Comments»

1. Richard Morgan - July 28, 2009

Thanks Kyle for your three thoughts on being a Christadelphian. Jesus said to build our house on a rock – not on the supposed rock of the things you list in your last paragraph but on the rock of his teachings. When you look at what he says in Matthew 5-7 you realize it would sort out a huge amount of problems, many of which plague us today because we are either overly concerned with tradition for tradition’s sake or have some new thing to please itching ears. Our care for one another in the spirit of Christ, exemplified in our good tradition of hospitality (something which I also see as an immense strength of our community and something we should desperately want to hold on to), our emphasis on proper practical Bible study, our passion for first principles and living the truth – let’s all get back to these things, please! Changing form or clinging onto old form won’t help one iota. In my experience strong ecclesias are those that emphasize Bible study, preaching and care for one another, never mind what hymn book they use, what dress code they have or even what fellowship they belong to (although, having said that, I have to admit my only real experience is in the Central fellowship!) I don’t want the following to sound self-righteous and as if I have found the right middle ground, I only say it because I am easily led, but I am tired of both extremes which threaten to tear our community apart like never before with ideas and counter-ideas spreading across cyberspace quicker than we can keep up. If we can concentrate on #1-5 of your proposed solution we have a much healthier future than the pessimistic side of me imagines.

2. Michael Owen - July 28, 2009

Thank you, Kyle, for an honest and helpful contribution to the debate now taking place. There is just one point I would like to make, arising from your thoughts.

The Biblical principles enshrined in our Statement of Faith and the Ecclesial Guide have for over 100 years formed the basis of unity for the majority of Christadelphians around the globe…

There are plenty of non-Christadelphians that commit themselves to God and the Lord Jesus Christ – often of course, considering both to be the same. Unless, in the absence of a central authority, we have some Biblically defined basis for our belief and for our ecclesial practices, then it is indeed every man for himself.

I believe we make a mistake to consign our Statement of Faith and The Ecclesial Guide to the realm of ‘tradition’ – though in the true sense of tradition, we should be holding fast to what has been handed on to us as sound Biblical doctrine and practice.

3. Kyle Tucker - July 28, 2009

Bro. Michael:

Thank you for your comments.

It might help for me to explain myself further on the Statement of Faith (SoF) and the Ecclesial Guide (EG). Let me start with the EG since I have more issues with it than the SoF.

First, let me say that Robert Roberts made an honest effort to give us some practical advice on how conduct ourselves. I do not fault him for trying. I do fault us if we slavishly follow something that does’t work however. Some things in the EG have worked better than others. Clause 40 (which if memory serves me is called A Time to Separate and How to Go About It) is an example of one of those things which, in my opinion, has been shown via its fruit to have been ill-conceived. We have an abysmal history of division. It has caused many to leave God’s service. Why on earth would you build it into the system? I call this clause the Christadelphian Pre-nup because like some worldly weddings, it presumes divorce and how we are going to handle it when it comes. You may think that this is not fair to lay this on Clause 40 and you are right. Pre-nuptial agreements don’t spoil marriages, people do. However, if they have this in the back of their minds, it is like telling someone “don’t think of a pink elephant” as immediately your mind is drawn to it. So, can we have a EG? I think it is fine to do so. Should we change some things if they are not serving God’s purpose? I would hope so.

On the SoF, I don’t have a problem with SoFs at all. In fact, I think each brother and sister should have their own SoF. This is what Michael Owen believes to be true. This is what Kyle Tucker believes to be true. It is a great exercise for any believer to engage in writing down what we believe. I believe that most Christadelphians use the SoF in this manner. It is a concise statement of what we believe. However, there are some that use it as THE basis of fellowship. This is false doctrine. The Bible teaches plainly that the basis of fellowship is the One Body. What I mean is that if you have the Michael Owen SoF and I have the Kyle Tucker SoF it makes no difference at all as long as we agree we are in the One Body. We are going to say things differently and emphasize different things. That’s OK. We may be far apart enough that I won’t allow you to teach your particular oddity in my ecclesia and vice versa, but we still acknowledge each other as brethren and treat each other that way. So again, it is not the SoF in particular that I take issue with as much as how some use it. What I call “Document-based Fellowship” as opposed to “Body of Christ-based Fellowship” is sinful and clearly spoken against in Scripture, yet we persist in some quarters with the practice. Those who persist in the practice may have to answer to Christ in the spirit of Matt. 25:40: “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

4. Colin Green - July 29, 2009

There is a LOT to digest here. I too am concerned at the way we as Christadephians are seeming to allow too much to pass unchallenged. Yet I too would HATE to return to the “bad old days” of nit-picking and almost casual disfellowship. What damage has been done…

Kyle’s comments on the SoF and EG are important. We DO put FAR too much weight on them as almost “divine”. Yet they are man-made and can (and MUST) be challenged. They get in the way.

But they are also a vital part of a summary of beliefs and how we do things. But at times we have to say clearly “Scripture trumps” when situations occur that Robert Roberts (et al) either didn’t consider or got it wrong. I have personally had to say “No way” when confronted. I’d do it again too! At the end of the day, what say the scriptures?

As regards allowing too much to pass unchallenged, well, maybe we have some things wrong. We can be critical of others for not opening their minds. We must too. With the huge and critical base point of scripture – which is ALWAYS right. “I feel” can be a guide and it can be important if we have strong moral growth. But when it conflicts with solid scripture then it has to be “I learn” and added to the newly modified “I feel” so we are better equiped.

Here’s my big issue though and I really feel that it is closely related. Why are some of us so very hard on Christadelphians that may have made some error in their past but strive to serve and work very hard while other “stuff” (as touched on in this series) is simply left to wallow? I refer to Duncan Heaster’s efforts, which it seems is almost politically incorrect to refer to!

It seems to me that it would be hard to find a more dedicated missionary. Yet he simply needs to sniff and someone will wail “swine flu!”. I view him as a huge example – very much in the light of the “elder” Kyle mentions.

Before anyone picks up on this, I have EVERY genuine desire to encourage and to build on the powerful message that Kyle has given us in this trilogy. Kyle raises issues that rightfull make us (well, me anyway), think and I would never wish to damage that. It would also be wrong to denigrate anyone at all in a public forum. Especially a brother (Duncan) that really tries to make a difference. I can be contacted via http://www.bestofshow.com if a personal message needs to be sent (I don’t put my email address on blogs and websites).

5. Kyle Tucker - July 30, 2009

Brethren:

Colin and I have already had a brief discussion on this post off-line before his post was allowed. As I said in another post this week, “This isn’t really the forum to get into specifics on moral and doctrinal laxity. The last thing I want is people dropping people’s names and their alleged sins on this blog.”

I allowed this post because I think a lot of people believe that the article in the Christadelphian Magazine and my TFTW were code for an anti-Duncan Heaster and Carelink Ministries campaign. I obviously can’t speak for the Christadelphian Magazine (although I did not limit their comments to this topic when I read their article), but I can use Colin’s post to make the point that my article was not directed specifically at either Duncan Heaster or Carelink Ministries. It was directed at us all. If what I said applies Duncan Heaster and Carelink Ministries, they should take heed, as we all should if it applies to us.

In the spirit of transparency, WCF, who graciously allows me to post my thoughts on their web site and on whose board I serve as a director, severed our relationship with Duncan Heaster several years ago and issued a public statement as to our reasons. I was very much involved in that process. Ecclesially speaking, it was one of the hardest things I have ever had to be involved in. I have not kept up with Duncan or his new ministry since then and am therefore not in a position to speak authoritatively about what is going on now. I do stand behind the decision WCF made at that time. At the same time, many people disagree with our decision and the reasons for it. All I can offer is that I spent a considerable amount of time on this issue and reached a conclusion. I would expect no less of others. Get the facts as best you can. Pray about it. Study the Scriptures to see what the Lord would have us do. Check your motives. Act in good conscience. Try not to demonize those who have reached a different conclusion from yourself as stupid, deceitful, unspiritual, etc. Impute the best motives to them that you can and move forward with the work.

I wrote to Colin before this post and conveyed to him that “I would prefer not to open up a forum on Duncan because I think the issues are much larger than Duncan and will therefore diminish the impact of what is being said.” Although I have made this concession to post Colin’s comments for the reasons stated above, I still believe that limiting this discussion to one man and one organization is to mitigate much of the good that can be done.

I concede that, even to Duncan and Carelinks supporters like Colin, when the topic of “who is a Christadelphian?” comes up, the mind naturally goes to what may be the best test case of this issue. The issue is hotly debated with virtually every major Christadelphian organization/magazine having weighed in on this question at some point in time. By denying this forum taking place here, I am not suggesting that the question does not ultimately need to be answered both individually and collectively. However, there are plenty of forums available for people to discuss both Duncan and Carelinks and, in fact; some of these forums are active right now on this very topic. The TFTW blog just won’t be one of them.

