The Berean Restatement
"The Berean Christadelphians, over our history, have been the one Christadelphian fellowship which has steadfastly refused to alter our fellowship position from that established by bre. Thomas and Roberts."
This was a statement made by bro. G. V. Growcott in issuing the Berean Restatement. Our Nicodemite brethren complain that we can't possibly be the original position, if we had to reformulate our fellowship position. This impression comes from a failure to understand what the Restatement is. It was intended to be a unanimous reaffirmation of how we, in the Bereans, understood various clauses in the Statement of Faith which had come under attack by those calling themselves Christadelphians. If you read the Restatement, and you agree that it is in fact, a Restatement of the controversial clauses of the BASF, then you are of one mind with us. If you read the Restatement, and think that it is a change or addition to the BASF, then you do not agree with us on first principle subjects. That is what it is designed to do, and that is what it does.
It is disingenuous for our Central brethren to complain about this. They have added documents to explain their understanding of the BASF, themselves. The Cooper-Carter Addendum, issued in 1957 to unite the Shield and Central fellowships together, explained to Central brethren how certain clauses, specifically Clause 5 and Clause 12 are understood by the Shield. Many in the Shield believed "Partial Atonement." Many in the Shield did not believe that our nature was defiled by sin in the garden of Eden. Hence the clause removes the term "defiled our nature." Many of them did not agree that there was any such thing as "sin in the flesh," and so the Addendum removed that term as well. Clauses 5 and 12 are very controversial, and serve to define the largest difference between Central and Berean. As our beliefs are so different, yet we both claim to meet on the same document, it was only natural that we should both have additional clauses which explain our respective understanding of those clauses in that document.
This addendum is among the reasons that we can't take Central seriously, when they claim to accept and meet upon, the BASF. But it is no different than it was for our fathers in 1923. In 1923, when the Berean brethren withdrew from the Temperance Hall (Central) fellowship, it was clear that some Central brethren claimed allegiance to the BASF, while believing the very things the BASF was intended to exclude. Central claims to meet on the BASF, but their own testimony, then and now, is that they do not. And Central themselves has always acknowledged this hypocrisy to be true. Bro. John Carter, editor of the Christadelphian Magazine, in an article called "A Time to Heal" wrote of bro. A. D. Strickler, the leading cause of the 1923 division thus:
Chdn. 1934, pg. 84 "A criticism by bro. Strickler, of a pamphlet published by this office, led to a correspondence for about eighteen months--this led to the conclusion that he DID NOT accept without reserve, some of the clauses of "The Statement of Faith".
But bro. Strickler always claimed that he did accept the BASF without reservation. And Central fellowship accepted his personal testimony of himself and his apostate ecclesia, until after he died. Bro. Strickler produced a booklet called a defense, which was an assembling of a few disjointed quotes, making the effort to prove that bre. Thomas and Roberts taught the same things he taught. And he received support in this (these quotes are still advanced by Central brethren as proof that the pioneers taught "Partial Atonement") from many in the Central camp. So a simple affirming that Central meets on the BASF is irrelevant, based on their own history. The Berean Christadelphians never accepted his personal testimony, because of other statements he made which were directly opposed to Christadelphian teaching, and this led to the division.
In 1956, the Central and Suffolk Street fellowships, were working for reunion on an unsound basis in Britain. Not only was the basis for reunion flawed, but it was also implemented by majority vote. With the minority came every unsoundness under the sun. At the same time, Central fellowship and Shield Fellowship were working on a separate unsound reunion in Australia. It became obvious at that time, that there was an Antipas class in Central which had no intention of tolerating the blatant welcoming of errorists into their midst. Some of these began to approach the Berean Christadelphians for fellowship. What were the Bereans to do?
A magazine began to be published called "The Old Paths" magazine, which represented the brethren now separating from Central. It referred itself to maintaining the position of Central "before 1957." As Bereans, we believed the position of Central prior to 1957 was as much in error as it was after 1957. We didn't want to be Central before 1957. At the same time, it was clear that these brethren coming out of Central were probably brethren of the Nicodemus class, who had reached the end of their rope (so to speak.) So an effort to explore fellowship with them was desired.
To protect ourselves from the introduction of the errors of Central in these former Central brethren, and at the same time, to appeal to them on the basis of the BASF as it has been understood from our foundation, we produced the Berean Restatement. It was a chance for us to explain what we believed on the clauses of the BASF which had been called in question by Central, and a chance for them to affirm their agreement with the BASF. This really was the same thing as bro. Roberts had done in 1885, when he asked the brotherhood to declare their position on partial inspiration. For reasons best explained by them, the brethren leaving Central at that time chose not to declare themselves in relation to the Restatement, and they formed a separate Antipas group.
The Restatement was submitted to the brotherhood, and all the clauses were accepted unanimously by our community except #3 "Conferences" and #6 "Marriage, Divorce" The objection to conferences were not concerning their attack on ecclesial autonomy, as no ecclesia should ever allow itself to be bound by the conclusions of Conferences, nor should they ever be created for such a purpose. But there was concern that this clause would stop discussion, which clearly was not its intent. And the Marriage and Divorce clause ended up quite generic, and objections were raised arguing that it should be more specific.
With this bit of history, it should be easy to understand that the Restatement was a document focused on the problems of the middle 1950s, and the document reflects that.
The following is my personal opinion as an ecclesial historian, and as a brother in the Berean brotherhood, but is not the opinions of most Bereans, I'd guess. Most of the Restatement is wonderfully done. If it didn't exist by now, we would have had to develop it. Clauses 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, & 9 are perfectly done, and of this nature. In my opinion, the Restatement is lacking in matters pertaining to the infallibility of the Scriptures. I believe bro. Roberts' resolution for the Birmingham ecclesia in 1885 should have been included. Every brother and sister would have agreed to it, and this would have precluded concerns about #4, Evolution. You cannot believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures, and argue in favor of evolution of any kind. #3, Rejecting conferences is a fundamentally important clause endorsed by both bre. Thomas and Roberts, and an important part of our beliefs concerning fellowship from our foundation. In my opinion, it should have been included in #9, dealing with fellowship, and not made a specific clause. The focus of Evolution and Conferences strike me as a product of the times, where Evolution was gaining popularity, being taught in the Endeavour Magazine of Central, and where conferences, such as the Jersey City Convention, had led to all these unsound reunions.
#6 is a complete mystery in every sense. It is generic enough and easy to agree to, but there is no evidence that this clause was ever presented to the Berean brotherhood in this form, or accepted, prior to its inclusion in this document. It was included as a paragraph in several efforts to formulate a position on divorce and remarriage, all of which failed. Probably, this particular paragraph was not objected to by anyone, while the other paragraphs did elicit objections; and that is the reason why this paragraph survived.
But the Restatement still did its job. It provided an understanding of some of the clauses for those coming from other fellowships looking at us, that they may understand what we believe relevant to the BASF, and decide whether or not they wish to walk with us. A few Old Paths ecclesia ultimately did join with us, but the majority of them chose to go their own way.
