginalised by society but were now invited to the kingdom of God, to a religious rite which was tightly controlled by those who ruled the churches.

The shift from a meal to mere symbols of one also coincided with a shift from grace to legalism in the church. God's grace was once celebrated as generous, abundant and overflowing. It later became something which the church-rulers tried to control and 'administer'. The morsel of bread (later to become a mere 'wafer' in the Catholic church) and the sip of wine also characterised how the church had become mean as it became legalistic.

To restore the meal to a central place in the gathering of believers might go a long way towards restoring the type of fellowship which was experienced in the early church, but would not guarantee it. There may also be other ways of facilitating this type of fellowship, with or without the communal meal. The following ideas are simply suggestions.

• One of the features of a shared meal is that everyone participates in it. If we want to facilitate fellowship we have to encourage participation. I'm not suggesting that we simply find jobs for people to do (such as doing a prayer or reading, 'preparing the emblems', playing the organ), but that we structure our gatherings in such a way that everyone participates as fully as they would like. Paul obviously had this in mind when he said "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church" (1 Cor 14:26). It's also probably what he had in mind when he wrote "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph 5:19-20. See also Col 3:16-17).

• To have this kind of full participation gatherings also need to be interactive. It would be almost impossible in a large group to structure a programme (or 'order of service') where everyone is able to contribute with a hymn/song or a word of instruction. Imagine an ecclesia with 100 members all prepared to give an exhortation or sing a song! To have the kind of interaction which encourages full participation would mean that the structured, formalised, religious 'service' would have to give way to something which is fluid, dynamic, spontaneous and full of surprises. Ecclesias would have to decide if they wanted a formal service (like the liturgical churches Christadelphians so often criticise), or something closer to the experience of the first century believers.
  

• The motivation for any gathering has to be the spiritual growth of everyone participating. It's not good enough to simply encourage attendance and assume that just by being there everyone will get something out of it. Gatherings of the church should be so that the whole body is fed and nurtured and enabled to grow.
  

• In larger groups that means getting to know people who are used to sitting quietly, always behaving themselves, never ruffling feathers; the people who never speak up or express an opinion, and certainly never oppose anything; the kind of person who is always there, and because of that we assume they must be getting something out of it. It's possible that some of these people are dying on the inside, not getting the kind of food they need for spiritual growth, but desperately hoping that if they keep turning up one day something miraculous will happen and they will find what they need.

• Of course, it's equally possible that we don't really know the noisy people either. We make assumptions about the people who always have something to say, who always have an opinion (right or wrong), who seem so confident in their knowledge and understanding of the ways of God. We can assume that because someone gives good exhortations they must be right with God, that their spiritual needs are being met, and that their main purpose is to feed others. It's easy to overlook the needs of noisy people. The noise might be a cry for help, disguised as self-confidence; or it might be a cover-up for something that is desperately wrong and needs sorting out. We will never know, unless we get to know them personally.

• Gatherings of believers must promote relationship-building. Sitting in the same pew, or simply shaking a hand, does not constitute 'fellowship'. There has to be time spent together getting to know each other and talking about life in general. There will have to be opportunities for crying on shoulders, sharing a laugh, passing around photographs, and talking about work.
  

• We mustn't forget, however, that our objective is not simply to be friendly and to get to know people (important though that is). We need to help people to connect with God, and to learn from their encounters with God. We need to share on a deeper, more intimate, spiritual level. The friendliness and relationship-building I mentioned in the points above are steps towards intimacy between fellow-believers and with God. But before we can ever develop that kind of intimacy we have to develop trust. In my experience, I have found that many Christadelphians have stopped trusting each other. The dreadful ecclesial fights that have gone on for generations have been one of the main causes of this loss of trust, but in a vicious cycle of mistrust we have learned that arguments lead to mistrust, and mistrust leads to misunderstanding and yet more fighting. The road back will be long and slow, and needs a great deal of prayer and patience.