6. Colin Green - July 30, 2009

Thank you for your reponse Kyle and for letting my post through. I sincerely would never wish to stir a pot of contention but as you know the whole thing is distressing. I tussle with approaching what is a problematic issue with possible (probable??) confrontation versus letting something which greatly worries me get brushed under the table. I would consider myself a coward for doing that. So thanks again for allowing what I know you feel strongly about. We have indeed communicated directly.

So having raised the issue, I for one would be pleased to focus on how to protect, nurture and grow Christadelphian values and what we stand for. Which was what Kyle was pointing at.

7. Steven Cox - August 2, 2009

Hi bro Kyle Thank you for your Thoughts column in general, and thanks for these three (so far) Thoughts on ‘Being a Christadelphian’. I thought it might help to link to the original : http://www.thechristadelphian.com/magazine/specialarticle.html

Since the June article has been published unfortunately the general feedback I’ve had from the somewhat left-of-centre (I hope not crazy-left) circles in which I tend to move has been that almost no one has actually read the article, or that ears closed and minds switched off when hitting bullet points #4 “hymns” and #7 “tradition” in the box at the beginning. Which is a shame, because if proof-reading had caught those and maybe other stumbling blocks then there are some real concerns in the article – firstly for Australia, potentially for the UK, and maybe even the US and Canada too.

The article didn’t mention the SoF, since doctrine is not the issue. But the article did include a footnote mentioning the Ecclesial Guide:

"They do not accept that ecclesias have scriptural authority to withdraw or restrict fellowship; they believe that individuals are free to break bread wherever and with whomever they choose, being answerable only to their own consciences; they do not accept that when issues arise between ecclesias, the scriptural principle is for matters to be discussed jointly in an attempt to strengthen fellowship and avoid schism and further dissent (Acts 15:2)[1].

[1] Scriptural processes helpfully set forth in The Ecclesial Guide."

Like yourself, I’m not personally a great fan of the The Ecclesial Guide. Your description of Section 40 as a “pre-nup” is uncomfortably on the nail (given that two years after publication in 1883, such a “divorce” did take place in 1885 between Central and Suffolk St.). Sections 41 and 42 also fall short of the New Testament models of unity. However in the context of the article (i.e. the problems in Australia now, and potentially in the UK sooner rather than later) that footnote I think was worth including. The article makes its point from the Bible (Acts 15:2), but if a footnote to a Christadelphian document makes a Bible verse more likely to be followed, then why not footnote it? You and I might agree that the EG is too loose on inter-ecclesial unity by NT standards, but those whom the article is aimed at would already consider the EG too tight, so until someone comes along and writes something tighter, even a loose document advocating inter-ecclesial communication and a balance between inter-ecclesial autonomy and heteronomy is better than nothing. http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/books/guide/index.html

But thanks again for your ‘Thoughts’, I look forward to reading future installments. With love in Jesus Steven

8. Michael Owen - August 5, 2009

Kyle, as you might expect, I do not agree with the thrust of your argument. The notion that ‘Body of Christ-based fellowship’ is superior to ‘Document-based fellowship’ seems very attractive, but in the end you have to define what you mean. After all, Jesus ensured that his followers were able to write down under inspiration the very principles that form the essentials of our faith. We have what they wrote, of course, as a document – the ‘New Testament’ – and it refers to the inspired message of the Old Testament – another document. So ‘Christ-based fellowship’ inevitably requires written documentation for it to have any practical meaning.

After all, there are hundreds of communities that claim to be part of the Body of Christ. Are you advocating an open fellowship, open to any who claim to be part of the body of Christ? If, however, we accept that we need a definition of those things we most surely believe, then the fact is that the BASF is the Statement that has unified the majority of Christadelphians throughout the world during the last 100 plus years. It is not the document itself, of course, but the Scriptural truths which it expresses and which define our fellowship.

When we meet together as one body in Christ on that basis, then we have to accept we are not in fellowship with those who meet on a different basis. Wherever you draw the line , there will always be family and loved ones who are the other side of it. The alternative is to have no basis on which to baptize people into Christ, no basis on which to welcome people at the table of the Lord, no basis for ecclesial discipline. Before too long, our distinctive message and way of life would be lost as we came to accept more and more people who had different understanding .

The BASF, along with the practices outlines in The Ecclesial Guide, has actually held our brotherhood together as one body in Christ for a very long time. The documents have facilitated sound procedures for ecclesial life, including inter-ecclesial fellowship. The BASF has brought together the brotherhood in Australia and various fellowships in the UK.

There has been ample opportunity, as you well know, for those communities meeting on a different basis to be welcomed into the Central fellowship. But for the most part those opportunities have been spurned, or welcomed only if the fellowship implications can be set on one side. This is the reason why the brotherhood in North America remains divided.

Sadly, at the moment, there are individuals and groups which are threatening division in the Central fellowship for the first time in generations. We shall not heal those divisive trends by plastering over the cracks. That is why the CMPA is appealing to us to ‘contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3)

9. Kyle Tucker - August 5, 2009

Bro. Michael,

Let me restate what I think you are saying (and feel free to correct me if I don’t get your meaning…I am honestly not trying to put words or ideas in your mouth).

1. You state that the Old and New Testaments are divinely inspired documents which define fellowship. (I am with you so far and agree.)

2. You then go on to suggest that fellowship then requires documentation to be practical (Again, I follow and agree).

3. You then go on to suggest that this justifies the creation of the BASF and the Ecclesial Guide and the way they are currently used and that they are the tie that binds the body of Christ together. (This is where you lose me).

First of all, I am no more proclaiming “open fellowship” than you are claiming that anyone who “claims” (your word) to use the BASF is necessarily part of the One Body. We are not talking about “claims” here, but actual fact. I would hope that we could agree on this one point at least that what we would both hope to accomplish is to include ALL the One Body in fellowship as scripturally we are commanded to do. I would offer than claims that what I am really saying is “open fellowship” are not helpful to the dialog. I concede to you (and hopefully you will concede to me) that our mutual aim is to be in fellowship with the Body of Christ – no more, no less.

Second, it seems to me that your argument as it is outlined above includes its own answer. You say we need a definition for fellowship and then argue that we have been provided a divinely inspired definition in the Bible. I agree with your assessment up to that point. It is that final leap that therefore we need to create a non-inspired document that supersedes the divinely inspired document that falls short. Now you might argue that every Christian denomination uses the Bible so the One Body needs to be defined further otherwise we have “open fellowship.” I agree up to a point. And now I quote what you wrote that hits the nail on the head. You said “It is not the document itself, of course, but the Scriptural truths which it expresses and which define our fellowship.” Yes!!!!!! That’s it!! It is not the SoF per se, but the truths behind it such that we can have many SoFs as long as they speak to our common faith. The SoF is not the key, it is that we are part of the One Body which includes certain beliefs and morality. Sadly, though, while you acknowledge this vital principle you then go on to erase it by saying that it is, in fact, the BASF and Ecclesia Guide that are the key to fellowship.

So when you go on to say “There has been ample opportunity, as you well know, for those communities meeting on a different basis to be welcomed into the Central fellowship” this is what you actually mean (again, if I misread you, please correct me).

1. Those that have other SoFs can join the Central fellowship and adopt the BASF (or a new, third document).

2. It doesn’t matter whether we are actually part of the One Body or not, what matters is #1.

3. If you don’t agree with #1 and #2, you are being divisive.

By so doing, Brother Michael, you automatically confine the Central fellowship to a clique within the One Body, not to include the entirety of the body of Christ.

Here are the facts. The brethren in North America have met time and time again. Each and every time they meet, they conclude that they are all part of the One Body. Instead of obeying the command of Christ to be one right then and there, they are required by the rules of Document-based Fellowship to create a new document. Every time they attempt to create the new document, the Document-based Fellowship adherents on both sides kill the initiative. So in this case, the Document-based Fellowship practices you are promoting do not create unity of the One Body, but thwart it. This is the true division within Christadelphia; those that practice fellowship based on the One Body and those who practice Document-based Fellowship.

What I would love to see is for brethren to act according to the principles of Biblical fellowship. Simply stated, the principle is for brethren to manifest fellowship with other brethren who believe, are baptized and are walking in the light. Anything that hinders us from this simple truth needs to be corrected for in so doing we fall short of what the Lord Jesus commands. We can only contend for the Faith that was once delivered to the saints by obeying Jesus rather than our traditions.

“Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11)

10. Michael Owen - August 7, 2009

“You then go on to suggest that fellowship then requires documentation to be practical (Again, I follow and agree).”

What documentation do you have in mind?

How would it distinguish between “brethren who believe, are baptized and are walking in the light” and those who are not?

11. Kyle Tucker - August 7, 2009

Bro. Michael:

Allow me to summarize the main point at issue and then I will answer your questions.

The question before us is what is THE basis of fellowship? 1. A statement of faith. 2. The body of Christ. My position (and I believe the position clearly stated in the Bible) is that the body of Christ is the only valid way to practice fellowship. There is one body and it is as important to include all of it as it is to exclude that which is not part of it.

