This is the html version of the file http://www.genusa.com/Truth/A%20Time%20to%20Heal%20-%20Compilation.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Page 1
“A Time to Heal”: Historical
Central Teaching on Christ
Offering For Himself
A Time to Heal (1940)...........................................................................................2
“A Time to Heal” Statement by North London Ecclesia (1941) .............................6
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne Australia (1943)..............................................7
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne and Malvern Australia (1950).........................8
The Truth in Australia (1956) ................................................................................8
Statement of Position Adopted by Horticultural Hall Ecclesia (1957)....................9
Comments by brother John Martin (1970) ..........................................................10
Comments by brother John Martin at Yagoona Meeting (May 2000)..................11
Page 2
A Time to Heal (1940)
Careful readers of The Christadelphian from December, 1937, onwards will
have noticed that there has been a certain emphasis on the Bible teaching
concerning the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ. These are subjects
upon which much dispute has arisen in the past—particularly during the early
seventies, and at one or two periods later.
Some ecclesias in the U.S.A. for some years have been separated from the
ecclesias represented by The Christadelphian because of doubts about the
teaching of a brother now deceased, and of the attitude of ecclesias to the
question of fellowship. The publication of the recent articles on the disputed
subject has awakened hopes of a possible reunion of the ecclesias divided on
this matter, and already some reunion has been effected. The Petersham
ecclesia (Australia) asked the Arranging Brethren of Birmingham Central ecclesia
whether they endorsed the statements published in The Christadelphian
concerning both doctrine and fellowship. They at once replied that in their
considered judgment the article in The Christadelphian, May, 1940, pages 228–
230 set forth the truth in regard to doctrine and fellowship. With this assurance
the Petersham ecclesia resumed fellowship.
The Los Angeles ecclesia sent out an appeal (in March, 1940) that in view of
the articles published in The Christadelphian, ecclesias in America should heal
the wounds of division where no grounds for it existed. They circularised the
ecclesias in the U.S.A. and Canada quoting the articles in recent issues showing
that the barriers to fellowship were now removed, and urging that steps be taken
to close up the breaches.
The response to this effort of the Los Angeles brethren has led them to send
out a second appeal. In it they indicate the nature of the responses, the desire on
the part of most for reunion, and the doubts, sincerely held, in the minds of some
whether the right conditions exist for reunion.
This appeal is fourfold in form:
1. To ecclesias who separated from us in 1923, it is wisely pointed out that
it would be profitless to engage in discussions on what a deceased brother
may have believed and to demand a statement declaring his teaching to
be erroneous, especially when some are not sure what the brother taught,
but are quite clear what they themselves believe and are in absolute
agreement with the Birmingham Statement of Faith. It urges that if there is
doubt about the position of a neighbouring ecclesia they should ask if the
statements put forward in the second portion of this appeal are approved.
2. The second portion is addressed to ecclesias who have remained in
fellowship with Birmingham Central ecclesia throughout the controversy. It
Page 3
sets out in four items the doctrines to which objection was taken in
1923:
1. That the nature of Christ was not exactly like ours.
2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ
never made any offering for himself.
3. That Christ’s offering was for personal sins or moral impurity
only. That our sins laid on Christ made him unclean and accursed
of God, and that it was from this curse and this uncleanness that
Christ needed cleansing.
4. That Christ died as a substitute; i.e., that he was punished for
the transgressions of others and that he became a bearer of sin
by suffering the punishment due for sins.
In six items the truth is set forth:
1. That death came into the world extraneously to the nature bestowed upon
Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence.
2. That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of
his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.
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 cause of all its diseases, death and resolution to dust.
4. That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned
nature.
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 unto
God by him.
6. That the doctrine of substitution, i.e., that a righteous man can, by
suffering the penalty due to the sinner, free the sinner from the penalty
of his sin, is foreign to scripture and is a dogma of heathen mythology.
The ecclesias addressed in this portion are asked to state their assent to
these statements of truth and to give assurance to ecclesias now separated, and
to help reunion.
Page 4
3. The third portion is addressed to the Birmingham Central Ecclesia. The
soundness of this ecclesia is recognised and it is asked to give a clear cut
statement that fellowship is only recognised when the truth is held. The
readiness to give the assurance when asked by Petersham is approved, and
it is urged that fifty ecclesias are now involved, and that to publish a
repudiation of the four erroneous statements and an endorsement of the six
positive statements of truth, would give immeasureable help to reunion.
4. The fourth portion is addressed to the Editor of The Christadelphian. It
expresses appreciation of the articles on the controverted subjects which
have been published, and asks support in the appeal made for reunion.
