Christadelphian SWOT analysis (4) - the Holy Spirit

In this message, for the first time in this series, I will look at an area of Christadelphian theology where the weaknesses seriously outweigh the strengths. The subject for consideration in this message is the Holy Spirit.

STRENGTHS - the Christadelphian view of the Holy Spirit is that it is the power of God, and not the third person of the trinity. One Christadelphian publication describes the Holy Spirit this way: "by His Holy Spirit, the expression of His power, He [God] controls the affairs of the world according to His ultimate purpose with mankind" and goes on to say "It [the Holy Spirit] is the power by which God achieves His ends, both physical and spiritual" (Fred Pearce, Who are the Christadelphians? Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association Ltd).

Christadelphianism has correctly taught that the trinitarian understanding of the Holy Spirit as a 'person' in the Godhead has no basis in the New Testament or the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Christadelphian theology understands the Holy Spirit to be one with God, and not as a distinct person within the Godhead (The Holy Spirit is "His invisible power or energy breathed forth from His presence, and of like nature with His Glorious Person ... God and His Spirit cannot be separated. They are both one. The sun and the light that comes from the sun are both one. So God, and the Spirit that comes from God, are both one. God is the centre and glorious substantial form of the Spirit that fills heaven and earth." The Christadelphian Instructor questions 17 and 18).

WEAKNESSES - While Christadelphians generally explain the relationship between the Father and Son quite well, Christadelphian teaching about the role and purpose of the Holy Spirit seems to be rather inadequate. Christadelphian literature rarely explains how God "achieves His ends" through the Holy Spirit (especially not His "spiritual" ends), and sometimes restricts the activities of the Holy Spirit to "power concentrated through an individual or angel for the purpose of a specific miraculous event or activity" (The Testimony: The Distinctive Beliefs of the Christadelphians, Vol. 58, No. 691, July 1988, page 254).

This rather limited view and emphasis on the miraculous does not adequately explain how we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Rom 15:16; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2) or how God can "strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being" (Eph 3:16-19). It does not come to terms with the numerous New Testament references to the continuous activity of the Holy Spirit, such as these:

• "God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5)
• God and Christ "live" in by the Holy Spirit (e.g. 1 Cor 6:19-21; Eph 2:22; 1 John 4:13; John 14:16-18, 23).
• The Holy Spirit brings about our rebirth and renewal (Titus 3:5)
• By the Holy Spirit we receive hope (Rom 15:13) and joy (Rom 14:17; 1 Thess 1:6)

It is not enough to say the Holy Spirit is "the power of God". The Holy Spirit is the indwelling presence of God which enables us to become what God intended us to be. Yet Christadelphians rarely explain this well (a notable exception is the excellent work by Christadelphian writer Edgar Wille: The Holy Spirit - an Expository Survey of New Testament Teaching).

OPPORTUNITIES - the Christadelphian understanding of God is definitely on the right track. It correctly understands God to be One, and Jesus as the Son of God who was begotten in the womb of Mary and not before creation. Christadelphian theology could benefit enormously by taking into account how the work of God and Christ in bringing believers to maturity is accomplished through the Holy Spirit.

THREATS - there are definite signs that Christadelphians are losing members to churches and denominations which have a greater emphasis on the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life. Perhaps this is because of a void in Christadelphian teaching and practice. It has been said that as a body without breath is dead, so a church without the Spirit of God is spiritually dead. This maxim would explain why those who leave Christadelphianism often complain of the lifelessness, the stifling rigidity, the dullness and morbid legalism of parts of the Christadelphian community. If this threat is not addressed Christadelphians are likely to continue losing members.

Christadelphian SWOT analysis (3) - prophecy

Continuing with the 'SWOT analysis' theme in this message I will look at the Christadelphian approach to prophecy.

STRENGTHS - a major part of the most widely used Christadelphian statements of faith is devoted to the interpretation of prophecy. The Christadelphian approach to prophecy focuses on three things: (1) the second coming of Christ; (2) the kingdom of God on earth; and (3) the restoration of Israel. None of these things are unique to Christadelphians of course, and with an increasing interest in eschatology (study of the 'end times') in mainstream Christianity more and more Christians are coming to accept the importance of some things which have always been important to Christadelphians. I personally agree that these three things are important and valuable for Bible study, and I believe it's good that Christadelphians have always recognised this.

WEAKNESSES - in some parts of the Christadelphian community certain interpretations of prophecy have been elevated to the status of 'essential to be believed'. For example, some ecclesias insist on belief in John Thomas's continuous historic interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, and regard several details of his prophetic interpretation as 'core doctrines'. I've heard some Christadelphians demand that John Thomas's interpretation of Ezekiel 38, including his view that Rosh is Russia and that Tarshish is Britain and the USA, should be recognised as fundamental Christadelphian doctrine and anyone holding an alternative view should be 'rejected' (which may mean exclusion from the platform and ecclesial positions, or even disfellowship). I know of at least one 'Central fellowship' ecclesia which demanded belief in Thomas's view that judgment would be at Mt Sinai as a condition for fellowship.

This emphasis on prophecy has sometimes led to outrageous interpretations of prophecy being advocated as Christadelphian teaching, when it may only be the opinion of a few. In my own lifetime I've attended public Christadelphian lectures which claimed, for example, that "Man will never walk on the moon" and that "Britain will never enter the Common Market". I've heard Christadelphians publicly predict dates for the second coming (a 'tradition' which began with John Thomas who set a date for the second coming more than once). I've seen Christadelphian advertising saying "the rise of Russia is a sign of Christ's second coming" as well as "the fall of Russia is a sign of Christ's second coming"!

This all contributes to a public perception that Christadelphians are a group of crackpots and that their interpretations of prophecy are nothing more than guesswork and speculation based on the daily newspaper.

OPPORTUNITIES - some Christadelphian commentators such as Harry Whittaker have made substantial contributions to the interpretation of prophecy. While maintaining a focus on the three key areas I listed above, these scholars have helped to draw the brotherhood's attention back to the methods of interpretation rather than just rigidly adhering to the ideas of one man. I believe there is an opportunity here to build on this and to re-look at many of the 'uncertain details' while exploring further the rich sources of Biblical prophetic material and examining many of the prophetic texts which have been glossed over in the past. It would be especially valuable, in my opinion, to study the issues which were important to the prophets (such as justice and equity) rather than just reading prophecy as a way of predicting the future.

THREATS - Christadelphians have lost much of their credibility because they have allowed or advocated some 'loony' interpretations of prophecy, some of which have easily been proven to be wrong. It has practically become part of the Christadelphian tradition to interpret current events in the light of questionable interpretations of prophecy and to make very shaky predictions based on a very narrow reading of Scripture (John Thomas, for example, said it was his "maturest conviction" that Rome would never be the capital of Italy!). Christadelphians will continue to lose credibility if they do not shake themselves free of what one brother called the "Christadelphian parlour game" of predicting future events and if they do not take a fresh look at the real social and religious concerns of the prophets.

Christadelphian SWOT analysis (2) - the Kingdom of God

In this message I will do a brief SWOT analysis on the Christadelphian understanding of the Kingdom of God.

STRENGTHS - traditional Christadelphianism has emphasised that the Gospel is the "good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ". It has rightly focussed on Jesus' teaching that the Kingdom of God will be established on the earth and that our hope is the resurrection of the body. NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham, recently published a book titled Surprised by Hope in which he explained that the hope of Christianity is the resurrection and the restoration and regeneration of the earth, and not some disembodied state in heaven. His teaching is readily catching on apparently (for example, at this years Spring Harvest gathering in the UK several teachers said that there is no immortal soul, no heaven when we die and no torments in hell and there was an emphasis on physical resurrection and the coming kingdom of God).

It's great to see mainstream Christianity accepting to some degree a truth which Christadelphians (and others) have always understood.