A statement of faith should be a statement of what we truly believe rather than a license for the Table. The Christadelphian Magazine article “Being a Christadelphian – Holding fast in challenging times” has correctly noted that people may not actually believe what the BASF states but remain Christadelphians. They sign off on the SoF because it is the document that keeps them in fellowship, not actual beliefs. Conversely, brethren here in North America may believe the same essentials (as they have concluded time and time again), but not enjoy fellowship together because of the documents.

The adherents of Document-based Fellowship believe that having one common, ironclad SoF makes things simpler and allows for fellowship, but it is becoming self-evident now that this is not true. We have brethren who may meet under the same “colors” as us that do not share the same Gospel. We have brethren with whom we do share the same Gospel, but do not share the table. This is neither simple nor easy. I would much rather have multiple statements of faith which actually reflect what people believe and practice than one statement that becomes a sort of ticket for fellowship but is not a reflection of actual beliefs and practice. I would suggest that we don’t manifest fellowship with those that may share a common SoF if they are not truly sharing the same Gospel. I would further suggest that we share the Table with all those in the Body of Christ regardless of their document IF we believe them to be part of the One Body.

As I stated previously, I am not anti-statement of faith. I am against the practice of Document-based Fellowship where a SoF is legalistically and slavishly held to without regard to who is actually part of the One Body either inclusively or exclusively.

So, in answer to your question, “What documentation do you have in mind?” my answer is simple – I think people should put into writing their actual beliefs. The basis of fellowship is still what they actually believe and practice (i.e. whether they are in the One Body), not what is on paper. One would expect that when these actual beliefs are compiled that they would reflect within reason those ideas expressed in the BASF. If there is significant and substantial deviation between one’s own personal SoF and the BASF, as the Christadelphian Magazine pointed out, they need to ask the question “Am I honestly being Christadelphian?” If we are truly honest, we are held together by common beliefs, not common paper. I hope that this is what we are all mutually striving for!

In answer to your question, “How would it distinguish between ‘brethren who believe, are baptized and are walking in the light’ and those who are not,” I think the question is not heading in the right direction. A document doesn’t distinguish between brethren, people do. Yes, we can use people’s SoFs to help us in that determination, but that is but one tool of many. Right now we have people who do not share the Gospel with us but are “OK” because they have signed onto the right document. The document is not doing the job because it is an impossible task for a piece of paper. If we distinguish between right and wrong as well as true and false as God expects us to do, we will not leave these important matters up to a document, but will handle them as God commands in spirit and in truth on behalf of the One Body.

12. Michael Owen - August 9, 2009

“One would expect that when these actual beliefs are compiled that they would reflect within reason those ideas expressed in the BASF. If there is significant and substantial deviation between one’s own personal SoF and the BASF, as the Christadelphian Magazine pointed out, they need to ask the question “Am I honestly being Christadelphian?” If we are truly honest, we are held together by common beliefs, not common paper.”

This is, of course, precisely what happens when someone is interviewed for baptism. We ask them to say what they believe. If those ideas are not in accordance with our understanding (which you agree the BASF summarises) then they do not become a member of the One Body, as Christadelphians understand it.

Of course, I agree entirely, the touchstone is not the piece of paper, per se, but the Bible beliefs it expresses.

Similarly, if a person ceases to believe those things, honesty is called for, both by the individual concerned, and, if we follow the clear teaching of the New Testament, by the members of the ecclesia: “A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society; clearly he is in error” (Titus 3:10,11 Bible in Basic English)

It must follow that people who belong to the One Body on this basis of beliefs are not free to fellowship with people who meet on a different basis, one that omits or adds to the doctrines expressed in the BASF.

13. Philip Measures - August 9, 2009

This may be over-simplistic but here it is anyway. Those Issues / Doctrines / Beliefs which are ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION need to be the agreed basis on whch we are in fellowship.

The first-century believers were not by any means all highly educated but those baptized believers shared a common faith which stood out so mightily from the ‘world’ of the Pharisees and Sadducees and similar groups to such an extent that they were in daily fear of persecution, imprisonment and death.

Do we stand out that like today? It is such a sadness that there are so many divisions – especially when we believe that we are in the last days – is Jesus going to thank us for not resolving those differences in his name? Division feeds those who look for excuses to criticise us and much that appears on the internet does us absolutely no credit whatsoever.

Fellowship is sweet and precious – we are brothers and sisters in Christ – too much division has been based on historical issues which no longer pertain and too much around individual personalities. Why does not a Christ-like attitude resolve those sadnesses?

The Christadelphian Magazine article was helpful in that it clearly warns us against trying to be all things to all men – we are different and we need to remain different to ‘christendom’ at large.

14. Kyle Tucker - August 9, 2009

Here is the problem as I see it. We are “halting between two opinions.”

We can’t have our basis of fellowship the One Body AND Document-based Fellowship. They are mutually exclusive. If we would like to argue that fellowship of the One Body equals fellowship under the BASF, then we would have to prove that not one single individual that is part of the One Body would be excluded or one single individual that is not part of the One Body would be included on the sole basis of the BASF. This hasn’t been the case historically and won’t be the case moving forward because the system itself of basing fellowship on a man-made document is intrinsically and fatally flawed.

The solution to our problem can be attained if we…

1) make the basis of fellowship the One Body as the Scriptures clearly teach,

2) and allow the BASF is a reasonable statement of what the Scriptures teach

3) and allow for other statements which arrive at the same basic conclusions without being legalistic about it and making any one statement THE basis of fellowship.

The notion that “It must follow that people who belong to the One Body on this basis of beliefs are not free to fellowship with people who meet on a different basis, one that omits or adds to the doctrines expressed in the BASF” is clearly not true logically, Biblically or in reality. If someone adds to the BASF “We are saved by grace” are they out of fellowship for adding something that is never stated in the BASF? If someone says “I reject the belief that there are demons” are they to be cut off because they express something that is not addressed in the BASF? These may be extreme examples, but they clearly make the point. We must use reason and the Scriptures to ultimately determine the One Body. Just because someone accepts the BASF does not mean they are OK and just because someone has a different statement does not mean they are not OK.

The bottom-line is we need to choose between Document-based Fellowship and Body of Christ-based fellowship. We can’t choose both and claim that we are obeying God in principle or in fact.

15. Philip Measures - August 10, 2009

Surely it is only where a Statement of Faith is out of line with clear biblical teaching that there is a problem.

IF there are matters in the BASF which are felt to be erroneous or lacking in clarity then let those be addressed – sometimes it is helpful to have documents (writings, books, expositions) that help in our understanding. The AV is not the easiest language to understand so writings that assist are welcome – I do not see as useful the distinction between ‘document-based fellowship v Body-of-Christ based fellowship.’

The BASF is by-and-large helpful and solidly Bible-based – where does it hamper Fellowship?

16. Kyle Tucker - August 10, 2009

Philip,

The BASF doesn’t hamper fellowship. It can facilitate fellowship IF it is used correctly as A (not THE) statement of what people think it true. If we use it as THE basis of fellowship as opposed to the Biblically correct basis of fellowship of the One Body, it becomes a hinderance. It is not the document that is the problem, those of us who practice Document-based Fellowship (DBF) are the problem.

So really, for those who practice DBF, your first statement is not true. Since THE basis of fellowship is the document, it has to be exact. It doesn’t make sense, but that is what we do.

Let me know if what I am saying does not make sense. We have such a long history of Document-Based Fellowship that sometimes the important distinction is missed. I have to say that it took me years and years of looking at this before it finally dawned on me what the real problem was.

17. Jim Land - August 10, 2009

I’ve now read through this ongoing discussion and have been, to say the least, confused by the idea of fellowship based upon the Body of Christ and not on a written statement. Having been trained in science and engineering, when asked, how would I identify one who is of the Body of Christ, except to ask him what he believed. (We couldln’t do it on behaviour, as there are many well intentioned Christians who are a model of behaviour, even for Brethren in Christ.) Then I couild compare that with what I believe and if it departed from the BASF, I would then conclude that we were not in fellowship. So at the end of the day, I would be forced to use a written statement to decide issues of fellowship.

Even the scientific community recognizes that change is required upon the finding of new evidence. For example, for years, the Bohr model of the atom was sufficient for scientific purposes. But as new evidence unfolded, that model had to be replaced. We have found that true also in our SoF — when new theories emerge, sometimes we have to deal with them; ususally by modification of the Doctrines to be Rejected but sometimes by expansion in the core statements.

Even the Central Fellowship allows for the use of other SoF as many historic ecclesias were formed before there was a BASF and continue to use their SofF. In addition, unity on the West Coast allowed other SoF to be used; but required the BASF as the basis of interecclesial fellowship. Else we would have had confusion.