We desire to help. In making a further effort, we would like first to try to clarify
the position on the doctrines set out. Objections have sometimes been raised
that the Statement of Faith is man-made. It is man-made, but how otherwise
could we have a statement of what we believe to be the teaching of the Bible? It
is because there are great differences among people who acknowledge the
authority of the Bible that a definition of what we believe it to teach is essential.
Every lecture is, in a way, a statement and demonstration of our belief as to what
the Bible teaches. It does not consist of nothing but the words of Scripture, but of
propositions attested by citations of Scripture. A statement in the words of
Scripture could be accepted by every professing Christian who reserved the right
to attach his meaning to them. The objection that it is man-made is not a good
one.
It might be objected by some that the Statement has ambiguities, or that it
might be expressed more clearly in other language. We agree that it has the
limitations of human expression, but we believe it to be an honest and capable
attempt to set out the essential truths of Bible teaching. The author’s meaning is
well known and is illustrated in many articles and in books in active circulation to-
day. A sympathetic supporter of truth will say, “We know what is meant and we
agree with that”. As an example of such slight ambiguity, item 2 of the true
teaching of the Scriptures, which is from the Statement of Faith, if rigidly
construed, says “the sentence” was transmitted to all Adam’s posterity. The
writer’s meaning is well known to be that the defilement which followed man’s
sin, which came as the result of God’s sentence and which also became a
physical law of man’s being, was transmitted to all his posterity. Any such form of
words will make some small demand on the goodwill of the reader.
The need for definition is seen from certain terms which have been the cause
of much strife of words. One of these is the word “mortal”. As a simple opposite
of the word “immortal”, we are logically compelled to say that since Adam when
made was not immortal, he must have been mortal. But then we have at once to
define what we mean by mortal. If we say “capable of dying” it must be admitted
that Adam was such. But if we say “subject to death”, then it must be denied that
Adam was in that state when made. Hence the necessity that terms be clearly
Page 5
defined, and if ambiguous, avoided when an effort is made to set out
controverted truth. The matter might be illustrated by the word “perfect”. If a thing
is not perfect it must be imperfect; but the want of perfection may be due to some
marring element, or merely to the fact of being unfinished, which is expressed in
Scripture by the word “unperfect”. There is the imperfection of flaw and the
imperfection of incompleteness.
Some have objected to having one form of words imposed: we have heard
objections to the Birmingham Statement being used by other ecclesias. Wise
men will not insist about the use of one particular form of words if the same thing
is meant. On the other hand, when a particular form of words has come to be
recognised and accepted as stating certain truths, wise men will not create doubt
or risk misunderstanding by insisting on the liberty of saying the same thing in
words of their own choosing, particularly when grave issues are involved.
We willingly declare again our attitude as Editor of The Christadelphian, in the
hope of helping forward the present effort for reunion. We believe the Statement
of Faith to be the best compiled to set out the teaching of the Scriptures. We
accept it without reservation and believe it sets forth the minimum that should be
believed as a basis of fellowship. As concerning The Christadelphian and
fellowship, we have declared that we do not knowingly publish Intelligence from
ecclesias who do not accept the teaching set out in the Statement of Faith. We
believe that if a man or woman changes their belief it is the honourable course to
say so, and resign from fellowship. It is not less so when ecclesias do not
subscribe to the doctrines which are commonly believed among us, and which
are accepted as the basis upon which fellowship and co-operation can be
maintained.
The six statements, acceptance of which is asked, are from the
following sources:
(1) is quoted in The Christadelphian, 1937, page 553; (2) is the fifth
proposition of the Statement of Faith; (3) is from Elpis Israel; (5) is from
bro. Roberts in The Christadelphian, 1873, page 468; (4) and (6) are
statements of fact.
We have no doubt that the Central ecclesia will frankly indicate its position.
We do not doubt ecclesias in Great Britain are doctrinally sound on this issue.
We join in the appeal that ecclesias in Canada and U.S.A. should willingly re-
affirm their position if by so doing this division can be healed. It is a time for doing
all possible to remove misunderstanding, and so bringing union where there is
oneness of mind.
It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend
fellowship when “all speak one thing”.
Page 6
The following reply has been sent by the Arranging Brethren of the
Birmingham Central ecclesia:
November 17th, 1940.
To the Arranging Brethren of
Los Angeles ecclesia.
Dear Brethren,
We have read carefully your “Second appeal to the ecclesias of the United
States and Canada”, and in reply to the section addressed to ourselves, we
would say that in our judgment the four items of doctrine to which objection is
taken in your appeal, are contrary to the Truth, and the six items in which you
state the opposite view, are the Truth.