WEAKNESSES - Christadelphian teaching on the Kingdom of God concentrates almost totally on the future consummation of the Kingdom and says very little about the present aspects of the Kingdom. It ignores almost completely the Scriptures which speak of how Christians in this age experience the "powers of the coming age". It also tends to focus on the details of the Kingdom, including the events prior and subsequent to the 'second coming', the building of 'Ezekiel's temple' and the boundaries of the Kingdom. Disagreements about some of these details have also been the cause of divisions in the Christadelphian community.

It seems to me that a potential Christadelphian influence for good on the wider Christian community has been significantly thwarted by the divisions, infighting and negativity.

OPPORTUNITIES - as mainstream churches look closer at the subject of the Kingdom of God, particularly in Jesus' teachings, there is an opportunity for groups such as Christadelphians to join in the dialogue with a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation in helping our Christian friends to come to a clearer understanding of truth.

There is also an opportunity for Christadelphians to learn from other believers about the present aspects of Kingdom living, and to have a more complete understanding of the subject and a greater experience of God's grace.

THREATS - if Christadelphianism continues to ignore or neglect the present Kingdom realities there is a very real possibility that members may shift to denominations which teach both the coming Kingdom and the present realities. There are some signs that this shift has already begun.

Christadelphian SWOT analysis (1) - Christology

We're currently at the Australian Restoration Fellowship Conference in Brisbane and I'm writing this message during one of the few breaks in a intensive programme. Each day we've had 7 sessions and all the speakers have come with different perspectives. At times it has been quite challenging as we've been presented with information and ideas which we may not have seriously considered before, as the speakers and participants come from a variety of denominational backgrounds. Yet the atmosphere here is very 'united' as we celebrate the things we have in common, discuss various ideas with respect for each others point of view, and embrace the opportunity to share where God has taken us in our individual study of the Bible.

One of the things that has really impressed me is that participants who come from the various denominations represented here have all spoken of Christadelphianism respectfully, sometimes admiringly, always lovingly and with great sensitivity, even when discussing where they disagree. This has prompted me to think about the things which Christadelphians have to offer to other Christians, as well as some of the things that Christadelphians could learn from others. I though I would do a 'SWOT' analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) as a short series of messages.

In this message I'd like to comment on Christadelphian Christology - that is, the Christadelphian view(s) of the nature of Christ and His relationship to the Father.

STRENGTHS - It's interesting that there have been some very definite trends in theological scholarship over recent years towards a Christology which is remarkably similar to core Christadelphian teaching on the subject. Scholars such as James Dunn have challenged the 'orthodox' view of the pre-existence of Christ and an increasing number of theologians are coming out and saying that the Trinity is not Biblical, cannot be explained in Biblical terms, and was not the belief of the first Christians. Christadelphians have generally done a good job in explaining the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and in dealing with the various Scriptures which have been quoted in support of the Trinity or pre-existence. Of course, Christadelphians are not alone in this, although they have probably produced more literature on the subject than other non-trinitarian groups.

I've have taken note that at this Conference a number of people have commented favourably on the contribution that Christadelphians have made to study of this subject, and some have remarked that their own ideas have been directly or indirectly influenced by Christadelphianism.

WEAKNESSES - despite having the same core beliefs it is indeed tragic that Christadelphians have splintered over the doctrine of the nature of Christ, almost always over matters which are extremely technical and often beyond the comprehension of the rank and file of members. There has been a great deal of bitterness and anger between brethren of different 'fellowships' and some divisions which were created generations ago still haven't been been healed. This is to the shame of Christadelphians. At this Conference I've heard people remark that it's staggering almost beyond belief that Christadelphians who understand Christology so well have divided over minor technical issues rather than standing united and presenting a strong case to other Christians.

The Christadelphian disputes over the 'sinfulness' or otherwise of Jesus' human nature, whether He needed to 'offer for Himself' and whether His human nature was the object of God's wrath have, in my opinion, often degraded into personal attacks where the beauty of the core doctrines has been lost in the muck that has been thrown around.

OPPORTUNITIES - as Christians in mainstream churches examine the challenge that has been created by the trend amongst theological scholars towards a more Biblical Christology, and as they wrestle with these theological issues, there is an opportunity for those who have held to a Socinian-unitarian position (such as Christadelphians) to weigh into the dialogue with a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation. We should adopt the attitude that we are helping our Christian friends to come to a clearer understanding of truth, rather than attacking them for their 'apostacy'.

There is also an opportunity for Christadelphians to learn from other believers, whether they are trinitarian or non-trinitarian, to clarify their own thinking, to 'fine tune' their theology and to adopt a healthy respect for the enormous scholarship that has been done in other areas.

THREATS - If Christadelphians don't dump their baggage which has been accumulated over generations of infighting and schism and adopt a gentler method of explaining their views, they may become useless to God as His witnesses to these truths and become an irrelevancy. Some serious work has to be done to not only repair the breaches of the past but to put an end to the divisive spirit which created them in the first place.

I will praise You in this storm

This is one of my favourite songs from Casting Crowns (words by Mark Hall/music by Mark Hall and Bernie Herms).

It is based on themes taken from Scriptures such as Job 1:21 ("The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised") and perhaps Psalm 150:2 ("Praise him for his acts of power").

To me this song captures some of how I've felt when I've wrestled with why God doesn't "reach down" and "fix" things, why sometimes He takes away people that we love, and why in the midst of the storms of life His voice sometimes seems to be just a whisper.

Just over three years over ago I lost one of my closest friends in a tragic accident, and my wife Stephanie lost her only brother. Barely a day goes by when we don't think of him and miss him dearly. Mike had suffered some terrible injustices in recent years and was just getting his life back when it was snatched from him. I couldn't understand why God would allow this accident to happen when life was just coming good again. It seemed to me that God's timing was all wrong - it made no sense at all to me.

This Scripture had real meaning for me at the time: "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised". These are the words of Job when everything had been taken from him, yet he praised God. I think I learned from Job's experience that God's ways may not make sense to us, they may seem to be untimely or even unjust, and we may struggle to find meaning in what He does. Yet if we praise Him in our storms we find comfort in the knowledge that He is in control and we are reminded that He is with us, even if we don't clearly hear His voice.

I hope this song will speak to you as well.

Fellowshipping an out-of-fellowship person (2)

This is Cliff's response to comments made about an earlier message.

Firstly, who is the Brother who is in Pine Rivers who has been "dis-fellowshipped"?

Why was he "dis-fellowshipped?"

By whom was he "dis-fellowshipped?"

By God? Does God recognise men's "dis-fellowships?"

By Jesus? Does Jesus recognise men's "dis-fellowships?"

If the brother under discussion was "dis-fellowshipped" (a totally non Biblical terminology) by men, and if those who are "spiritual have restored such a one in the spirit of meekness" (cp Gal 6) surely this should be reason to rejoice, just as the Father in the parable of Luke 15 rejoiced when the prodigal returned home.

It is interesting that it is the elder Brother in Luke 15 who refused to come and eat at the Father's table of Grace when he learned that the prodigal was also eating there. And the prodigal was welcome at the Table of the Father (Lord) without the Elder Brother even being consulted or giving his consent.

So "Anonymous," by refraining from taking the emblems (at the Fathers Gracious Table at PRWC) when another was present at the same table whom you don't think should be there, who are you identifying with? The elder Brother!

This just highlights one of the major (and very important) differences between (some) modern Christadelphian's teachings and practices and Christ's teachings and practices.

For example, in Matthew 9:10 (also in Mark and Lukes records too, so the incident is more than significant; it is vitally important) we learn that "as Jesus reclined in the house, behold, many tax-collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, Why does your master eat with tax-collectors and sinners?"

This is exactly the same question as asked by some Christadelphians today! Different time and place - but the core issues are identical.

"Why do you eat (fellowship) with those whom we have dis-fellowshipped?"