The Constitution of the Los Angeles Ecclesia, being patterned after the EG, says, “2 – That we accept and profess the doctrines and precepts of Christ, as taught in the apostolic writings, and defined (positively and negatively) in the annexed Statement of Faith, Doctrines to be Rejected, and Epitome of the Commandments of Christ.” it recognizes that the Scriptures are our source of Truth; but admits the BASF as an summary of that esential Truth. This is necessary as every Christian could accept the first sentence; but most would wholeheartedly reject the second.

Sometimes, even a simple assertion of a short SoF doesnt’ clarify what is meant, as we found on the West Coast when we began unity efforts in earnest. We had to meet together and discuss at length what was meant. I still vividly remember the response of one brother from Northern California whom I had known and loved for years, when Bro Harry Tennant explained the parenthetical expression that had been a source of contention. Upon completion of Harry’s explanation, the brother blurted out, “Is that what you mean? I’ve always believed that!” From that moment on I believed that unity on the West Coast was a certainty and it turned out to be true.

So we find that not only written words that summarize our beliefs are important, mutual discussion is required. Over time the mutual discussion brings about fellowsahip in its closest sense.

So, while the concept of fellowship based upon a somewhat ethereal or esoteric idea might sound good, I can see no practical way for its implementation and still maintain the Truth in fellowship.

18. Kyle Tucker - August 11, 2009

Bro. Jim:

Thanks for your comments.

My first bit of counsel is that the principle that our basis of fellowship is the One Body didn’t originate with me, but with God. Using excerpts from 1 Cor. 12 NIV, here is one expansion of the principle of the One Body.

• The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. • For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body • There are many parts, but one body. • The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” • There should be no division in the body

To obey God then, we have to obey this principle to the best of our ability. It may be too nebulous for our liking, but there it is.

My second bit of counsel would be against trying to define things beyond what God has given us. This was a constant battle between God and Israel and between Jesus and the Pharisees. By way of example, God told Israel to love their neighbors. It follows naturally that if we are to love our neighbors and thus keep God’s commands, we need to define who our neighbors are. A lawyer approached Jesus with this very question. Of him it records, “But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?” Jesus goes on to give him the parable of the Good Samaritan. Since the Jews hated the Samaritans, I am sure Jesus’ answer was not what this man wanted to hear. For our purposes though, notice that Jesus, even after being asked, still didn’t define the term “neighbor’ in unambiguous terms.

Further definitions don’t bring about right behavior. Even with our nice and tidy clearly defined documents that we have made THE basis of fellowship, we continue violate the principle of the One Body and make “the word of God of none effect through your tradition.” As I have pointed out in this forum already, the unity discussions in North America are a classic case of well-intentioned brethren corrupted by Document-based Fellowship. We all admit we are brethren. We all admit each others baptisms are valid. We all admit people from both groups will be in God’s Kingdom together forever. However, when we meet and try to actually act on God’s command to be One, the Document-based Fellowship guys always ending up holding sway over the One Body guys. Instead of admitting that we are One and have no other recourse in the presence of God Almighty right then and there but to be One, the DBF guys always say that we can’t obey God until we get the documents right.

I am all for people declaring their faith both verbally and in writing, but what I cannot and will not wink at is this willful sin. We say that we will stop sinning when we get the right document. God says stop sinning. That much is unambiguous!

19. Steve Davis - August 11, 2009

Hi Jim,

I remember staying at your home while on Truth Corps a million years ago. It’s great to connect once again!

Like you, I have experienced a situation similar to the one you describe. In fact, I think most of us who have shared “mutual discussions” find ourselves either saying, or hearing another blurt out, “Is that what you mean? I’ve always believed that”. To me, situations like this perfectly illustrate the problem with what Kyle describes as “document based fellowship”. Personally, I find it difficult to justify not breaking bread with those to whom we are perfectly united in mind and thought.

20. Philip Measures - August 11, 2009

Kyle,

Kyle,

I do not agree with you in that IF the BASF is 100% Bible-based and accurate then surely no-one would have an issue with it UNLESS they believed something different – in other words if they do not believe the Biblical authority behind what the BASF states.

My comments are submitted on the basis of someone who has struggled with my faith for too many years now BUT I remain utterly convinced that we have the ‘Truth’ more accurately and faithfully than any other denomination. Our duty is to be able to share it with others openly and honestly and faithfully – so, for instance, I would have real problems with anyone who felt that Jesus could not sin – otherwise the temptations would have been meaningless. He was tempted in all points like we are yet WITHOUT sin – he didn’t sin but he COULD have done. He COULD have escaped the crucificition on LEGAL grounds, but he didn’t. He yielded to his Father’s will – what an amazing example and I wonder what he would have to say about our many divisions.

If we ‘sit at Jesus feet’ and both listen AND hear what he says then I can not help but think that we would earnstly seek unification and harmony. Where I do agree is that it is not PRIMARILY about ‘document-based’ fellowship but perhaps ‘underpinned’ by it.

21. Richard Morgan - August 13, 2009

I think one of the things Kyle is trying to say is that document-based fellowship can become meaningless and promote a meaningless religion. That’s not to say a document can’t have its uses (and I myself have recently been working on a doctrinal document for the current NA unity issue) but the problem is illustrated by looking at what happened before as recorded in Scripture. The Israelites had a document-based (or the equivalent at least) fellowship for centuries and it led to the NT era Jewish religion which Jesus utterly condemned. The problem comes when the document abrogates faith.

Here’s an example. Some ecclesias have a strict rule concerning divorce and remarriage enshrined in their constitutions. In itself, if the issue is felt to be that important, that’s fine, but the problem, because of human nature, is that then the document overrides the spirit of Christ. Instead of dealing with marriage problems through education and a balancing of mercy and righteousness the document provides the answer: the person(s) involved has disobeyed the rule and the constitution demands a fellowship decision which discounts any mitigating principles. The letter of the law religion doesn’t allow principles to be weighed up against each other and the rule becomes more important than the welfare of brothers and sisters in Christ. It has the appearance of righteousness because it keeps sin out but, as Paul says to the Corinthians, the letter kills.

So in effect we have an empty religion because the document overrides everything. Godly decisions can’t be made because the document has already made up everyone’s minds. Nobody grows, there is only an outward appearance of righteousness and the body dies.

Now apply that to document-based fellowship. If I say I am a BASF Christadelphian then I am in fellowship with all other BASF Christadelphians around the world. I am also out of fellowship with all non-BASF Christadelphians around the world. The document has decided who I am in fellowship with. “There’s nothing wrong with that”, someone comes back and says, “because the BASF defines the truth.” The problem with that is the document might define the truth but I might not believe it. Or I might believe it but be in “fellowship” with someone who is a BASF Christadelphian but doesn’t believe it. The document overrides any Godly decisions regarding fellowship and keeps in “fellowship” people who to all intents and purposes aren’t really in fellowship because they don’t believe the same things as me!

But again we return to the old argument “but ultimately we have to define our beliefs in a document.” As Kyle has said there’s nothing wrong with that and it can be very useful. But there’s something far stronger than a document which should bind us together. We think a document can do the trick but it become meaningless if we don’t have what creates true fellowship, and worse than meaningless – it can kill the body if used in the wrong way.

So what’s stronger than a document? Faith: true faith, faith based on reading the Bible and growing in understanding of God and his purpose, living our faith, preaching our faith and making our faith the centre of our lives. But we don’t tend to trust in the power of faith but instead abrogate faith with a document. But put it to the test: live your faith and then see how fellowship works itself out. Let me give you an example from my own life. I believe God caused his word to be written because it’s important. Therefore I read his word and try and preach it whenever I can. A year or so ago we got together with an evangelical couple for a study on Colossians. But because we were so firm in our faith a wedge grew between us and fellowship was impossible. Doctrine and faith in that doctrine defined our fellowship. We didn’t need a document. We didn’t approach the couple with a BASF in hand. Our belief caused fellowship decisions. Now that same thing could happen with someone wielding a document, but it could be pointless. Let’s say we didn’t understand the difference (and why it’s important) between the truth and trinitarianism. But we had the BASF, and the BASF says we shouldn’t break bread with Trinitarians. The document, rather than our faith, has made the fellowship decision. Faith has been replaced by law.

22. Philip Measures - August 13, 2009

Richard,

I think that you perhaps need to read your posting again as it really seems very weak towards the end. It is NOT ‘the document’ which means that we can not break bread with trinitarians – it is the BIBLE – it is God’s revealed word. There is ONE GOD. It is our clear ‘non-document based’ understanding (except the actual document is the Word of God) which means that there is no common ground. The fact that the BASF says exactly what the Bible says can only be positive. Faith has most certainly not been replaced by law and I really struggle to see where you are coming from on this one.

I go back to an earlier point and that is that if there are elements of the BASF that are not solidly Bible-based and proveable and do not stand up to any doctrinal test then those are the elements we need to resolve.

23. Richard Morgan - August 17, 2009

Hi Philip,

I agree with you: what I am highlighting is where document-based fellowship can lead to. The document directs our behaviour rather than the word of God.