The teaching set out in these six items is embodied in Clauses III. to X. of
The Statement of Faith.
We have already declared, as you know, our attitude to these questions in
reply to an enquiry from the Petersham ecclesia, and accepting as we do the
doctrines set out in The Statement of Faith, we regard them now and have
always regarded them as the basis upon which fellowship should be maintained.
We hope that this declaration will help in your efforts to restore the harmony
among the ecclesias in America, and our best wishes are with you in what you
are doing.
With fraternal greetings,
Sincerely your brother in Christ,
G. T. FRYER,
Recording Brother.
(The Christadelphian, 1940, pages 564-566)
“A Time to Heal” Statement by North London Ecclesia
(1941)
The North London ecclesia, it will be remembered, were also disturbed by the
teaching of the brother referred to in this article and by the attitude of ecclesias at
this time to the question of fellowship. In consequence, we were ourselves for a
Page 7
period separated from the majority of ecclesias in Great Britain. Happily we later
received assurances which resulted in this separation being ended. It is therefore
with pleasure and approval that we have read the article “A Time to Heal” and we
pray it may be instrumental in restoring harmony in many places.
For the Managing Brethren,
North London Ecclesia,
GEO. S. CLARK.
(The Christadelphian, 1941, page 86)
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne Australia (1943)
MELBOURNE.—Albert Hall, Albert Street, East Melbourne.—With pleasure
we record the baptism on March 6 of Mrs. HILDA ROSALYN BAKER. With sorrow we
report the death on Dec. 30 of bro. John McColl in his 80th year, 46 years
baptized. Our brother was laid to rest in the Springvale Cemetery. Sis. McColl
and three daughters mourn their loss, but hope in the Resurrection. Sis. Irene
Garland-Lethlean suffers the loss of her father and mother, who died within three
weeks of each other. Sis. Guenther had been bereaved of her sisters, and sis.
Stirling (Tatura) of her brother. All the bereaved have our heartfelt sympathy. Bro.
Robert Hosie has been married to sis. Edith Hedgcock, and bro. John Mullin to
sis. Marjorie Hedgcock (daughters of bro. and sis. Hedgcock of Brisbane). Also
bro. Alvan Dyer to sis. Constance Downs. We are glad that sis. P. Enever
(Bendigo) and the Wangaratta ecclesia (four sisters) are now in our fellowship.
The latter is largely the result of the position explained in the article “A Time to
Heal” which appeared in December “Christadelphian,” 1940, followed by two
circulars issued by us and interviews. We pray that the closer relationship will
strengthen the bonds of the Gospel to all concerned. Our ecclesial outing, held
on Dec. 29 at Hawthorn Tea Gardens, reached by river launch, proved to be
pleasant and edifying. On Jan 30 the Sunday School outing was held at the
Yarra Bend Reserve. Beautiful weather and surroundings made it a successful
day. Brethren Jack Izzard and Jack Smith have removed to Maffra, brethren Jack
Downs, Leon Kelly and Ian Wallace to Lah, and bro. and sis. Henry Islip to
Bowna, N.S.W., all to undertake farm work. They will all meet with local
ecclesias. We have had some difficulties with the “call-up.” Some appeals have
been allowed, some are pending, while one of our brethren so far has suffered a
month in prison. With the “call-up” extended to women for Services and
manpower, we are reminded that war-time troubles must be faced—but we do
not lose faith.—ROBT. G. WALKER (rec. bro.).
(The Christadelphian, 1943, page 136)
Page 8
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne and Malvern Australia
(1950)
MELBOURNE AND MALVERN.—We rejoice to report the union in fellowship
of the ecclesias meeting at Albert Hall, Melbourne, and U.F.S. Hall, Malvern.
Following correspondence, representatives were appointed to each ecclesia, and
a conference was held on Aug. 28, 1949, to determine whether unity of belief on
Scriptural essentials existed sufficiently to enable delegates to recommend to
their respective ecclesias the desirability of the resumption of fellowship. Five
resolutions embodying recommendations were carried unanimously and were
confirmed at special meetings of the two ecclesias. The effect of these decisions
is that the two ecclesias have agreed to resume fellowship on the basis of the
Amended Birmingham Statement of Faith, after agreement upon the Editorial
articles in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN of May, 1939, “On the Nature of Man and the
Sacrifice of Christ”, and of December, 1940, “A Time to Heal”. We are very
hopeful that many brethren and sisters in country parts of Victoria who have been
separated, will also be able to enjoy fellowship together. Most have already
expressed agreement on the above basis. We are indeed grateful to God at the
successful outcome, and pray for His blessing in our united work in His
service.—FRANK R. MORGAN (rec. bro.), U.F.S. Hall Ecclesia, Malvern; ROBT. G.