The terms 'tax-collectors and sinners' were the appellations given to those "dis-fellowshipped" or "cast out" by the religious leaders of the day. Obviously Jesus did not have a problem having fellowship with those who had been "dis-fellowshipped" by the religious elite of His day. Remember, mealtimes in Israel were the equivalent of our modern "Breaking of Bread"... in those days you judged others by whom they had meals with. And Jesus says of this practice of having meals with "outcasts... "Do this in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11). So "Anonymous", would you agree, to obey Jesus we must do what Jesus did?

As Jesus said in another teaching parable of His... "Go, and do likewise!"

To do other that what Jesus clearly taught us to do, as is the "main stream Christadelphian teaching" according to our "Anonymous" friend, is to actually disobey the Commandments of Christ.

Not only did Jesus eat with those the Pharisees (the Elder Brother group) called "sinners" (incidently, Jesus never used that term Himself to describe others - anytime He does use the term "sinners" it is only when He is quoting the Pharisees back to themselves or to describe them!!), He reclined with them too. This was more than just "a sip of wine and sliver of bread just before Midday on Sunday"- this was a full on, relaxed fellowship meal. True fellowship was being had at every level in each these Gospel records and on every occasion where Jesus "Broke Bread"- not just at a superficial "Spiritually Elite," "in the club" level.

It is interesting that the Gospel writers are careful to tell us that the Pharisees did not dare question Jesus about His Table Manners. But they were bold to talk to the disciples on the side, in an effort to drive a wedge in between them and Jesus Himself. After all, Jesus was totally defying their long established culture and traditions and teaching His Disciples to do exactly the same.

Jesus was fully aware of what motivated the Spiritual Snobs of His day, and He said in Matthew 11 "But to what shall I compare to this generation? It is like little children sitting in the markets and calling to their playmates, saying, We played the flute to you, and you did not dance! We mourned to you, but you did not wail!" [In other words, the Religious Leaders in Israel were dismayed that Jesus would not dance to their tune. Jesus refused to abide by any of the socially and religiously acceptable conventions and traditions which would Spiritually Abuse any who the Father had called. And this man is the one we are to copy in every way. That is what True Worship really is: imitating in every way the one who is the Boss! It has been truly said, that we become just like the God we worship.]

Jesus continued: "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon." [Have you ever noticed that Jesus NEVER corrected any of their false ideas about devils, demons and supernatural forces. He even stood up in their synagogues, using their platforms where they preached such false teachings, and never once took them to task or enlightened the audience about their misbeliefs in this area. Paul and the other Apostles did exactly the same, for the Kingdom message is about how you show God in action to your fellow by your actions, not by convincing your fellow of what you do not believe!]

The observations of the Spiritual Leaders in Jesus' day was that "the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, Behold a man who is a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. But wisdom was justified by her children."

This man is more than our Redeemer and Saviour! He is the very pattern upon which we are to model our own lives. As He said, "wisdom is vindicated by the results" - and the massive results of Jesus' pattern for living, is that any one of us has been included by Grace within His "Forever" family. And to act petulantly and to refuse to take the very emblems of His life and power and mission and victory because someone else [who you might not agree with in some way] may also be present at the same table, is to snub the Lord of Heaven, slap Him in the face, and deny the very power that drew you and the "other" to that Table in the first instance.

Jesus whole life is one that denied "Guilt by Association" in any form for Holiness is far more powerful than sin any day. To act otherwise at His Table, (or at any time really, for worship is a 24/7 deal - not just a Sunday thing) is to "eat and drink condemnation to oneself," says Paul. (cp 1 Cor 11).

We declare, as we take Jesus into our lives, "Jesus, you are indeed the pattern for my life, so I eat this Bread (your Body Lord) and drink this wine (your life blood Lord) and it becomes an essential part of every living cell in my body - I am fully energised by you!!!" To then act towards others differently to the way Jesus taught, nay, commanded us to act, is to deny the very Lord who died for us all.

Jesus not only ate meals (had full on Fellowship) with those who had been cast out ("dis-fellowshipped"), He went out of His way (John 6:37; John 9) to have or renew fellowship with them, despite the written and oral traditions of His day. It cost Him His life in the end.

And that has ever been the pattern of the "Elder Brother" of the parable in Luke 15 to refuse to share the great love of Him who died for all, and to use "dis-fellowship" as a control mechanism to maintain religious control, (cp 3 John v9-11). Dis-Fellowship is the "iron fist enclosed in a not so velvet glove" (referred to in Matthew 24:49) to quote a much loved Brother who has gone before us.

It is so sad to see that the Diotrephian spirit still lives on - even in the 21st Century.

Whilst this may indeed be seen by some to be "main stream Christadelphian teaching" it is actually diametrically opposed to "main stream Christ teaching."

So the question is: who should we obey? God/Jesus, or men?

At the risk of disobeying (and even disappointing) men, I choose to obey God any day.

Fellowshipping an out-of-fellowship person (1)

This message arose out of comments on an earlier message about a proposal being put to the 2008 Australian Christadelphian Conference in Sydney to restrict the start-up of new ecclesias.

An anonymous person left a comment describing how he visited another ecclesia and would not participate in the breaking of bread because of the attendance there of a person who had been 'disfellowshipped' by another ecclesia. He wrote: "If a Brother has been disfellowshiped and you visit another meeting and he is there then the main stream Christadelphian teaching is not to partake of the emblems which happened on this day."

In earlier posts on 'fellowship' I have discussed the Christadelphian practices related to breaking of bread, so I won't go into that again right now. However, I challenge the notion that "main stream Christadelphian teaching is not to partake of the emblems" if a disfellowshipped person is present. In fact, the Ecclesial Guide specifically deals with this issue in section 42. Here is an excerpt:

"There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time, they have reciprocal rights. Ecclesial independence is a principle essential to be maintained. But it is no part of that independence to say that no ecclesia shall consider a matter that another has decided upon, if that matter comes before the first ecclesia, and challenges their judgment, and, in fact, requires a decision. In the example already discussed, if a brother withdrawn from by one ecclesia applies for the fellowship of another, that other ecclesia is bound to consider the application, and it is no infringement of the independence of the first ecclesia that it should be so, subject to the rules and attitudes indicated. It would, in fact, be a renunciation of its own independence, were it to refuse to do so. Respect for the first ecclesia requires that it accept its decision until it sees grounds for a different view; and in the investigation of these grounds it ought to invite its co-operation, as already indicated. But the mere fact of the application imposes upon it the obligation to consider and investigate the matter, if there are prima facie grounds for doing so. The other ecclesia would make a mistake if it considered such a procedure an infringement of its independence, Such a view would, in reality, be a trammelling of the independence of every assembly; for it would then amount to this, that no assembly had the right to judge a case coming before them if that case happen to have already been adjudicated upon by another ecclesia. The judgment of one would thus be set up as a rule for all."

The writer of the Ecclesial Guide then goes on to say

"An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with; but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere."

A little later he deals with "cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first" and says that each ecclesia should exercise their prerogative of independent judgment:

"let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot".

To do otherwise would be "to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person".

Applying this to the situation mentioned, visitors to an ecclesia should recognise the right of that ecclesia to exercise "their prerogative of independent judgment" and to make their own decision about a person who may have been disfellowshipped elsewhere. To refuse to participate in the breaking of bread on such an occasion is not only rude and an affront to ones hosts, it also demonstrates a refusal to recognise the principle of non-interference laid out in the Ecclesial Guide. It undermines the principles of mutual respect, autonomy and the prerogative of independent judgment which are "mainstream Christadelphian teachings".

In a subsequent post I will also publish Cliff's response to the comment which was a reply to his.

House meetings

This message arose out of some comments on an earlier post reviewing Pagan Christianity? by Frank Viola and George Barna.

The authors of this book provide evidence that the earliest churches probably had a maximum attendance of around 35. That is based primarily on archaeological evidence. We know the first century Christians met in homes, we know the kinds of homes which were often used for such meetings, and we know how big they were. These gatherings were limited in size by the homes in which they met. As the Christian community in any area grew they would start new house-meetings.