24. Philip Measures - August 17, 2009

No it doesn’t! It is BASED on the Word of God. You need to prove where there is any disagreement and then address that. I have never known anyone disfellowshipped as a result of any ‘document’ other than the Word of God. I have never known any disagreement over fellowship where it was not based on Bible truth.

It is ‘attractive’ to ‘blame’ document-based fellowship for being the problem when, in reality, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Our fellowship is based, or should be, on the purity of the Word of God. We hold this truth, however, within weak and fallible human vessels and we need to each examine ourselves as to whether we are not trying to see the problem as something ‘out there’ rather than something within us.

Perhaps it was no surprise that way back in the original Hymn Book of 1874 Hymn 4 says:

Behold, how good a thing it is, And how becoming well, Together such as brethren are, In unity to dwell.

Have we done all that we could, or ought to have done, to preserve that unity? Have we neglected any of the truths essential for salvation? Have we ‘courted’ modernism, humanist thinking to try to become more appealing? Have we ensured that we are ‘different’?

I will leave my comments at this point as I feel that there is little to usefully add. We each need to examine ourselves – and none more than myself.

With love in Jesus to all my dear brethren and sisters.

25. Kyle Tucker - August 17, 2009

Bro PhiIip:

I have no doubt that when you make the following comment: “I have never known anyone disfellowshipped as a result of any ‘document’ other than the Word of God” that you speak the truth from your perspective. I can tell you from firsthand experience, however, that many, many brethren do not share your experience.

As I have said before, most Christadelphians practice fellowship based on the body of Christ. I have experienced that sweet fellowship all over the world. I have also experienced the enigma of someone telling me I am their brother but denying me the table of my Lord on the basis of a document. So while I respect your own personal experiences, it sadly does not reflect the current reality in the body of Christ.

We have neglected Bible truth, but it is the doctrine of the One Body that we have neglected.

26. ken easson - August 18, 2009

I believe we need to be challenging the establishment that is Christadelphian, not condemning those who do. Being a Christadelphian in good standing is not an “admit one” to God’s Kingdom, nor is anyone who refuses to adopt the name going to burn in hell fire for doing so. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Where I think we have gone wrong is this pridful notion that “having the truth” is what saves us. The key in the verse above is “doeth the will” not “knowing the truth”.

Jesus is the Way and the Life a much as he is “the truth” John 14:6 Yet general Christadelphian practice places so little emphasis on these other two critical aspects of what it is to be a “Follower of the Way that leads to Life”. How often do we hear a brother or sister say “I follow the way” rather than “i have the truth” or “Christadelphians follow the way” rather than “Christadelphians have the truth”. There are so many truths and only God know’s all the truth. Besides that verse is so often used out of context, there is only one truth – that leads to the Father. But there are many truths that lead to death, and one of those truths is that a SoF will save you, or that you can “have the truth” but not let it impact your life. “Even devils believe and tremble”. How much truth do we need to know? The truth was: if i release Jesus i will likely loose my job, and possibly my life, the Jewish leaders will revolt against my rule, and i will have to answer to Ceaser for the political unrest in Israel. It was that truth that caused Pilot to deliver a sinless man in whom he could find no fault up for crucifixion. He knew the truth, but he certainly didn’t know “the way” that led to the Father.

One does not “follow the way” by sitting in a chair and listing to yet another dissertation on scripture that evokes little more than a ‘what a great talk’, but does nothing to impact our lives. only to do it again in 7 days. Week after week, month after month, year after year, for many “being a Christadelphian” means going to their meeting, sitting in their chair and following the same standardized ritual, reducing the number of four letter words in their vocabulary, and giving an appearance of following a moral code so that other Christadelphians have little objection to them being card carrying members. I’ve visited many ecclesia’s on a Sunday morning, and it’s amazing to see how much of the congregations world wide show up about 2 minutes before the meeting starts, and leave 10 minutes after it ends. How is that “fellowship”?

As to having our membership revoked: it’s almost shameful what ‘sins’ are acceptable and what sins have our membership revoked at the next board meeting, often called in haste to deal with the miscreant! Anger, wrath, malice, gossip, sexual immorality prior to marriage are all easily smoothed over, and nobody get’s all that worked up over it. But Marriage to an unbeliever, adultery, spouse leaving you, or struggling with your faith leading to a lack of attendance are widespread reasons to be thrown out with hardly a hearing. Ironcilly – one of the biggest reasons for disfellowship is that removing the bad apple will save the rest. While in scripture God and Jesus seem to have spent more efforts trying to save the bad apples, while the ‘bunch’ was oblivious. Jesus said ‘he who seeks to save his life will loose it’ and i believe this applies to those of us who are quick to “clean house” so that our salvation isn’t jeprodized. Selfishness isn’t a virtue that God approves much of. And this penchant to making sure that everyone else has it right before we fellowship with them, is no different that the publican’s and pharisees obsession with ‘cleanliness’, throwing any out of the synagogue who might threaten their own position in the eyes of God. Sadly – they had no position in the eyes of God. It’s also why Jesus fellowshipped with publicans and sinners, even Judas and Peter who would betray him and deny him. Interestingly – while Peter did deny Christ, he did not tell a lie! “i do not know the man” was “the truth”. The Jesus Peter knew was on the verge of toppling the Roman oppression in Israel and establishing the Kingdom, he had come equipped with a sword for that very reason. Yet the Jesus that he was accused of knowing was altogether a different person, That Jesus had meekly submitted to arrest and was being put to death – the end of Peter’s hopes and dreams! No, Peter had not lied, he did not KNOW Jesus, he would however learn the truth but that would come a few years later. Do we give our brothers and sisters time to KNOW Jesus? Or once they’ve passed the baptism exam, they’re expected to know everything? After 20 years baptized, i still don’t know all the truth, in fact, i know less now than i did when i was baptized.

I am a Christadelphian because I bleive the community is largely on track with their doctrines, the word of God demands that we be a united front of believers, and that we fellowship with one another regularly and so much the more as we see the day approaching. But i do not in any way believe that simply being a Christadelphian makes God happy with me. By their fruits shall they be known – depart from me, i never knew you, these are warnings from Jesus that should move us to action if we REALLY have the truth that leads to the Father. So often in the parables, Jesus warns that those who think they have the truth are rejected from God’s glory because they didn’t “follow the way”. The Heb’s passage goes on to say “that we might spur one another unto good thoughts!” – no it doesn’t, it say’s “unto Love and Good WORKS”, yet what percentage of the body shows up to do the work compared to the percentage that shows up to listen? Do we Love each and every member of our ecclesia? do we even know their names? Or are they just “that little old sister that sits in the third row”? I’m not likely to surrender my card very easily – why? because i’m prideful enough to believe that it’s my duty to go down with the ship, but i’m more interested in bailing than drilling more holes. We need examples of Christ that we can follow, here, today. Not more documents, more words, more arguments. If Christadelphian is only about ‘the truth’ then it’s 2/3 sunk, and if we care about “Christadelphian” then we need to start following the way, and “working out our salvation with fear and trembling”.

The real benchmark in scripture for the believers was what those in the world thought of those who followed Christ. “those Christ followers” was a slanderous term that started in Antioch but was embraced by those who actually did. It meant wearing a lable that was unpopular, would likely lead to difficulty and possibly even death. Today, when we tell our neighbors, friends and the world that we are Christadelphians – their response is “what’s that”? We should be ashamed of ourselves! Here we fight over which SoF is going to get us into the Kingdom, while the world falls further and further into darkness because we are so busy trying to remove the mote in our brothers eye that the world is largely unaware of the light that we are supposed to be! We keep putting each others lights out, cause we have some silly ideas about the colour of their candles.

Maybe Kyle we need ‘works based fellowship’. And while that cold chill runs up your spine, consider if you will that it’s the Works of those in Heb 11 that showed they “believe in God”. Those who’s works show themselves to be “followers of the way” are those we too would fellowship with. Those who have signed off on a document but who’s hands or feet most certainly don’t belong to any part of Christ might well be cut off. But then again, how do we know? I would be fellow shipping a lot more baptist pastors and JW’s and others who are in sincerity trying to preach the gospel and follow this most important command of Christ, but sadly – it would not be “in Truth that leads to the Father” … always. And so we pray for Christadelphian and ask God to help us be an example to those in darkness. Pleading with a our brothers that the t’s don’t need dotting, and the i’s don’t need crossing.

Jesus said “i am the way, the truth and the life” we need to get The Way sorted before we can ever know which truth is the truth that leads to the Father, or we will never find the Father. And when we find the truth, we will most certainly know, because it will change our life! The first century followers were exactly that ‘followers of Christ’, Paul said “be you a follower of me as I am of Christ” i’m terrified to follow Paul, because that means i should be proclaiming “Be ye followers of Me as i am a follower of Paul who was a follower of Christ who followed his Father perfectly”. The Body of Christ had “hands for doing” and “feet for walking” and “hears for caring” and “eyes for looking our for one another”. Christ is the head, and i think we need to stop trying to replace him with our own thinking about what’s right, and getting ‘The Christadelphian Condensed Version of the Bible’ right, and start Living the Way. Christadelphian is a convenient badge to wear, but when our hands and feet don’t attest to the power of God working in us… then Christ is not in us, despite the badge we wear or the “truth we have”. Our fellowship should be based on an intimate understanding of one another as we walk together, not because we agree on a document, but because we are walking together.

