Schism
Robert Roberts: "Schism is the result of acting out these principles, and is a GOOD thing if intelligently and faithfully done. It is a painful and apparently "unfriendly" process: but there is no choice with those who would be friendly to GOD first."
The apostle Paul says there should be no schisms "in" the body. But is that not exactly what the status quo of the Central group has today? We, as Bereans, separated from Central. We are not "in" that body. We have no such schisms in our body. This is how it should be. Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
1Cor 12:25-27 "That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
But there is schism IN the Central body, as clearly demonstrated by this article, and its groupings. When we observe the practice of some of the "conservative" schism in Central, we notice that these so called "conservatives" of Central will not allow the liberal element into their Central meetings, and refuse to visit other Central meetings because of these "liberals." I don't know if it is still the practice, but when I was still in Central, some brethren would not break bread at the Bible Schools, because of "liberals" who were there. They write terrible things about each other, and make condemning judgments about those whom they fellowship, evidenced by the article we are examining. There are Central meetings in the same city that have nothing to do with each other, but are all in Central. And somehow, we are supposed to look upon this as something that needs to be conserved!?
You cannot visit the Central web sites hosted by the "conservative" brethren, and fail to be appalled at the error in Central that they document. There are errors pertaining to the Holy Spirit Gifts, to the Nature and Sacrifice of Christ, the position of sisters in the ecclesias, and virtually every other abomination in Christendom. Here is the official mouthpiece of Central, the Christadelphian Magazine, documenting the problems it was having in 1984, and it is far worse today.
- Christadelphian Magazine, 1984, October "It is doubtful whether there is a single case in which a brother or sister has begun to attend regularly another place of worship in addition to worship within the ecclesias where changes in attitude in respect of doctrine and fellowship have not taken place.
- "Sooner or later these changes in attitude become changes in conviction about the rightness of or the necessity for the doctrines which Christadelphians hold. These doctrines are the very foundation stones upon which our community exists. Experience has shown that the following 'new' doctrines are accepted, tolerated or suggested in whole or in part (and there are others, too):
- "1 . The eternal Sonship of Christ, whether or not this is stated in a trinitarian form;
- "2. The personality of the Holy Spirit as distinct from the person of the Lord God and of His Son;
- "3. The substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ;
- "4. A "power of darkness", usually bordering on if not entirely accepting the orthodox doctrine of Satan and the Devil; In some cases, there is a belief in demons as the personal agents of a personal Satan;
- "5. Conscious survival of death. This is often stated in very vague terms.
"All of us will admit that these are fundamental and serious matters. It is not possible to be a Christadelphian and hold these beliefs. It is not possible to be a Christadelphian and to doubt the corresponding Christadelphian doctrines to those listed above. Furthermore, it is not possible to be a true evangelical and not believe in (at least) doctrines 1 and 3 above." This is not a Berean publication saying there is error in Central. This is Central's most prominent magazine, "The Christadelphian Magazine." This Central body, whose own magazine admits to these problems, is the status quo these Central "conservatives" do not really wish to perpetuate, but are perpetuating by their refusal to separate from them. Why?
Central folks even plot against each other. We read of such an effort to corrupt the truth in Australia, and I personally, am amazed at the boldness of the modern errorist. The following letter is from the Brisbane Christadelphian Church, (according to their letterhead,) to a bro. Edgecombe defending the actions of certain errorist individuals:
Letter from a "Partial Atonement" "church" in Australia, to a bro. Edgecombe "But they are very confused and disappointed, brethren, because they themselves have been extremely disillusioned. Assurances given these by very prominent brethren in Australia and England that "atonement for nature" was not only unscriptural, but unacceptable within the ambit of the Unity Basis, have been shattered by articles in the Logos Magazine written by bro. J. Ullman.
"There was only one reason Jesus was involved in his own sacrifice and that reason was clearly explained by bro. Roberts twice in the throws of discussion in the Christadelphian Magazine in 1873 and 1893. That factor was explained by bro. Roberts as being purely a matter of obedience. The basic and controlling reason for his crucifixion had nothing to do with his need to cover his own "impure" nature. Bro. Roberts clearly reasoned that was an involved element because he was our sin-bearer, and it was for our needs: not his, that his crucifixion was required."
"Whilst your 1987 delegation was here, we objected to terminology such as "atonement for nature" and we were assured that when you returned to Adelaide that an educational campaign would be launched, and that in turn, we would do that here." [My underlining--jp.]
So here we have individuals from Central giving assurances to other individuals in Central that they were plotting an educational campaign directed against the writings of a Central magazine called the Logos, (which is the only Central magazine of size still sound on the Nature and Sacrifice of Christ.)
And here is further testimony, again from the Christadelphian Magazine, concerning some members of Central plotting against others:
Christadelphian Magazine. 1981, October "...At least twice in the last few years (one of them within the last twelve months) private meetings have been called by individuals -- that is, attendance, which has been considerable, has been by personal invitation only. At those meetings the Christadelphian position on fellowship has been attacked and the suggestion openly made that the foundation of the community is mistaken and that fellowship with other (usually evangelical) bodies is to be advocated. The question having been explicitly raised, 'Shall we advise members to leave the Christadelphian community or to stay?' The clear answer has been that they should stay and seek to propagate their views secretly, especially among younger members -- the older members being regarded as beyond conversion -- so subverting the community from within. There can be no doubt that this process has been going on and that the developments we have seen quite recently are some of its effects. The attitude advocated may fairly be called devious, if not downright dishonest, and does something to explain the conviction of many of our members that those who disagree with our foundations should very seriously consider their position and not continue to claim the benefits of fellowship in a community whose basic principles they can no longer endorse."