According to the archaeological evidence, it was not until the early third century that Christians had any special buildings. The earliest identifiable Christian meeting place is the house-church of Dura Europos in modern Syria (pictured is the baptistery of the 3rd-century house church at Dura-Europos, now on display in the Yale University Museum, USA. This is the oldest Christian church ever discovered. The baptismal bath is visible. The surviving frescoes of the baptistry room are probably the most ancient Christian paintings.) It was simply a private home remodelled as a Christian gathering place around AD 232. This house was essentially a house with a wall removed between two bedrooms to create a large living area. This house could accommodate about 70 people (Pagan Christianity? page 14-15).

I don't think Viola and Barna are suggesting that our practice of meeting in special buildings is necessarily "wrong". They are simply saying that we cannot claim to be continuing or restoring a first century Christian practice if we do. The very nature of meeting in halls or special church-buildings affects the kind of meetings we have, and meetings in halls or special buildings have a remarkably different character to meetings held in homes around a meal table.

In my view, much of the intimacy of the early church/ekklesia was probably lost in the shift from homes to special buildings. Certainly the informality, spontaneity and full participation would have been lost as the church went to structured formal services.

Pagan Christianity

Book Review
Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices
by Frank Viola and George Barna

Speak of the paganisation of Christianity to most Christadelphians and their minds are almost certain to go to Easter and Christmas and the claims that they have pagan origins. Some might even be quick to point out that ecclesiastical vestments, adoration of saints, feast days and other elements of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity also have their roots in paganism.

This book however provides startling evidence that most of what Christians do in present-day churches is not rooted in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Christadelphians will almost certainly be shocked to discover that many of their regular practices had their origins well after the first century. What they cherish as a return to first century Christianity is in fact the accumulation of traditions which have little or nothing to do with apostolic practices.

The authors provide ample evidence that first century Christians met in homes and shared a common meal together. Their meetings were informal and everyone actively participated. Formal structured meetings, buildings specifically for church/ecclesial meetings, a 'sermon' or 'exhortation', even sitting in rows of chairs which all face the front where the 'action' takes place on the 'platform', are all practices which developed much later in Christian history. In fact, the shift from house-based informal meetings around a meal to formal meetings in a special building with a structured 'order of service' took place after the Council of Nicea. Ironically, the same church council which gave us the doctrine of the Trinity also gave us the framework for the modern Christadelphian memorial meeting!

Many ecclesial practices which Christadelphians assume are a 'restoration of first century Christianity' actually have little or no basis in Scripture. The authors of this book provide numerous examples of traditions and practices which originated much later, including the following:

- the earliest believers were baptised immediately after conversion. The practice of 'preparing' people for baptism by teaching them the 'doctrines of the church' began much later.

- the 'sermon' or exhortation is a relatively modern invention. We learn from 1 Corinthians that when the early church came together "everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation ... for the strengthening of the church" (1 Corinthians 14:26). The practice of only one person (always a man) addressing the church/ekklesia began well after the development of a professional clergy and largely as a result of doctrinal conflict (so that the priest/bishop/pastor could indoctrinate the church in orthodoxy, or 'correct doctrine').

- the practice of passing out the 'emblems' as tiny glasses of wine and a morsel of bread began with English Methodism. The earliest church celebrated 'communion' as a full meal, of which bread and wine was only a part. Everyone participated, including unbaptised children.

- 'dressing up' for church/meetings is a Victorian tradition. For centuries Christians wore their everyday clothes to church. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for the practice of wearing ones 'Sunday best'.

- appointing or electing some brethren to leadership or management positions has no Biblical basis. The first Christians recognised people's gifts and acknowledged mature Christians as 'elders', but no one was given any special authority to 'rule' or 'manage' the church/ekklesia. Christadelphian 'Arranging/Managing Brethren' are simply a variation of the pagan practices which produced a professional 'clergy'.

I recommend this book to anyone who is serious about examining the practices of the first century Christians. You will certainly find it challenging in places. You may still wish to hold on to cherished traditions, but will have to confess that they are just that - traditions - and have no Biblical basis. I doubt very much that after reading this book anyone will continue to claim that Christadelphian meetings and structures are a 'restoration of first century Christianity'.

But this book is not primarily about tearing down cherished traditions. It provides valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of the first communities of Christians and is a useful resource for anyone wanting to know what church/ekklesia meant to the earliest disciples. It encourages a return to the simplicity of New Testament Christianity and to a fully functioning body in which all believers play an active role.

Permission needed to start a new ecclesia

The following motion has been proposed for the Sydney Christadelphian Conference 2008:

Proposed Motion # 5:

'That the Australian Christadelphian brotherhood adopts a practice that, prior to the formation of any new ecclesia, a representative of the proposed ecclesia contact the Central Fellowship ecclesias in their local area, for recognition as a bona fide ecclesia meeting on the Australian Unity Basis of Fellowship.'

Moved by South Brisbane

Seconded t.b.a.

Rationale, as provided by South Brisbane

Objective

To provide a framework for effectively assessing the bona fides of all new ecclesias seeking fellowship on the Australian Unity Basis.

Procedures

1 All new ecclesias wishing to be recognised as a Christadelphian ecclesia meeting on the Australian Unity Basis should write to the recorders of established ecclesias in the local area of the proposed new ecclesia, stating they meet on the Australian Unity Basis of Fellowship.

2 The proposed ecclesia's location will determine the number of established ecclesias to receive such a letter, but it is suggested a minimum of five ecclesias should be approached for recognition as a bona fide Christadelphian Ecclesia.

3 Ecclesias receiving such notice should consult one another, after determining their own position, and if no objection is communicated to the proposed ecclesia's representative within one month, the request should be accepted and the new ecclesia notified in writing by the local ecclesias involved.

4 If any objections are raised by the local established ecclesiae, discussions should take place in order to resolve the perceived impediments.

5 A reasonable time should be allowed for resolution of the difficulties on the basis of the Ecclesial Guide and the Unity Booklet.

This motion raises a number of interesting matters.

First, we need to question the intention of the motion. Never in the past has a new Christadelphian ecclesia in Australia (or anywhere else in the world as far as I am aware) needed to obtain the consent of other ecclesias in the area. So why now? What is the reason for changing the practice of more than 140 years? Is this motion designed to restrict new ecclesias starting up or to control the activities of new ecclesias? If so, why?

Second, the motion appears to be totally impractical. Let's take one Australian city as a hypothetical example. Newcastle currently has three Christadelphian ecclesias: Newcastle, Charlestown and Boolaroo. The last time I spoke at Charlestown ecclesia I was asked to sit on the platform for the entire meeting as the hall was literally filled to capacity and there were no spare seats in the congregation. This is a good sign of a healthy ecclesia, and because there is "standing room only" the ecclesia is considering extensions to their meeting place. However, another option they might consider is starting a new ecclesia as an 'offshoot'. Under this proposed motion they would need the consent of at least five ecclesias in the area. But there are only three ecclesias in the area! Under this proposed new rule they would have to look further afield to other cities for approval to start a satellite ecclesia. Charlestown is a well-established ecclesia with a solid reputation and was an original signatory to the Australian Unity Agreement. To suggest that they can't start a satellite ecclesia without the permission of other ecclesias is not only insulting to them, it raises the question as to what authority the other ecclesias might have which Charlestown lacks.

Third, this motion smells of fear, a controlling spirit, and authoritarianism.

Are some ecclesias afraid that new ecclesias might operate differently, and do they find this threatening? There was a recent example (in Brisbane) of an ecclesia sending out an appeal for people to move into their area and join them because they were declining so sharply in numbers that they were at risk of dying out. At the same time this same ecclesia was a party to a move to restrict the activities of a new ecclesia which was bursting at the seams and which was growing numerically almost week-by-week. Are they afraid that as they die out their remaining members will transfer to the new dynamic meeting? What do they find so threatening about this?