If i was broken down on the side of the road, and you drove past me on the way to church, would you stop to help me? would you even know i was your brother? would “being Christadelphian” absolve you from not helping me? “in that you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me”. “pure religion and undefiled is this: visit the sick, and windows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world”.

What does it mean to be “a Christadelphian”.

27. Richard Morgan - August 18, 2009

Philip – you’re actually proving my point. Yes, it is true that the document is based on the Bible. That’s fine, and nobody’s disputing it. But then you go on to say “I have never known any disagreement over fellowship where it was not based on Bible truth”. That may be true for you but it’s not true for people here. In North America the document is overriding Bible truth. That is, because certain brethren are not subscribing to the document even though they do subscribe to Bible truth, they are not “in fellowship” with those who do subscribe to the document. Whether you agree or disagree with this practice it’s still a fact that it’s happening.

The irony is that the document is (at least in my experience) never used until the barrier between different “fellowships” is examined. At other times recourse to the document is hardly ever made. If a brother is preparing a lecture he won’t go to the document, he’ll go to the Bible. The majority of ecclesial members won’t have read it and many might not even know if they have a copy or not.

So while the document is used to describe “fellowship” boundaries it isn’t used to describe actual true fellowship. For instance, I am a BASF Christadelphian, officially, but there are some official BASF Christadelphians who I have little in common with and wouldn’t like to have fellowship with them because I disagree with them on what I consider to be important issues. However according to document-based fellowship standards I am in fellowship with them and allowed to break bread with them. On the other hand someone who isn’t using the same document as me but I have everything in common with them, I am not allowed to break bread with them because they document-basis says so.

28. Kyle Tucker - August 18, 2009

Ken:

One of the Christadelphian phrases that I often hear and right in line with what you are saying is so and so “knows enough to get baptized.” Where in the Bible does it say “know and get baptized?” As you have rightly pointed out, the faith of Abraham which produces good works is the litmus test of discipleship. Faith without works is dead. Bible knowledge without commensurate action is not to be equated with Bible faith and is equally dead.

Thanks for your comments and passion!

29. Richard Morgan - August 19, 2009

Well I think we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Knowledge on its own is useless, but Abraham’s faith was still based on knowledge and understanding. Hebrews 11 makes this clear – he understood the doctrine of the resurrection.

30. Steve Davis - August 19, 2009

This is a great discussion. Richard, I agree. Abraham’s faith was based on knowledge and understanding. Along those same lines, I read 1John 1:3-7 as telling me that fellowship is based on our belief in the same gospel that was passed down to us from the apostles, PLUS our walking in the light.

31. Philip Measures - August 19, 2009

Richard,

I really have to say that some Christadelphians seem not to be able to ‘see the wood for ther trees’ – in what way is the BASF not bsed on Bible truths? – that has to be the simple ‘challenge’ – the rest is perhaps just being argumentative. If the Word of God and the BASF were not in harmony then we would have a serious problem.

In ‘Christadelphian Facts’ in 1921 it reads that “We want unity, but let it be genuine, and based upon the Truth. To unite ourselves in fellowship with those who hold or tolerate errors subversive of the First Principles and Commandments of Chris, would merely mean a repeition of friction and division.’

I would contend that the BASF together with Doctrines to be Rejected comprises a useful reference tool – the more detailed references are, of course, rightly indicated to be in the Bible – so, please, what is the problem?

32. Kyle Tucker - August 21, 2009

Bro. Philip:

““We want unity, but let it be genuine, and based upon the Truth.”

How honest, truthful and genuine is it for brethren here in North America to admit they are brethren year after year but sinfully disobey Christ in his command to be One and use a document as our excuse? It is shameful, brother. I apologize that I don’t have the words to make this any plainer.

33. Richard Morgan - August 21, 2009

Hi Philip,

The BASF is based on Bible truths, I said that it was. OK, to understand where I am coming from a little clearer think about this question: what if someone wanted to fellowship with me but they used a different statement of faith, but that statement of faith was also based on Bible truths.

What should my reaction be?

34. Philip Measures - August 21, 2009

But you are simply not answering the main point that I keep making and that is where is the BASF diffferent in what it says to the Bible itself?

You seem to ‘blame’ a document based solidly on Bible-teaching for standing in the way of unity.

I think that you also need to be careful in accusing brthren and sisters of ‘sinfully’ disobeying Christ – that is a serious allegation to make which you need to substantiate based on clear Biblical teaching.

Please do not keep accusing a’document’ as preventing fellowship / unity if you are unable to give clear scriptural evidence for that.

35. Kyle Tucker - August 21, 2009

Bro. Philip:

I have to say I think it is you that is missing the point.

Fact #1: Quite literally hundreds (if not thousands) of brethren have met on this issue of fellowship in North America and almost without exception every one of them have concluded that we are brethren in Christ.

Fact #2: They have in each case tried to write some sort of a document (a “bridging document” or something else) to merge the two documents so that fellowship can occur. It never happens because there are always those who insist on wording or phraseology which kills the process.

Do you not see the inconsistency there? If we are brethren and we all agree we are brethren REGARDLESS OF THE DOCUMENTS and then we do not act on it BECAUSE OF THE DOCUMENTS then it is quite obvious even to the uninitiated that it the documents (or more precisely the way misguided men are using them!) that are causing the problem.

As the to counsel of using the word “sinning” in regard to this issue, I won’t insult you by reviewing with you in detail the teaching of the One Body in Scripture. If you or anyone else is genuinely in need of a refresher, I would recommend reading Matt. 25:40, Gal. 2, 1 Cor. 1 & 12, Rom. 12, Eph. 2 & 4 and John 17 to name but a few passages. In light of these and many other scriptures, I make no apologies for using the word “sin” in relation to brethren’s actions that willfully recognize the command to be One but refuse to act on it. James 4:17 states “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” I think there are some that do so in ignorance that Jesus may be quite forgiving of at Judgment. However, there are some who do so knowingly and teach others to do likewise. I would not want to stand before Christ being guilty of such wickedness.
FACT #3: Since any statement of faith is an extra-Biblical device no where spoken of, condoned or used in the Scriptures and was a creation of the Council of Nicaea (of Trinity fame) to use in bloc disfellowship, I would suggest it is you that needs to make a Biblical defense of the practice you subscribe to, not I…especially since you seem to think that it trumps the teaching of the One Body.

36. Philip Measures - August 22, 2009

Kyle,

I find your comments, to be absolutely honest, insulting and see no point in continuing these exchanges. I have never said, and never would, that the BASF (or any other document) ‘trumps’ the Word of God. That would be quite sinful. What you consistently fail to do is give any examples of where the BASF is in conflict with Bible teaching – if it isn’t then there isn’t a problem other than with brethren and sisters who seem to find it ‘convenient’ to say that they can not fellowship each other because of it.

If the reasons against union are unconnected with the BASF then that is entirely another matter.

You need to be absolutely clear where the BASF opposes Bible teaching and, hence, prohibits union. If you can not find any such examples then what you are saying is that union is not possible on Bible-based principles.

I am really struggling as why you seem unable to deal with what is a simple issue – where does the BASF prohibit union? The answer can not be because it exists – but has to be because it is wrong. If it is wrong where – where?

37. Kyle Tucker - August 22, 2009

Dear Bro. Philip:

I am sorry you find my comments insulting. I find it frustrating that you cannot see that it doesn’t matter one whit if the BASF (or any other SoF) is Biblical or not IF it is used as THE basis of fellowship because the practice itself of using any man-made document as THE basis of fellowship is no where taught or supported in the Bible. It is like me demanding that you defend the use of automobiles in the Bible. They don’t exist in the Bible so how can one support them. Statements of faith don’t exist in the Bible either nor their use as THE basis of fellowship. However, if I used the driving of automobiles or not driving automobiles as THE basis of fellowship thus denying the Biblical teaching of the One Body, you would be right in rebuking me.

By the way, you seem to easily dismiss the opinion of several thousand brethren who have spent countless hours working with each other and have concluded that they are brethren in your comment.

Speaking of simplicity, we have one of two choices:

1. We are all brethren and therefore to obey Christ we better act like it including breaking of bread.

2. We are not brethren so we are wasting time trying to unite something that should never be united in the first place.

This is for sure, there is no option #3: we are brethren but we cannot obey Christ until we all agree on the right document.

38. Philip Measures - August 23, 2009

You therefore seem to advocate an ‘open’ fellowship – nowhere is that taught in the Bible either. The BASF is a ‘help’ in putting together the main elements of our fellowship – it is only a man-made document insofar as it ‘does what it says on the tin’ – it is a Statement of Faith taken from the Bible – it adds not one jot to Bible teaching and so, again, what is the problem?