WALKER (rec. bro.), Albert Hall Ecclesia, Melbourne.
(The Christadelphian, 1950, page 32)
The Truth in Australia (1956)
The following is the Basis for Union and Fellowship in Victoria agreed to by
Horticultural Hall, Balwyn, Coburg, Malvern and Moorabbin, ecclesias in June,
1953:
(A) BASIS:
1 (a) That as fellowship is generally upon the doctrines and precepts of Scripture
expressed in the “Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith”, including
“Doctrines to be Rejected”, and “Epitome of the Commandments of Christ”,
we recommend that this be the basis of union and fellowship throughout
Victoria.
(b) That we recognize as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who
have been immersed by whomsoever, after their acceptance of the same
doctrines and precepts; and that any brother departing from any element
of the one Faith as defined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of
Faith is to be dealt with according to Apostolic precept.
(B) In applying the above basis to ecclesial life and association:
Page 9
1. It is accepted that, should the need arise for a further elaboration of
clauses 4 to 12 of the “Birmingham Statement of Faith”, the “Time to
Heal” articles shall be deemed quite satisfactory for the purpose.
2. It shall also be agreed that the basis of faith and fellowship being essentially
the determination of each ecclesia any ecclesia may, if it desires, adopt for its
own use a more explicit definition or elaboration of the Statement of Faith
without it being an addition thereto, and may restrict fellowship at its meetings
to those in agreement therewith; but this shall not affect the general fellowship
among all ecclesias who accept the basis set out in resolutions 1 (a) and (b).
3. It shall be understood that fellowship with all ecclesias in Australia or
overseas shall be limited to those who accept the doctrines and precepts as
expressed in the “Birmingham Statement of Faith” and where it is not known
by letter of introduction from ecclesias in fellowship or other reliable sources,
that visitors are in harmony with the doctrines set out in the “Birmingham
Statement of Faith”, they shall be interviewed to ascertain oneness of mind
and their relationship to fellowship.
(The Christadelphian, 1956, page 189)
Statement of Position Adopted by Horticultural Hall
Ecclesia (1957)
4 August, 1957
1.—That the Statement of Faith (B.A.S.F.) contained in our printed
Constitution be re-affirmed as our basis of fellowship, and that clauses 4 to
12 be understood according to the teaching of the “Time to Heal” articles
(published in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN in December, 1940.—Ed.).
2.—That our past practice with regard to fellowship be modified to the
following extent: That we welcome to our fellowship visiting brethren and sisters
who individually accept the basis set out in paragraph 1, subject to the following
conditions: (a) That, if they are members of an ecclesia, that ecclesia accepts all
doctrines expressed in the B.A.S.F. (b) That if their ecclesia has not adopted the
“Time to Heal” articles, such visiting brethren or sisters should urge them to do
so. (c) That, if we know of any of the ecclesia from which the visitors come who
teach wrong doctrine, they give an assurance that they will press for action
according to apostolic precept against such error. (d) That if time does not permit
of discussion of these matters with a visitor whose position is not known, he be
given a statement of our basis and practice, and be received, without prejudice,
on the understanding that he express his agreement before any further meeting
with us. (e) That if an ecclesia is proved to be wilfully and persistently preaching
Page 10
error, no member of such ecclesia shall be received by us at the Lord’s Table
without first repudiating such error and giving assurance of intention to take the
scriptural course to terminate his association with such ecclesia.
3.—That members of our ecclesia recognize the duty to break bread only with
ecclesias which accept the doctrines and precepts set out in the B.A.S.F.
together with the explanation of clauses 4 to 12 given in the “Time to Heal”
articles.
(The Christadelphian, 1958, page 143)
Comments by brother John Martin (1970)
“And so there appeared in ‘The Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 1940
articles which were entitled ‘A Time to Heal’ and brethren from Los
Angeles, realizing that the truth was now held, generally speaking,
throughout that country, and that they had no real cause for division with the
brethren in England wrote for assurances from ‘The Christadelphian’ office
that they would reject the “Clean flesh” heresy and stand by the truth, and
they received those assurances and those articles were printed in ‘The
Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 40 and brethren from Australia wrote to them
on the same score and received assurances that we did hold those doctrines
in common and there began to be put into motion the machinery of unity b/s
and the unity which we now enjoy today began right back at that time and
was only achieved because faithful brethren, humble brethren, spent hours of
their lives, sleepless hours of their lives, working steadfastly towards unity on
the basis of truth and that is being challenged today. When those
articles appeared in the 1939 and 40 ‘Christadelphian’ they of course
created a good feeling amongst the brotherhood and as I said the
machinery was put in motion for ecclesial unity.” …
“they adopted the four negative points which the “Time to Heal” article set out
- that they would deny the doctrine of “clean flesh” - and they adopted the six
positive points which spoke of the clarity of the truth. And on the basis of
rejection of error and wholehearted acceptance of truth by 1953 unity had been
virtually achieved in Melbourne.” (Cumberland, 1970, “Echoes of Past
Controversies”)
Page 11
Comments by brother John Martin at Yagoona Meeting
(May 2000)
“Roland, do you believe that God required of our Lord, OUR Lord, as an
individual, do you believe that God required of him to make an offering for that
with which he was born?”