It smells of a controlling spirit because new ecclesias sometimes do things a bit differently from the older ecclesias in the area, and some traditionalists don't like this. Instead of an organ they might decide to use guitars and drums (God forbid!). Instead of 17th century hymns they might want to sing contemporary music! They might even drop "thees" and "thous" and Elizabethan English and pray to the Almighty in contemporary English!! Where will this lead? It must be stopped!!!

It smacks of authoritarianism because it suggests that a 'group' of ecclesias should be empowered to control the activities of other ecclesias in the area. There is already at least one case in Australia of a 'group' of ecclesias in an area banding together while excluding other ecclesias in the area which might see some things differently, and then attempting to impose their collective will on the excluded ecclesias (and it's significant that this proposed motion comes from one of the ecclesias which is a party to this 'group'). This motion, if adopted, would give more power to these 'groups' which Robert Roberts condemned as"collective despotism":

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. (Clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide)

I would hope that the majority of ecclesias represented at the 2008 Conference will see this proposed motion for what it is and soundly reject it.

Exclusiveness in fellowship

Following on from my latest post, I recently received this message from a sister who has been through a painful experience. She has discovered that she is welcome to join a particular Christadelphian ecclesia but if she does the ecclesia will demand that she can no longer break bread with the people who taught her the Gospel and who baptised her, even though they believe the same things as she does! This attitude adopted by some Christadelphians to 'fellowship' is simply crazy, but the following letter from Lucy demonstrates this plainly enough. The names of the ecclesias and individuals involved have been deleted.

My dear beloved brothers and sisters!

On Thursday May 15th, I met with two members of the XYZ Ecclesia, who were sent to identify if my beliefs met with their standards. After two and a half hours of conversation, I was invited to their service, which I gladly accepted and attended May 18th. I was very pleased by the way I was welcomed, almost like well known sister, who you haven’t seen in a while. We studied the Word of God, and broke bread together. I was a very satisfied and happy by my visit, and that is what I, have expressed in my e-mail. On May 20th, I attended an invitation for dinner and Bible study. Every one called me their sister, and again I felt welcomed.

On Monday May 26th I was very surprised when I received a phone call, from a board member informing me of a meeting that was to take place with me to become a member of XYZ Ecclesia. What was surprising is that I have attended several meetings where we broke bread and as to my awareness I assumed that I was already welcomed as a sister in Christ. I was born in former Soviet Union, a Communist regime, where you were called in for a meeting when you were suspected of being an enemy to society and will be immediately sent to Siberia or if you prefer to retain your privileges you were to submit too and join the Communist party. Anyways I felt stressed, wondering why this meeting has been scheduled, and if I have done something wrong?
On Thursday May 29th, I attended the meeting where I was informed of whom I can, and can’t break bread with. I can honestly tell you that I fell in love with every brother and sister I met in XYZ Ecclesia however I could not understand the reasoning of this practice.

Anyways, I was given “The Ecclesia Guide” to check if we have same beliefs, which we did prior to this meeting. I was also given an address list of W Ecclesia with whom I am allowed to “Break Bread” with and was told I must have an answer by Sunday.

By the way, they did tell me that I am allowed to be in fellowship with everyone except, I have to follow the rules with whom I can “Break Bread”.

Last night, I couldn’t go to sleep at all, thinking what had happened earlier this evening! I looked into the Bible and I could not find a law stating with whom we can or can’t break bread with in Christ.

But I found, that Jesus Christ broke bread with 3000 and 5000 people and did not ask them if they even believed He was Messiah. And that at the Last Supper when He was giving instructions about "Breaking Bread" to every disciple HE actually broke bread with Judah Iscariot who betrayed Him several hours later.

I looked at "The Ecclesial Guide and Constitution of the ABC Christadelphians," and I read about all their beliefs, which are exactly like mine. But again, I did not see anything saying about with whom I am allowed to break bread. Except, in the section of "The commandments of Christ” number 12 says – “Grudge not; judge not; complain not; condemn not,” (James 5:9, Matt 7:1). And by choosing with whom we break bread with, we are JUDGING our brothers and sisters; we are breaking our own law.

It is very sad to know that we have become similar to the Pharisees, who have two laws; one is written and one is oral.

In Matt 23 says, "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3. So you must obey Moses and do everything he tells you. But do not do what they (Pharisees) do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

And in Deut.6:4 Yahweh said to Moses "1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. 8. And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today"

I have come to the conclusion that by choosing brothers and sisters whom you can or can’t “Break bread” with and who’s beliefs are exactly the same like yours and mine, has become an “obsessive tradition” or “religious idolatry”.

I am not willing to follow MAN'S rules, when I will be present on judgment day facing God, I want to no shame and excuses on this subject. One day all, of us will be there. Please remember that.

I do not judge anyone, I am speaking truth saying do not follow MAN’s rule, it is against God. I have no problem breaking bread with anyone in XYZ Ecclesia or any of my brothers and sisters around the world.

I love Yahweh, and I want to walk in His Will and no one MAN’s law or rules could stop me. It is sad, but I am coming to the conclusion that XYZ Ecclesia don't want to break bread with me unless I agree not to break bread with my brothers and sisters like **, ***, T ecclesia . I won't agree to such man made rule.

I still love all my brothers and sisters in Christadelphians Ecclesia around world. My prayers are with them. I'm happy many of them accept me still. May Yahweh open their hearts and their minds to see The Truth, as they preach; and ignore MAN'S LAW or ANY RULES.

I will continue to do what I was called to do, which is Preach the Gospel

Yahweh blesses you!

Sister Lucy

Censorship, disfellowship and statements of faith

The following message was recently posted on the Truth Alive forum. I thought it expressed very well what a lot of other people are also thinking. With the author's permission I am re-posting it here in full.


Dear friends,

Very often we can go through a set of traditions whilst making bold statements that suggest we alone hold the correct Biblical truths and that we follow the Bible and that we should check everything against the Bible. But when someone sincerely does do that and comes up with difficult questions it isn't liked and people don't want to answer them, because it's disruptive and challenging. But should churches be allowed to say 'we follow the Bible and you should check it out to see whether its true' and not allow people to do that.

Brother Dr John Thomas believed “no you shouldn't”, and people found him very disruptive and challenging and that is the history of the Christadelphian body. If you doubt that read his autobiography and the huge number of debates he was involved in. The problem has been the questions never ended where Dr John Thomas left off and no doubt had he lived longer he would have challenged more and come to different understandings. In his lifetime he changed many times and in fact was baptised three times as he changed views.

Robert Roberts believed that in his teachings he had reached a finality of truth and that was set in place and maintained by establishing the Birmgham Statement of Faith, which was later Amended to clarify things to what people believed reflected the original position of things. In other words the Christadelphian body has sought to censor the very freedom to think and question that Dr John Thomas wanted for himself. In fact that has always been the historical problem that Protestant Christianity has faced. By putting the authority onto a book and individual interpretation it has been inevitable that different people have balanced it a different way. I'm not saying we should be Catholic, but what I am saying is that we should learn from our history of our own non infallibility in these matters.

The reality is that the Christadelphian body has survived in its present form is as a direct result of the Statements of Faith, because they have broadly set out the original distinct Christadelphian doctrines. The idea that we are bound simply because we read the Bible independently for ourselves is not true, even though that is what I was given to believe as a youngster and told to do. In essence I was expected to read the Bible for myself, but come to see things in terms of tradition and expectation. That is in all honesty how social conditioning works and with time we may find things don't quite square with what we are told to believe or how things are actually done in comparison to what we read, the second being where my main objections have laid. It has kept the Christadelphian body in a time warp in many ways where any change to the way things are done leads to people feeling the balance is going to be upset.

The hidden cost of course has been in those people who have been disfellowshipped for asking too many questions and hidden feelings of suppression, because the unspoken rule is that you are not allowed to seriously question the way things are done. The problem that has led to is that the Christadelphian body has become very legalistic and very word bound and very much what scripture would term 'in the letter'.