Back in 1883 Robert Roberts had published ‘A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Ecclesias…’ which contained ‘A Statement of the Doctrines forming the Christadelphian Basis of Fellowship’ – Christadelphians are different, we are ‘in the world but not of it’ and it has to be helpful to have reference to those essential elements which separate us from those who are not of ‘like precious faith’.

And so I return to the same question, what is there within the BASF that you object to as being unscriptural and divisive. If it is accepted that nothing within it is not wholly scriptural then what is the problem?

39. Kyle Tucker - August 23, 2009

Bro. Philip:

As to the charge of “open fellowship”, if you go back and read earlier in the blog, this has already been covered once. However, let’s repeat for the sake of those who might be misled by the charge.

Since I am advocating fellowship based on the ONE BODY that precludes open fellowship, wouldn’t you agree? It might win debating points and fool those who are uniformed, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the choice is either Document-based Fellowship or Open Fellowship. Although I disagree with your method of achieving your aim, I am assuming that your goal is fellowship with the One Body and only the One Body – no more, no less. I would respectfully ask that you attribute the same goal to me. It is less than helpful (as well as a false accusation) to demonize me with the tag of “open fellowship.”

One thing I can give you credit for is persistence. So let me answer your question on the BASF. What’s wrong with the BASF? Nothing. It is fine. Let’s continue this misguided line of questioning. What’s wrong with the BUSF? Nothing. What’s wrong with the statements of faith that have been personalized for individual ecclesias all over the world? Nothing. Any statement of faith that outlines the Gospel is fine.

So let’s move on to your second question. What is the problem? The problem is when brethren with good intentions elevate the document to THE basis of fellowship and therein lop off part of the One Body. This is not hypothetical, but reality here in North America. So we can wrap ourselves in the BASF or the BUSF and proclaim ourselves to be a defender of the faith, but in reality, when we cut off part of the One Body we are without excuse. I warn everyone who practices this divisive, sinful practice that they may very well hear the words of our Lord at the Judgment Seat when he says “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Matt. 25:40)

Let’s end division now before it is too late! For the love of the Savior who died for us, we know he died to make us one; let’s act on it.

40. Richard Morgan - August 24, 2009

Philip,

It is not the wording within the BASF which is divisive. It is Scriptural – it contains statements with lists of Bible passages to back up those statement. Nothing wrong there. As a summary of our beliefs it does a good job. The problem is not with the BASF itself, the problem is with the insistence that belonging to a BASF ecclesia is the only thing that can keep someone in fellowship. So if I come along with another statement of faith and it is also Biblical, but it’s not the BASF, unless I physically join a BASF ecclesia I cannot break bread. Despite my beliefs, despite the fact that my beliefs establish the fact I am in fellowship with God and Christ, I cannot break bread with you because I am not using the exact same statement you are using and I don’t join a BASF ecclesia. Therefore the document trumps everything.

41. ken easson - August 24, 2009

The Pharasees did have an equivalent of the statement of faith, it was based on the Law and it reflected practices that should have brought people to God. It emphasized cleanliness (washing of hands, washing of plates), separation (established clear lines on what was clean and unclean) and had a huge element that made the public declaration that God was my God, in things like their dress and how they ornamented their homes. Yet Jesus condemns this.

What is interesting is some of what Jesus said! “do what they say, but don’t do what they do”. “Faith hope mercy, these ought you to have done and not leave the other undone” “you strive over one jot and tittle”

The problem with the BASF is that it says too much for some, or says it in a way that they aren’t quite happy with – the clause that distinguishes it from the BUSF is a grand case in point. While it might be a scriptural, can it be argued that without it, one can’t be in the Kingdom of God? For others the BASF doesn’t say enough! I for one would like to see more about “go into all the world an preach the gospel”, as the idea that all we need do is “memorize some facts” to be in the kingdom, is not something we can tolerate in our community.

The BASF also has historic language which in historic context (particularly the doctrines to be rejected) are incorrect – many justify their existence because they can be taken to mean something else.

There is no clause in the BASF that says “forsake not the assembling of yourselves together as the manner of some is, and all the more as you see the day approaching” because the BASF itself is used (document based fellowship) to justify “forsaking the assembling of yourselves together” THIS contradicts scripture.

The biggest problem with the BASF is that when we throw it out the window and sit down with open bibles, the community at large agrees with one another. However, as God intended when he confused the languages of men, when we try to use MAN’s thoughts to express what God in his wisdom gave us in 66 books, into something that is ‘clear’ and ‘concise’ we do little more then incite human pride, self righteousness, and forget that there is FAR more to the truth than any one of us will ever fully comprehend.

Heb 5 starts by making it plain that we should be “going on unto knowledge” this says to me that what i knew at my baptism was sufficient THEN, but what i know now is hardly sufficient, because i’ve allowed my study to stagnate and the “truth” doesn’t bear fruit in me.

Finally – there is nothing in scripture that indicates ‘having the truth’ will save us. which is the only thing a document can express – facts/opinions. We have no “CTCS” – Christadelphian Talent Counting System, to determine if we have buried our talent in the ground. we have no “W&F” system to determine if we have seen Christ and offerd him “warmed, and Filled”. And if we did, some in their pride i’m sure would point fingers at others because they don’t have the same “CTCS count’ or the same “W&F” score.

The BASF is not the Bible, so let’s stop giving it the same place in our bookshelves, let’s start to read our Bibles anf learn that there is not one of us deserve life eternal, we are all sinners, come short of the Glory of God, and let us assemble together that we might stir one another unto good works, so that when he coes he finds us with oil and our laps lit, not running around madly trying to keep ourselves unspotted by imperfect Christadelphians.

42. Richard Morgan - August 24, 2009

Not sure I want my lap lit Ken. Ouch!

43. Kyle Tucker - August 24, 2009

Dear Bro. Philip:

I had an interesting off-line conversation with a brother today that might have given me some insight into your perspective. I don’t want to attribute these views to you without asking, so if you could please answer the following questions.

1. Do you think it is possible for anyone to be a brother in Christ who does not subscribe to the BASF?
2. Would you hypothetically fellowship with someone before the BASF even existed?
3. Would you break bread with a brother in good standing from a first century ecclesia?

The brother in this case answered “no” to these questions except to question #1. For context, this brother is an AB member from a well-respected Central meeting.

44. Philip Measures - August 24, 2009

Dear Kyle,

I think that we MAY be making some progress! We need to ‘iron out’ any attributing of bad motives – neither of us has any. I was concerned at your reference to brethren wilfully sinning over this issue – that would be furthest from my mind, and, I think, yours also in reality. Perhaps what concerns us the most is what we may perceives as intransigence (even stubbornness in others).

Now to your 3 questions:

a) ‘No’ – not ‘anyone’ but ‘yes’ – some people. I would not be so arrogant as to say that I was able to judge the perfectness of every word or phrase within the BASF. I would also, of course, say that I would not limit salvation to ‘Christadelphians’ only.

2) Yes, IF I genuinely felt (from discussion, knowledge, reputation etc.) that they shared what I would consider as Bible-based fellowship. (and I THINK that I know where this one is leading!).

3) Yes, based on 2) above.

In reality, of course, Robert Roberts felt the need for something to be written down (see my earlier posting) – he, I have no doubts, felt that what he wrote was an accurate and honest, Bible-based summary of the distinctive and essential beliefs necessary for salvation and for the ‘binding together’ in harmony of brethren and sisters in fellowship.

I don’t need to add the sorry state of the brotherhood in respect of its many divuisions over the years – some, more than others I also believe, were very genuine efforts to ‘maintain the Truth in its purity’ – but we are none of us perfect and all too often human nature gets in the way of humility and a Christ-like spirit. I well remember as a child catching the same bus as other brethren and sisters in another fellowship – one, sadly, more remembered for prohibiting sisters going to the hairdresser than for more substantial doctrinal issues (although they would claim that was a doctrinal issue).

Would it help to look at what differences there are seen to be between the BASF and the BUSF?

45. ken easson - August 25, 2009

Dear Bro. Philip,

Bro. Roberts was great at writing stuff down. His ecclesial guide, the Christadelphian Reading planner are two other documents he penned which almost define us as Christadelphian. They are such great and useful books which i have not only read but used for many years of my life! Today, while i encourage my wife a recent convert, to continue her reading from the companion, and to read to our daughter, i much prefer to read from my own system – The reason is, until i broke out of the “system” i missed so many of the Jems hidden where chapters in the planner didn’t coincide, i couldn’t understand entire books so easily, i often missed connections that went from one chapter to the next! It took days to read the book of Ezekial, that I never saw the consistency and the overall picture that runs through the book which can be read in just a few hours. I never was able to understand why Jeremiah wrote his book in the order he did. I was missing so much because for 30 years i did things the “Christadelphian” way. No that is not fair is it? the Christadelphian way IS to read our Bibles diligently, to search out these amazing beautiful things, not get stuck in one way of thinking, the Bible companion is one way, but it must never be the only way.