Again we ask, why would anyone, knowledgeable in the word, and deeply in love with Jesus want to conserve this system? Why would we want to stay and conserve a system where we know wolves are lurking to attack the young and the new to the truth, corrupting them from the only hope we have under heaven? Is it really love to do this? Love of the wolf, maybe. Certainly not love of the young and growing among us. True love drives the wolf away. It doesn't ask the wolves to "seriously consider their position." They have seriously considered it. They said they did. And their seriously considered position is to stay and corrupt the young and new in the faith from within. Who can permit this, and claim to love the brotherhood?
We know there are brethren in Central who are sound on all first principles of truth except the practice of fellowship. We separate from these because they refuse to separate from the errorists ("liberals" according to this article) which we believe is an apostolic command. They either participate in the acceptance of errorists, or they participate in the schism in their body. But either way, they participate in that from which we believe they are Scripturally forbidden.
Is this behavior Scriptural? If the Central "conservatives" wish to engage us on the doctrine of Fellowship, this is where the battle must take place. Is the status quo of Central, Scriptural? It does no good to label us as "reactionaries," and arrogantly impugn all manner of immorality to us, due to a silly label. What are we imagined to be? High School freshmen, anxious to be included in the local high school popular clique? Do brethren really believe our Scriptural foundation is so poor, that we are influenced by peer pressure? Is the thinking really that we will drop all reason and defense of the Truth, simply because our Central "conservative" brethren have judged themselves the epitome of wisdom and righteousness, while we Bereans are judged morally self consumed, and incapable of reasoning anyway?
Isa. 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
I say to our Central "conservative" brethren, when you get done with calling us names and determining how evil we must be for daring to stand aside from you, come look for us there. In the law and in the testimony. Show us from Scripture we are wrong! Show us the verse that says it is acceptable to fellowship individuals who are openly disobedient to apostolic command. You tell us to stay and fight the errorists with you. Fine. Show us the verse that commands that, or for that matter, even permits that. Explain why you ignore Paul's command:
2 Cor 6:14-17 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"
The author of this article claims to be motivated to write this, due to an interest in how and why people reach the conclusions they reach. I am interested in that as well, though not to the point of attaching evil motives to everyone who dares disagrees with me. But as I read this, the question that keeps coming into my mind is what a poor opinion the writer must have of his intended audience? Obviously he has no respect for his opposition on any level, and must believe them incredibly insecure in the Word, and in their lives, to think this sort of approach could have any benefit. But how shallow must he perceive his support, the Central "conservative," that he thinks even they would consider this a defense of their position!
I won't spend any time here evaluating the writer's opinion of "liberals." While I am saddened at the corruption of the Truth through this class of men, I do think that the honesty we are seeing now in the 'liberal' element of Central is refreshing. I was especially impressed with a letter recently posted on his web site by bro. Stephen Genusa, that he had received from one of the ecclesias dominated by corrupters of the Truth in Australia. In this letter, the authors, from the Brisbane Central "Church" as they call it, (and we have no reason to disagree with them,) writes that the position of bro. Genusa is the Berean position, and not the Central position.
Letter from a "Partial Atonement" "church" in Australia, to bro. Genusa: "Bro. Stephen, you have come a long way since you left the Unamended Community. You have rejected much of JJ Andrew’s teachings (pages 15- 16) and you have joined the Central fellowship. We do not accuse you of being an “Andrewite” (although you hold some of his premises). But we would appeal to you to consider your doctrinal standing. If you do nothing else with this communication we would like you to do one thing; to compare your doctrinal position with that of the Bereans in your country. As far as we are able to ascertain the Bereans in North America hold the same doctrinal belief on the Atonement as the Old Paths fellowship in Australia. Neither the Old Paths or the Bereans could fellowship Central because of our differences on this important doctrine. Your obvious affinity with Bro. Growcott and “The Purifying of the Heavenly” comes through in your paper. You cite him and you use many of the same Pioneer references as he does. As we are sure you would be aware, they remained out of Central because of the non-acceptance of their 10 Point Statement. Included in the 10 Points are the following:
"Under “Errors to be Rejected”
“3. That Christ’s offering was for personal sins or moral impurities only.”
"Under “Statements of Truth to be Received”
"3. That the word "sin" is used in two principal acceptations in the Scriptures. It signifies in the first place "the transgression of law," and in the next it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the causes of all its diseases, death, and resolution to dust.
"5. That it was therefore necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him.”
"You must see that the very points to which you take exception, and the premise for your position is identical to the Bereans, and as we have demonstrated earlier, also to that of the Old Paths both of whom have a common belief on this important doctrine. Your stand is not that of Central. However, we make a very genuine and personal appeal for you to review your understanding of Scripture and your reading of the Pioneers. Approach them with an open mind, and our prayer is that we may be found working together at the appearing of our Lord when he shall “change our vile bodies that they may be fashioned like unto his glorious body."
This Christadelphian Church in Australia is telling bro. Genusa who is himself sound on the Nature and Sacrifice of Christ, that he should consider his position. His position is not the position of Central. It is the position of the Bereans. Since the "liberal element" of Central now is honest enough to make this distinction, it makes it a lot easier for us to keep our position clear. And it is a lot more honest than the endless line of Central brethren who tell us "there is no error in Central." Or, "yes we have some error, but we are working on those problems, and proportionally, we have no more problems than the Bereans." The open denouncing of the Berean beliefs by these brethren, shows the fallacies of these Central brethren, (who admittedly are growing fewer every day), who argue there is no error in Central.