However the Christadelphian body has changed and is changing., there is a greater understanding growing of the need for grace, the centrality of the teachings of Christ, the need for a more practical focus and a recognistion in the Care Groups that there are emotional situations that need to be understand. Our problem as a community and what we show is the limitation of the Bible alone without a recognition of the need for the Spirit of God. But we won't accept that, because if we did we would have to admit that our exclusivity was a problem, that you can't get to the right spirit merely by academic debate and that we have in fact treated a lot of people badly and that disfellowshipping lots of people wasn't the right way to go about things.

In its present form the Christadelphian body will not survive and already is dying and it's not merely because people don't want to follow God, although as we all know most people don't in the West. It's because it doesn't really answer people's spiritual longing for a real connection with God. It's too academic an approach, it's too emotionally disconnected and there's too little power. It's also led to a situation where most of the children of Christadelphians do not get baptised and very often there are a lot of people hanging in there simply because that is where they have their social connections.

It's a religion which very often creates beliefs in people, but not faith and the two things are very different. You can sustain belief in people by keeping reinforcing the same things over and over again like a kind of social reinforcement schedule and that's why many people believe if you don't go to some church you would lose your faith. That's because their faith hangs on going through a set pattern of behaviour, whereas faith is a lot more solid and a lot harder to destroy. It comes from a knowledge of God, not just a knowledge of the Bible. The difference is one has power, the other does not. We read in Hebrews 11 and its frequently quoted that 'faith is the the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. What is less frequently quoted is the later things in the chapter which people were able to do as a result of faith and how this is set out as the normal expected standard of the Christian walk.

The Christadelphian movement started from a very radical questioning of mainstream Christianity based upon textproof quoting and reached a level of complexity beyond many average men and women. To do that you need educated, well read people with high rational skills and it is very questionable that that was the first century approach anyway. For that to be universally available required the invention of printing, considerable time, health and nutrition that was not available for most of history.

Few people have ever had that kind of access to the Bible and they were more reliant upon pictures and communicated stories and what they understood in their own hearts. There are benefits to that though I am thankful for the scripture knowledge I have gained as a result, but it can be rather a one tracked thinking method that denies the role of experience or emotion. It therefore leads to our community suiting certain personality types and ways of thoughts and being very hard for other types of personality and ways of thoughts.

The experience that we have as a community has relevance, but to think we have all the truth and all the understanding is a very limited way of thinking in my opinion. That of course is why at every stage all the developments within the community have been fights to change a mindset. The perception that is held is that we come to the Bible without a mindset, without a conditioning, without any effect from our upbringing and social environments, when in fact there is a strong mindset at play within the community that does not allow certain thoughts to be held or raised. You see that when a difficult passage is read and people muse over its difficultness whilst saying 'of course we don't believe in this or that'.

For truly open minded thinking to occur we do have to consider the possible truth of these thoughts and the thoughts have to be allowed to be raised without the possibility of censure. To truly allow God to speak to us we have to not be frightened of whether other people think us heretical or not. That's what a full pursuit of truth is really like.

I'm not suggesting a perfect church exists, because it does not. We are works in progress. What I am saying is that we need to give people freedom to grow without fear of censure and we have to start realising what effect our conditioning and environment and history have upon us. I'm not perfect any more than you are, but dis-fellowshipping people is judging people and it is a way of stifling questions and progress and understanding. If we have the truth, if you think about it, it should be fairly easy to answer people's objections without needing to do that. We should have no fear of asking ourselves how much of our responses are thought out ones rather than conditioned ones.

I think there is a factor we need to be aware of - the fear that if we change our beliefs we somehow face losing our salvation. That's a very thought limiting idea. We have to realise instead that God isn't a God who seeks to frustrate the seeking heart and it is for this reason that grace is such an empowering truth.

I would welcome your thoughts on these ideas and maybe if we did we could come to a greater understanding even if it isn't possible for me to be formally accepted back into fellowship..

With much love and blessings in Jesus,

Tim.

ANYWAY

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Be good anyway.

Honesty and frankness will make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People need help but will attack you if you help them.
Help them anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God.
It was never between you and them anyway.

Kent Keith, made famous by Mother Teresa*

*Kent Keith originated this poem in 1968, and Mother Teresa placed it on her children's home in Calcutta in a slightly different version. As a result, many have attributed it to Mother Teresa.

What do you do?

My apologies for not posting anything for a few weeks, but I have been incredibly busy working on some other projects. Hopefully I'll be blogging again soon.

In the meantime, here is something interesting.

Author and preacher Tony Campolo said that when his wife, Peggy, was at home full time with their children and someone would ask, "And what is it that you do, my dear?" she would respond, "I am socializing two Homo sapiens into the dominant values of the Judeo-Christian tradition in order that they might be instruments for the transformation of the social order into the kind of eschatological utopia that God willed from the beginning of creation."

Then Peggy would ask the other person, "And what do you do?"

From John Ortberg and Ruth Haley, An Ordinary Day with Jesus (Zondervan, 2001), p. 122

Post-Christian and Post-Christadelphian

A friend recently sent me the following quotation from Christian writer and speaker Charles Swindoll:

"We are living in what many have described as the Post Christian Era. That does not mean that there are no longer many Christians around. There may, in fact, be more true believers today than ever before. "Post Christian" simply means that the Christian Faith no longer plays a role in shaping public opinion and policy. Christian assumptions and commitments, once widely held, no longer have the presence and impact they once had".

My friend then added this comment of his own:

Translated, this would mean that "Post Christadelphian" describes those who no longer find that the traditional Christadelphian worldview satisfactorily plays a role in shaping their opinions and "policies." Christadelphian assumptions and commitments, once widely held, no longer have the presence and impact they once had. This does not mean that a "Post Christadelphian" is no longer a "Christadelphian." In reality, many Christadelphians today are readily admitting that they no longer feel that the traditional way of living a "Christadelphian" life, within a traditional Christadelphian "framework" equips them with the necessary "tools" to co-exist in a "Post Christian" society.

I thought this was a valuable insight.

A response to "Gossip: a case study"

I received a funny anonymous comment to my earlier post on this subject. It said:

"You speak and act like someone who is not a member of the Christadelphian Community, so is it any wonder that people make up these stories?

What I found really funny was the Freudian slip: "... is it any wonder that people make up these stories?"

Yes, that's what I've been suggesting: most of the gossip and rumours are made-up stories without a measure of truth in them. So why do people prefer the made-up stories in preference to the facts? I think the Bible has something to say about people with "itching ears" who prefer stories to the truth.

Gossip: a case study

In a recent message I wrote about the dangers of gossip and the way the internet has enabled gossip to travel faster and further than before and to be more easily 'manipulated'. In this message I want to give an actual example of how this can happen in the Christadelphian community.

Some time ago I became aware of an allegation that I had "withdrawn fellowship" from Christadelphians. Anyone who has read any of my messages on this blog about "withdrawing fellowship" or who knows me personally would know that the allegation is clearly nonsense.

I came across a "quotation" on a website which claimed to be something I had written. It was allegedly from a letter I had written when "withdrawing fellowship" from Christadelphians. I contacted its author (let's call him 'Ken'). I asked him to remove the statement as it was untrue. He refused, on the basis that he had received the information from "a reliable source" and it was claimed that the quotation was "unedited" and was my "own words".

I tried to track the untrue rumour to its source. This is what I uncovered. (By the way, I have changed the names of the people involved to hide their identities.)

1. 'Ken' obtained his information from 'Kathy', a "reliable source" of information and someone he obviously trusted. He has never personally seen the letter from which he quoted although he insisted that the quotation he put on a website was "unedited". Even though he had never even seen the entire 'letter' or seen the "quotation" in its context he was still confident that he knew what it meant. Even though I was allegedly the author of the unseen document he wouldn't believe anything I had to say about it.