Double-Click Icon
It sets out in four items the doctrines to which objection was taken in 1923:
2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ
never made any offering for himself.
Note: The above quotations from the pages of the Christadelphian speak for
themselves. Some, in an attempt to distract from the issues, have called into
question brother Biggar’s soundness (he was one of those responsible for the
Los Angeles 10 Points cited), representing him as an extremist &c. That is only
so much dirt cast into the air by clean-flesh sympathizers. Brethren, nay, entire
ecclesias could read the 10 points, understand and accept them as written and
find unity on that basis. The 10 points came into disrepute by some only after the
death of brother H.P. Mansfield and the “unity” effort began its universal or world-
wide (which is the literal definition of “catholic”) push.
Page 12
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Page 1
“A Time to Heal”: Historical
Central Teaching on Christ
Offering For Himself
A Time to Heal (1940)...........................................................................................2
“A Time to Heal” Statement by North London Ecclesia (1941) .............................6
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne Australia (1943)..............................................7
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne and Malvern Australia (1950).........................8
The Truth in Australia (1956) ................................................................................8
Statement of Position Adopted by Horticultural Hall Ecclesia (1957)....................9
Comments by brother John Martin (1970) ..........................................................10
Comments by brother John Martin at Yagoona Meeting (May 2000)..................11
Page 2
A Time to Heal (1940)
Careful readers of The Christadelphian from December, 1937, onwards will
have noticed that there has been a certain emphasis on the Bible teaching
concerning the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ. These are subjects
upon which much dispute has arisen in the past—particularly during the early
seventies, and at one or two periods later.
Some ecclesias in the U.S.A. for some years have been separated from the
ecclesias represented by The Christadelphian because of doubts about the
teaching of a brother now deceased, and of the attitude of ecclesias to the
question of fellowship. The publication of the recent articles on the disputed
subject has awakened hopes of a possible reunion of the ecclesias divided on
this matter, and already some reunion has been effected. The Petersham
ecclesia (Australia) asked the Arranging Brethren of Birmingham Central ecclesia
whether they endorsed the statements published in The Christadelphian
concerning both doctrine and fellowship. They at once replied that in their
considered judgment the article in The Christadelphian, May, 1940, pages 228–
230 set forth the truth in regard to doctrine and fellowship. With this assurance
the Petersham ecclesia resumed fellowship.
The Los Angeles ecclesia sent out an appeal (in March, 1940) that in view of
the articles published in The Christadelphian, ecclesias in America should heal
the wounds of division where no grounds for it existed. They circularised the
ecclesias in the U.S.A. and Canada quoting the articles in recent issues showing
that the barriers to fellowship were now removed, and urging that steps be taken
to close up the breaches.
The response to this effort of the Los Angeles brethren has led them to send
out a second appeal. In it they indicate the nature of the responses, the desire on
the part of most for reunion, and the doubts, sincerely held, in the minds of some
whether the right conditions exist for reunion.
This appeal is fourfold in form:
1. To ecclesias who separated from us in 1923, it is wisely pointed out that
it would be profitless to engage in discussions on what a deceased brother
may have believed and to demand a statement declaring his teaching to
be erroneous, especially when some are not sure what the brother taught,
but are quite clear what they themselves believe and are in absolute
agreement with the Birmingham Statement of Faith. It urges that if there is
doubt about the position of a neighbouring ecclesia they should ask if the
statements put forward in the second portion of this appeal are approved.
2. The second portion is addressed to ecclesias who have remained in
fellowship with Birmingham Central ecclesia throughout the controversy. It
Page 3
sets out in four items the doctrines to which objection was taken in
1923:
1. That the nature of Christ was not exactly like ours.
2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ
never made any offering for himself.
3. That Christ’s offering was for personal sins or moral impurity
only. That our sins laid on Christ made him unclean and accursed
of God, and that it was from this curse and this uncleanness that
Christ needed cleansing.
4. That Christ died as a substitute; i.e., that he was punished for
the transgressions of others and that he became a bearer of sin
by suffering the punishment due for sins.