Wouldn’t it be great if the BASF was used much like the Christadelphian Instructor – another gem which occupies a special place in my heart and bookshelf, I’m having by favourite cousin translate this work into Bangla to help both her and our entire ecclesia, it’s such an important work from our Bro. Robberts, which helps to ouline what Christadelphians believe. In fact, it might be far better than the BASF for a statment of what Christadelphians do believe and teach. This book has historically been used to help others who would be Christadelphian learn the passages that define our faith clearly and simply, but it’s considered an “instructor” not a “statement”, and this is why it’s not a bone of contention, nor has it (to my knowledge) been a document to draw line of fellowship around. Because it rightly has it’s place as an opinion based on Scripture of what one brother believed and taught, the fact that i agree with it, use it for teaching others, and as a quick reference when i’m doing my own studies, and encourage others to read it, is because i happen to agree with it – but like all other document, i stress “this is no the Bible, if what it says does not agree with the Bible, then that part is wrong”.

the BASF, or BUSF or whatever “SoF” should be given no status higher than “reference guide” much like the daily reading planner, the ecclesial guide and the Christadelphian Instructor. The only work which i would afirm to be the complete and correct statment of my faith is the Bible alone. It might be that by reading these other books and documents we might learn or be encouraged, but when we suspend our thinking because “I am a Central Christadelphian, this is after all what i’m supposed to believe to remain in the club” we risk becoming just another Godless church, I have been involved in areas where pastors have paid members of their congergation to memorize our “baptismal interview answers”, and take baptism, with the hope of gaining additional financial support from the other nations. Stating you agree with the BASF or with any other document has very little to do with what God expects of the faithful. Yet this has become “The” acceptable means to be permitted to break bread and call yourself “Christadelphian”.

With committees writing amendments, and self apointed lawyers arguing that the wording here is not quite right, or the wording there can be understood too generally, we end up with a senior body which dictates what the majority who don’t get involved in these committee things are supposed to believe. I’ve heard it expressed by some that they don’t get involved in the reunion effort because the arguments are too complicated! Ecclesia’s have been told from the platform which way they must vote on issues! Other Ecclesia’s have threatened massive disfellowship and huge amounts of trouble if people don’t follow their time scale, and brothers and sisters who know what is right, have stopped doing it, becuase “being Christadelphian” and have “the right SoF” is more important than “following Christ” and “doing the right thing”. This is what Jesus Condemned in the Pharasees. This was the downfall of the first century ecclesias! they got caught up in their documentation, and lost the Bible. This is what has happend to many of the churches that turned away from trinitarian ideas, in the late 1700′s the Baptists believed almost exactly what we do. In the early 1900′s the JW’s had a statment of faith that was pretty close to acceptable. But they succumed to committies, to centrally dictated theology, and the wisdom of men.

While we boast that we have no “central organization” this has prooved to be largely a false boast! Because we require that we have a centrally approved document that determins fellowship. Agree with the BASF unconditionally or your on your own. Ecclesia’s that step out of the “acceptable circle” are made demand of by other ecclesias, the cry “because i beleive it’s wrong” is no longer an acceptable reason for not doing something, and “because i believe it is right” is no longer an acceptable reason for doing something. As long as we fall in line with the BASF and exclaim it’s rightness we are in good standing, but as soon as we learn that there is a more excellent way, individually, ecclesially, or even reginonally, too quickly the “central authority” brings us back into line with the BASF cental authority, “until everyone else can understand” What a bogus excuse for not doing the right thing? Do you think Christ would have been able to save us if he had waited for everyone to understand?

Dear Bro. Philip, the BASF is a great document. Maybe it maintains the truth in it’s purity, but that is not what Jesus wants from us. Where in the Bible do you find that admonition? God didn’t tell Israel, “As truly as i live, the entire earth will be maintained in my truth in purity!” no, God told Israel, “as truly as i live, all the earth is filled with the glory of God as the water’s cover the sea”. In Hab 2 we learn that it is he duty of believers to “Know” the glory of God. And it is indeed what Jesus came to do, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been amoung you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the father?” and ” I have brought you glory on the earth by completeing the work that you gave me to do”.

Why oh why did Jesus do all that example stuff when he could have written a few booklettes and saved us a huge amount of trouble?

46. Kyle Tucker - August 25, 2009

Dear Bro. Philip:

I am encouraged that we seem to be getting closer together rather than farther apart. My responses to the questions would be identical to yours.

Let’s compare:

1. Do you think it is possible for anyone to be a brother in Christ who does not subscribe to the BASF? Your answer “yes, some people.” My answer, “yes, some people.” I think we both would agree it is not the BASF per se that is what makes a person a brother in Christ, but the doctrines it espouses along with baptism and correct walk. Neither of us would fellowship with someone, for example, that proclaimed to adhere to the BASF but was not “walking in the light” but willfully sinning in some capacity.
2. Would you hypothetically fellowship with someone before the BASF even existed? Your answer was “yes” and mine would also be “yes.” Again, I think we both agree that the One Body existed before the BASF.
3. Would you break bread with a brother in good standing from a first century ecclesia? Again, both of us would answer the same.

I also see the practical use of a Statement of Faith as a declaration of what we hold to me true. I also see a place for common sense.

Let me give you a real-life example. A few years ago I was in Bible class with a sister who was well into her 80s. She had been a faithful member for over 50 years. She was starting to slip a bit mentally. This one evening she starts talking about heaven-going but is very confused about it. Now, in the strictest sense, she was in violation of the Statement of Faith. If we wanted to base her fellowship solely on doctrinal purity, we could have withdrawn from her. As you might suspect, however, common sense prevailed. No one was going to remove an elderly sister in the early stages of dementia from the table of the Lord. We perceived her circumstances, used a little common sense and did nothing. At the same time, we weren’t going to give her a Sunday school class full of impressionable youngsters either.

I guess what I am saying is that there are a LOT of Biblical factors that go into fellowship including, but not limited to these principles:

• “Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” (Luke 12:48) • Elders and teachers being held to a higher standard and not everyone should teach. • Room for spiritual growth from babes.
• “No man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Rom. 14:13) • Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only. (James 1:22) • The command against laziness. (ie. You don’t work, you don’t eat) • Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. (Phil. 2:3)

These are not written down in the Statement of Faith, but if we are wise, they are factors in how we decide to apply the principles of fellowship.

So, to your question, “Would it help to look at what differences there are seen to be between the BASF and the BUSF?” My take is that it would be an unnecessary repeat of the work of all the brethren who have gone before us. If we again dredge up this conversation, we dismiss the nearly unanimous conclusion of the hundreds or thousands that have worked so diligently to conclude that we are brethren. Also, I have personally concluded long ago on my own study of the facts, that we are brethren. This is not to say that I think all who use the BASF or the BUSF are my brethren. I have concerns with the extremes on both sides of the issue. More of an issue for me personally is the behavioral problems I see in both the Unamended and Central communities. We, as a body, have some festering wounds that we need to address. At the same time, though, I feel like if the Biblically-sound moderates on both sides of the divide could themselves unite, it would help the festering wounds on both ends. This is sound counsel from the mouth of Jesus when he said “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Matt. 12:25)

47. Philip Measures - August 25, 2009

Ken,

On the surface you make an attractive argument but, in reality, I find that it has weaknesses. The Bible came down to us in written form for very good reasons – so that we have someting firm to refer to – that is why ‘word of mouth’ is dangerous as things get distorted over time.

Brother Roberts etc. from the outset probably had a wisdom that we owe them a great debt of gratitude for in that they wrote prolifically and sought to establish the clear beliefs (‘Statement of Faith’) of Christadelphians.

I do entirely agree that The Bible Companion is not – nor should it be – the only way to read the Bible but it is helpful and helps to ‘bind’ us together in fellowship in that for many Christadelphains they all know what each other read that day and can discuss it. Personally, I do not follow it rigidly but that is probably more a failing on my part than finding anything inherently wrong with it. It’s reading alone also does not make us ‘the people of the Book’ as we like to perhaps be known and, again, I agree with you about how we ought ideally to live our lives but just to be ‘good’ is not enough. There are real dangers in going down the ‘humanist’ path just as there are in seeking to be less ‘legalistic’ and more ‘ecumenical’ – Christadelphians ARE different.

I also take issue with what went wrong with the Baptists – it was not anything to do with documents but ALL about doctrinal errors. The BASF is an ‘aide memoire’ if nothing else to remind us of those doctines essential to salvation and those doctrines to be rejected because they weill lead us down the wrong path.

In reality I don’t think that we are that far apart but we both need to guard against ‘not seeing the wood for the trees’ – we can become overtaken is disputings rather than seeing ‘the Truth’ for what it is – something that the ‘simplist’ of people could understand and accept. Have we perhaps made it too complicated?