2. I contacted 'Kathy'. She told me that she had seen a letter I had written to an ecclesia saying that I had 'withdrawn' from Christadelphians, and that this had come from a sister we both know ('Betty'). I immediately contacted Betty. She told me that she had never discussed the matter with Kathy, and had no knowledge of such a letter.

2. When I confronted Kathy with this information she changed her story. She said that she didn't get it 'directly' from Betty but from 'some brethren' to whom Betty had allegedly sent the letter. So that removes Kathy one more step from the alleged 'source' of the story.

3. After my enquiry Kathy contacted Betty again, wanting to get a copy of the letter she had allegedly sent to some unnamed brethren. Betty told her again that she had never seen the letter, didn't even know if it existed, and could therefore not have shown it or passed it on to anyone.

4. I told Kathy that I hadn't written a letter to any ecclesia resigning or withdrawing from Christadelphians. Kathy may have checked with the ecclesia who supposedly received this letter (I don't know) but she subsequently changed her story (again) to say that perhaps I hadn't sent a letter. So now she changed her story to say it may have been a different form of communication (although she really didn't know and had no evidence of any other communication) and perhaps this 'communication' had been sent to someone else and not the ecclesia she claimed. In other words, it was evident that the letter didn't exist, but she still wanted it to be true! From the change in her story it was obvious that she really had no detailed information whatsoever and was simply passing on some gossip she had heard but hadn't checked but wanted to be true (or she may have fabricated the whole thing - a sad and frightening possibility).

5. So the story went from me writing a letter (which Kathy claimed to have seen) to a named ecclesia resigning or withdrawing from them and Christadelphians in general, to some other form of communication (but Kathy couldn't say what or how) to someone else (but Kathy didn't know who).

6. Instead of having 'first hand' knowledge of this Kathy has now admitted that her information came from 'some brethren' (unnamed) who allegedly received it from Betty, who apparently or allegedly obtained it from someone else (but Kathy is not sure who), even though Betty denies this. That means the information was at least third hand by the time it reached Kathy, and she has no idea where it originated or how many hands it might have passed through before arriving in its final form.

7. Despite being presented with this Ken has refused to remove the "quotation" from the website. He still believes that his "unedited" quotation from Kathy was accurate.

Ken still insists that his 'quotation' is "unedited" and in my "own words" even though he has never actually seen the letter from which it allegedly came, his 'reliable source' of information (Kathy) has never seen the letter either (and now admits it may not exist), she won't say where she got the "quotation", and the person from whom Kathy's unnamed source allegedly obtained it (Betty) has never seen or even heard of it.

NO ONE has actually seen anything from me on the subject, and no one knows where the 'quotation' originated, or in what form, or in what context, or by whom, or if the source was trustworthy!

Yet Ken and Kathy obviously don't want the facts to stand in the way of a good story, and so they will keep telling it! Heaven help us.

Restoration Fellowship meeting on May 10

Those of you in the Brisbane area may be interested in getting along to the next Restoration Fellowship meeting on Saturday May 10 at:

Christian Faith Church
12 Thorn St, Ormiston

I will be speaking at 9.30 am on the subject:

"There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth - Jesus' teaching on the fate of the rejected".

Registration is at 9.00am and the day concludes at 3.00pm

Click here for an information brochure.

Weak men being bullied off the platform (poll results)

Thank you to the 104 people who voted in the poll. I'm not at all surprised that the overwhelming majority (98) voted "no" i.e. they haven't been "bullied off the platform" by women. However, I was surprised that were as many as 5 people who said they had been bullied off the platform, and one who said "maybe". No one who voted "yes" emailed me to tell their story, so we actually have no information at all as to the circumstances.

I did, however, receive a response from Jonathan Burke, the Christadelphian who triggered this poll by making comments on a Christadelphian forum which was discussing whether Christadelphian women should be permitted to speak at Christadelphian meetings.

I quoted two of his comments earlier:

"When you have women actively competing for time on the platform, you're going to end up with conflict. No two ways about it. It's easy to see what happens. Weak men are bullied off the platform, or only permitted to speak when the women permit them to."

"Man bullying by women has become an increasingly popular pastime in the churches, and it's unfortunate that it's creeping into the ecclesia."

Jonathan responded with the following clarification (these are just extracts from a longer communication, but I believe the sense is unaltered):

"... you didn't quote any statements from me saying that Christadephian brethren are being bullied off the platform. I said that bullying of men is happening in Christadelphian ecclesias, but I said nothing about Christadelphian brethren being bullied off the platform."

Well, apparently I made a wrong assumption when I thought a comment about men being "bullied off the platform" in a discussion about whether Christadelphian women should be on Christadelphian platforms was actually about something happening in Christadelphian meetings. Apparently Jonathan was thinking about situations in non-Christadelphian churches.

I was making a general statement, not confining this to any particular denomination, and not talking about any current situation.

So no, I wasn't implying that non-Christadelphian men are on the (Christadelphian), platform. I was saying that when women are actively competing with men for the platform, then you are going to end up with conflict, and when that happens weak men are bullied off the platform or only permitted to speak when the women permit them to. It's a standard, general, conditional statement.

He went on to tell me about his own experience in "a standard evangelical church" which he attended "twice a week, Sunday and Wednesday, for 2-5 hours a time, every week, for over 6 months" in which there was a "power struggle" which resulted in women taking over the church.

So to be fair to Jonathan Burke it's important that I clarify that he does NOT believe that Christadelphian men are being bullied off Christadelphian platforms by Christadelphian women. However, from his experience in "a standard evangelical church" (whatever that means) he obviously believes that there is the potential for this to happen in Christadelphian meetings and I guess he's encouraging vigilance against this kind of thing happening.

That makes it even more surprising that 5 or 6 people who voted in my poll felt that they had been "bullied off the platform" (assuming that the people who voted were genuinely Christadelphian men who genuinely felt that they had been bullied off the platform. This is an open site so anyone could have voted). Seeing the question was asking about "weak men" who had been bullied off the platform I am actually even more surprised that anyone would admit to being in that category.

I think we can confidently say that in reality there is no evidence of this sort of thing happening in the Christadelphian community (and Jonathan Burke isn't suggesting that there is), and despite the fears of some people that it could happen down the track there is no indication at this time that it will. Jonathan pointed out that one person who left a comment on my message is:

"under the strange impression that sisters are never allowed to speak on or off the platform in the Christadelphian community, whereas you and I both know that's not true and that there are ecclesias in Australia where sisters speak from the platform regularly (the fact that this is uncommon and unrepresentative of our community doesn't change the fact that it happens)."

And not just in Australia.

I have removed the poll results from the side panel, so here it is for those people who may have missed it.

If you are a Christadelphian man and a Speaker, have you ever been "bullied off the platform" by a woman?

Yes: 5 (4%)
No: 98 (94%)
Maybe: 1 (<1%)>

How big is the universe?

If you missed Cliff's comment on an earlier post it included a link to a video about the Hubble Deep Field.

It's well worth viewing, so here it is again.

Challenges facing Christadelphians (2)

OBSTACLES TO HEALING AND RESTORATION

In the comments on my last post in this thread I wrote:

"If we preach the kingdom without bringing healing and restoration we have only carried out half our mission - in fact, we probably haven't really preached the kingdom at all."

Linda responded beautifully to this by saying:

"Maybe that's a sign that the gospel has actually been preached - healing and restoration follows. The opposite would be true too. Where there is no healing and restoration, whatever it is that is being preached, isn't the kingdom."

In this message I'd like to look at some of the obstacles to healing and restoration.

Jesus always linked the Gospel of the Kingdom with Kingdom values. He said that the way people would recognise His disciples would be to observe how they treat each other: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). John developed this idea by saying that if we do not not love it is because we don not really know God: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:7-8). In other words, it doesn't matter how much we know ABOUT God - if we don't love then all our so-called knowledge is useless.

In Galatians 6:10 Paul advised that "as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers [household of faith - KJV]".