In six items the truth is set forth:
1. That death came into the world extraneously to the nature bestowed upon
Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence.
2. That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of
his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.
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 cause of all its diseases, death and resolution to dust.
4. That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned
nature.
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 unto
God by him.
6. That the doctrine of substitution, i.e., that a righteous man can, by
suffering the penalty due to the sinner, free the sinner from the penalty
of his sin, is foreign to scripture and is a dogma of heathen mythology.
The ecclesias addressed in this portion are asked to state their assent to
these statements of truth and to give assurance to ecclesias now separated, and
to help reunion.
Page 4
3. The third portion is addressed to the Birmingham Central Ecclesia. The
soundness of this ecclesia is recognised and it is asked to give a clear cut
statement that fellowship is only recognised when the truth is held. The
readiness to give the assurance when asked by Petersham is approved, and
it is urged that fifty ecclesias are now involved, and that to publish a
repudiation of the four erroneous statements and an endorsement of the six
positive statements of truth, would give immeasureable help to reunion.
4. The fourth portion is addressed to the Editor of The Christadelphian. It
expresses appreciation of the articles on the controverted subjects which
have been published, and asks support in the appeal made for reunion.
We desire to help. In making a further effort, we would like first to try to clarify
the position on the doctrines set out. Objections have sometimes been raised
that the Statement of Faith is man-made. It is man-made, but how otherwise
could we have a statement of what we believe to be the teaching of the Bible? It
is because there are great differences among people who acknowledge the
authority of the Bible that a definition of what we believe it to teach is essential.
Every lecture is, in a way, a statement and demonstration of our belief as to what
the Bible teaches. It does not consist of nothing but the words of Scripture, but of
propositions attested by citations of Scripture. A statement in the words of
Scripture could be accepted by every professing Christian who reserved the right
to attach his meaning to them. The objection that it is man-made is not a good
one.
It might be objected by some that the Statement has ambiguities, or that it
might be expressed more clearly in other language. We agree that it has the
limitations of human expression, but we believe it to be an honest and capable
attempt to set out the essential truths of Bible teaching. The author’s meaning is
well known and is illustrated in many articles and in books in active circulation to-
day. A sympathetic supporter of truth will say, “We know what is meant and we
agree with that”. As an example of such slight ambiguity, item 2 of the true
teaching of the Scriptures, which is from the Statement of Faith, if rigidly
construed, says “the sentence” was transmitted to all Adam’s posterity. The
writer’s meaning is well known to be that the defilement which followed man’s
sin, which came as the result of God’s sentence and which also became a
physical law of man’s being, was transmitted to all his posterity. Any such form of
words will make some small demand on the goodwill of the reader.
The need for definition is seen from certain terms which have been the cause
of much strife of words. One of these is the word “mortal”. As a simple opposite
of the word “immortal”, we are logically compelled to say that since Adam when
made was not immortal, he must have been mortal. But then we have at once to
define what we mean by mortal. If we say “capable of dying” it must be admitted
that Adam was such. But if we say “subject to death”, then it must be denied that
Adam was in that state when made. Hence the necessity that terms be clearly
Page 5
defined, and if ambiguous, avoided when an effort is made to set out
controverted truth. The matter might be illustrated by the word “perfect”. If a thing
is not perfect it must be imperfect; but the want of perfection may be due to some
marring element, or merely to the fact of being unfinished, which is expressed in
Scripture by the word “unperfect”. There is the imperfection of flaw and the
imperfection of incompleteness.
Some have objected to having one form of words imposed: we have heard
objections to the Birmingham Statement being used by other ecclesias. Wise
men will not insist about the use of one particular form of words if the same thing
is meant. On the other hand, when a particular form of words has come to be
recognised and accepted as stating certain truths, wise men will not create doubt
or risk misunderstanding by insisting on the liberty of saying the same thing in
words of their own choosing, particularly when grave issues are involved.
We willingly declare again our attitude as Editor of The Christadelphian, in the
hope of helping forward the present effort for reunion. We believe the Statement
of Faith to be the best compiled to set out the teaching of the Scriptures. We
accept it without reservation and believe it sets forth the minimum that should be
believed as a basis of fellowship. As concerning The Christadelphian and
fellowship, we have declared that we do not knowingly publish Intelligence from
ecclesias who do not accept the teaching set out in the Statement of Faith. We
believe that if a man or woman changes their belief it is the honourable course to
say so, and resign from fellowship. It is not less so when ecclesias do not
subscribe to the doctrines which are commonly believed among us, and which
are accepted as the basis upon which fellowship and co-operation can be
maintained.
The six statements, acceptance of which is asked, are from the
following sources:
(1) is quoted in The Christadelphian, 1937, page 553; (2) is the fifth
proposition of the Statement of Faith; (3) is from Elpis Israel; (5) is from
bro. Roberts in The Christadelphian, 1873, page 468; (4) and (6) are
statements of fact.
We have no doubt that the Central ecclesia will frankly indicate its position.
We do not doubt ecclesias in Great Britain are doctrinally sound on this issue.
We join in the appeal that ecclesias in Canada and U.S.A. should willingly re-
affirm their position if by so doing this division can be healed. It is a time for doing
all possible to remove misunderstanding, and so bringing union where there is
oneness of mind.
It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend
fellowship when “all speak one thing”.
Page 6
The following reply has been sent by the Arranging Brethren of the
Birmingham Central ecclesia:
November 17th, 1940.
To the Arranging Brethren of
Los Angeles ecclesia.
Dear Brethren,
We have read carefully your “Second appeal to the ecclesias of the United
States and Canada”, and in reply to the section addressed to ourselves, we
would say that in our judgment the four items of doctrine to which objection is
taken in your appeal, are contrary to the Truth, and the six items in which you
state the opposite view, are the Truth.
The teaching set out in these six items is embodied in Clauses III. to X. of
The Statement of Faith.
We have already declared, as you know, our attitude to these questions in
reply to an enquiry from the Petersham ecclesia, and accepting as we do the
doctrines set out in The Statement of Faith, we regard them now and have
always regarded them as the basis upon which fellowship should be maintained.
We hope that this declaration will help in your efforts to restore the harmony
among the ecclesias in America, and our best wishes are with you in what you
are doing.
With fraternal greetings,
Sincerely your brother in Christ,
G. T. FRYER,
Recording Brother.
(The Christadelphian, 1940, pages 564-566)
“A Time to Heal” Statement by North London Ecclesia
(1941)
The North London ecclesia, it will be remembered, were also disturbed by the
teaching of the brother referred to in this article and by the attitude of ecclesias at
this time to the question of fellowship. In consequence, we were ourselves for a
Page 7
period separated from the majority of ecclesias in Great Britain. Happily we later
received assurances which resulted in this separation being ended. It is therefore
with pleasure and approval that we have read the article “A Time to Heal” and we
pray it may be instrumental in restoring harmony in many places.
For the Managing Brethren,
North London Ecclesia,
GEO. S. CLARK.
(The Christadelphian, 1941, page 86)
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne Australia (1943)
MELBOURNE.—Albert Hall, Albert Street, East Melbourne.—With pleasure
we record the baptism on March 6 of Mrs. HILDA ROSALYN BAKER. With sorrow we
report the death on Dec. 30 of bro. John McColl in his 80th year, 46 years
baptized. Our brother was laid to rest in the Springvale Cemetery. Sis. McColl
and three daughters mourn their loss, but hope in the Resurrection. Sis. Irene
Garland-Lethlean suffers the loss of her father and mother, who died within three
weeks of each other. Sis. Guenther had been bereaved of her sisters, and sis.
Stirling (Tatura) of her brother. All the bereaved have our heartfelt sympathy. Bro.
Robert Hosie has been married to sis. Edith Hedgcock, and bro. John Mullin to
sis. Marjorie Hedgcock (daughters of bro. and sis. Hedgcock of Brisbane). Also
bro. Alvan Dyer to sis. Constance Downs. We are glad that sis. P. Enever
(Bendigo) and the Wangaratta ecclesia (four sisters) are now in our fellowship.
The latter is largely the result of the position explained in the article “A Time to
Heal” which appeared in December “Christadelphian,” 1940, followed by two
circulars issued by us and interviews. We pray that the closer relationship will
strengthen the bonds of the Gospel to all concerned. Our ecclesial outing, held
on Dec. 29 at Hawthorn Tea Gardens, reached by river launch, proved to be
pleasant and edifying. On Jan 30 the Sunday School outing was held at the
Yarra Bend Reserve. Beautiful weather and surroundings made it a successful
day. Brethren Jack Izzard and Jack Smith have removed to Maffra, brethren Jack
Downs, Leon Kelly and Ian Wallace to Lah, and bro. and sis. Henry Islip to
Bowna, N.S.W., all to undertake farm work. They will all meet with local
ecclesias. We have had some difficulties with the “call-up.” Some appeals have
been allowed, some are pending, while one of our brethren so far has suffered a
month in prison. With the “call-up” extended to women for Services and
manpower, we are reminded that war-time troubles must be faced—but we do
not lose faith.—ROBT. G. WALKER (rec. bro.).