If we cannot do good to fellow-believers then we will be unable to do anything genuinely good for non-believers. The New Testament writers repeat this message constantly: we are to love one another, and love deeply (John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17; Romans 12:10; 13:8; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 4;2; 1 Thess 3:12; 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 3:8; 1 John 3;11, 23; 4;7, 11, 12; 2 John 5).

If Christadelphians cannot treat each other with love, and be courteous to each other, then there is absolutely no point in trying to love anyone else. And without love there is no point to the Gospel.

Jesus' Gospel-message was firmly grounded in the words of Isaiah and the Kingdom values which He taught are spelled out beautifully in His quotation of Isaiah 61:1-2 in the synagogue at Nazareth:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)

These words encapsulate the prophets' message that one of the hallmarks of the Kingdom Age would be justice for all (e.g. Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 23;5; 31:23). To Jesus that meant justice for the oppressed and those who could not speak up for themselves.

There is no point in talking about the coming Kingdom if we don't practice Kingdom values in the here and now.

I believe that one of the most serious challenges facing the Christadelphian community today is the failure to treat other Christadelphians justly. There are two main areas of concern where Christadelphians sometimes deny their brothers and sisters justice. Our legal system talks about "natural justice". How much more important is it then that Kingdom-people live by the principles of God's justice and apply an even higher standard! Yet even the world's "natural justice" is sometimes denied to Christadelphians by fellow-Christadelphians. The two main areas of concern to me are gossiping, and discussions in secret (and they are clearly closely related).

Here are some examples.

There are several Christadelphian internet forums which have discussion boards open to the public for discussion and debate. At least one also has a 'private' area with restricted access. Some non-Christadelphians are allowed to join the discussions there, while some Christadelphians on the other hand are denied access. Some of the discussions are about the Christadelphians who are denied access. I recently put this question to one of the members of this "private" forum:

Do you think it is fair or brotherly to discuss someone behind their back and in a forum where they have no opportunity to answer or defend themself?

This is how he answered:

Romans 16:17-18 comes to mind. Exposing such within the community of God has always been done and condoned by scripture.

Here is what Romans 16:17-18 says (in the NIV):

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. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

In other words, this brother was saying that it's acceptable to "expose" someone if you judge them to be causing divisions or putting obstacles in the way of believers. If you first convince yourself that they are "causing divisions" then it's ok to talk about them on a discussion forum which is open to a large number of people, including non-Christadelphians. You don't have to allow them an opportunity to answer the allegation or to defend themselves. In a nutshell, they are guilty until proved innocent, and condemned without the opportunity to defend themselves. (See my notes on Romans 16:17 here and here.)

This kind of behaviour is not only contrary to what the world would consider "natural justice" it is also in violation of clear Scriptural principles. If the practice of Kingdom values begins with the household of faith, then we should do better than "natural justice" - we should give brethren the benefit of the doubt, presume innocence, treat them with a greater degree of fairness than the world would demand, and be more forgiving than most people would expect (we should forgive our brethren "seventy times seven" times). Rather than "exposing" weaknesses we should be praising their strengths. Instead of criticising faults we should be boasting about their achievements.

There is no place in the household of faith for "private" forums to discuss brethren behind their backs.

In earlier posts (here and here) I also raised the problem of groups which meet together specifically to discuss other ecclesias, and exclude these ecclesias from their meetings. These are no different in principle to the private internet forums which are so contrary to the clear teaching of scripture that fellow-brethren in Christ should be treated with respect, courtesy, brotherliness and love.

Any group, meeting or forum which facilitates gossip, slander and accusations against those for whom Christ died is a festering sore on the body of Christ.

Gossip is not a new problem. It has always been an issue amongst believers. John identified gossiping as one of the characteristics of the separatists. He identified Diotrephes as one of the people in the church who "will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church" (3 John 9-10). This 'cluster' of behaviour or characteristics has been common in the history of the brotherhood: refusing to welcome some believers, putting some out of the church ("disfellowshipping") and malicious gossip are all characteristics of the exclusivists or separatists.

Paul listed gossips amongst those who are "filled with every kind of wickedness" (Romans 1:29). He wrote of "quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder" as being signs of a church breaking down (2 Corinthians 12:20).

The internet has become a modern means of gossiping. Today we can spread news, good or bad, quicker and to more people than was ever possible in the past. I learned of the dangers of the internet quite early on. I received an email from a Christadelphian asking about my views on something or other. I had never met him or even heard of him before but as he was a brother in Christ I assumed he could be trusted. He promised to keep my response "confidential". Within two weeks I was receiving emails from around the world from people who had been forwarded my "confidential" reply.

One of the main problems with electronic communications is that a small part of an ongoing 'conversation' can be easily extracted, 'cut and pasted' into another document, and then quoted without its context in a way which gives it another meaning entirely. The Bible can be made to say "There is no God" if we 'cut and paste' some text without its context. In the same way I've seen people quoted "verbatim" and made to say something entirely different to what they intended to say within the context of the conversation. I've even seen "verbatim" quotes copied and pasted together with quotes by other writers and made to look like they are all from the same author. For example, I was once sent a document which was allegedly a series of "quotations" claiming to show "what Steve Cook believes, in his own words". Not only were some of the "quotations" taken out of their context and made to mean something quite different to what I intended, they were pasted together with "quotations" from some other anonymous or pseudonymous person which the person creating the document may have assumed was me (but wasn't), or which was simply a fabrication by a mischief-maker.

There is a recent example of a hefty file on a brother which contained some serious allegations being circulated worldwide. Everyone who was sent a copy of the file were given strict instructions that they were not to show it to the brother being accused! In other words, the brother was not allowed to see the allegations against him, know who made them, or what evidence there was. This is not only a denial of "natural justice" to such an extent that it would not be tolerated "in the world" (where he could have sued for slander, libel and defamation), but was a complete mockery of the high standards of Christ. Whether the allegations were true or not is really irrelevant. No one should be teated so unjustly, least of all one for whom Christ died.

Robert Roberts had this advice on gossip:

"The most effective way to stop the mouths of slanderers is to at once inform the slanderer that you will see the victim and inform him of what you have just been told, and who told you. You should believe no report to anyone's detriment without giving him or her an opportunity (by private enquiry of himself or herself) of contradicting it if it happens to be untrue. We always esteem such an application a kindness." (Quoted in "Christadelphian Answers" by Frank Jannaway, p 233)

Good advice, and if it was taken today by the owners, moderators and conveners of the various private internet forums and secret meetings then they would all be closed down and we would see a greater degree of Kingdom-justice in the Christadelphian community.

One Hope

I've just been hearing about this year's Spring Harvest gathering in the UK. Spring Harvest is the largest Christian conference in Europe, attended by about 45,000 people, and subscribes to The Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith.

This year the theme is One Hope - focussing on what it means to have a hope that is 'steadfast and certain' in a society where change is the only certainty. Here is what their website says about this years theme:

As we unpack the Big Story of God, we'll discover how HOPE is central to the Christian faith. We'll also discover what Jesus being the hope of the world really means. And how embracing Jesus - and the hope he offers - changes how we live and brings new vitality to our faith. Hope is God's big idea.

It seems to me that we spend our lives getting more and more scared of stuff. We get scared of the way the world's going, scared of stuff going on in our local community, even scared about some of the things happening in our local church.

The bible says we shouldn't be the scared people of God, we should be the hopeful people of God.

In fact, we should be the most hopeful people on God's good earth, because we've seen what happens and the end of the world, we've seen what happens at the end of history, and we know the ending of God's story is both happy and hopeful.'

The amazing thing about this years teaching, from the reports I've been hearing, is that the emphasis has been on physical resurrection and the coming kingdom of God.

Some of the teachers are saying that there is no immortal soul, no heaven when we die and no torments in hell. This is absolutely amazing! It's quite likely that Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright has been very influential in encouraging this shift in thinking.

This is a very encouraging development and one we should get excited about!