(The Christadelphian, 1943, page 136)
Page 8
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne and Malvern Australia
(1950)
MELBOURNE AND MALVERN.—We rejoice to report the union in fellowship
of the ecclesias meeting at Albert Hall, Melbourne, and U.F.S. Hall, Malvern.
Following correspondence, representatives were appointed to each ecclesia, and
a conference was held on Aug. 28, 1949, to determine whether unity of belief on
Scriptural essentials existed sufficiently to enable delegates to recommend to
their respective ecclesias the desirability of the resumption of fellowship. Five
resolutions embodying recommendations were carried unanimously and were
confirmed at special meetings of the two ecclesias. The effect of these decisions
is that the two ecclesias have agreed to resume fellowship on the basis of the
Amended Birmingham Statement of Faith, after agreement upon the Editorial
articles in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN of May, 1939, “On the Nature of Man and the
Sacrifice of Christ”, and of December, 1940, “A Time to Heal”. We are very
hopeful that many brethren and sisters in country parts of Victoria who have been
separated, will also be able to enjoy fellowship together. Most have already
expressed agreement on the above basis. We are indeed grateful to God at the
successful outcome, and pray for His blessing in our united work in His
service.—FRANK R. MORGAN (rec. bro.), U.F.S. Hall Ecclesia, Malvern; ROBT. G.
WALKER (rec. bro.), Albert Hall Ecclesia, Melbourne.
(The Christadelphian, 1950, page 32)
The Truth in Australia (1956)
The following is the Basis for Union and Fellowship in Victoria agreed to by
Horticultural Hall, Balwyn, Coburg, Malvern and Moorabbin, ecclesias in June,
1953:
(A) BASIS:
1 (a) That as fellowship is generally upon the doctrines and precepts of Scripture
expressed in the “Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith”, including
“Doctrines to be Rejected”, and “Epitome of the Commandments of Christ”,
we recommend that this be the basis of union and fellowship throughout
Victoria.
(b) That we recognize as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who
have been immersed by whomsoever, after their acceptance of the same
doctrines and precepts; and that any brother departing from any element
of the one Faith as defined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of
Faith is to be dealt with according to Apostolic precept.
(B) In applying the above basis to ecclesial life and association:
Page 9
1. It is accepted that, should the need arise for a further elaboration of
clauses 4 to 12 of the “Birmingham Statement of Faith”, the “Time to
Heal” articles shall be deemed quite satisfactory for the purpose.
2. It shall also be agreed that the basis of faith and fellowship being essentially
the determination of each ecclesia any ecclesia may, if it desires, adopt for its
own use a more explicit definition or elaboration of the Statement of Faith
without it being an addition thereto, and may restrict fellowship at its meetings
to those in agreement therewith; but this shall not affect the general fellowship
among all ecclesias who accept the basis set out in resolutions 1 (a) and (b).
3. It shall be understood that fellowship with all ecclesias in Australia or
overseas shall be limited to those who accept the doctrines and precepts as
expressed in the “Birmingham Statement of Faith” and where it is not known
by letter of introduction from ecclesias in fellowship or other reliable sources,
that visitors are in harmony with the doctrines set out in the “Birmingham
Statement of Faith”, they shall be interviewed to ascertain oneness of mind
and their relationship to fellowship.
(The Christadelphian, 1956, page 189)
Statement of Position Adopted by Horticultural Hall
Ecclesia (1957)
4 August, 1957
1.—That the Statement of Faith (B.A.S.F.) contained in our printed
Constitution be re-affirmed as our basis of fellowship, and that clauses 4 to
12 be understood according to the teaching of the “Time to Heal” articles
(published in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN in December, 1940.—Ed.).
2.—That our past practice with regard to fellowship be modified to the
following extent: That we welcome to our fellowship visiting brethren and sisters
who individually accept the basis set out in paragraph 1, subject to the following
conditions: (a) That, if they are members of an ecclesia, that ecclesia accepts all
doctrines expressed in the B.A.S.F. (b) That if their ecclesia has not adopted the
“Time to Heal” articles, such visiting brethren or sisters should urge them to do
so. (c) That, if we know of any of the ecclesia from which the visitors come who
teach wrong doctrine, they give an assurance that they will press for action
according to apostolic precept against such error. (d) That if time does not permit
of discussion of these matters with a visitor whose position is not known, he be
given a statement of our basis and practice, and be received, without prejudice,
on the understanding that he express his agreement before any further meeting
with us. (e) That if an ecclesia is proved to be wilfully and persistently preaching
Page 10
error, no member of such ecclesia shall be received by us at the Lord’s Table
without first repudiating such error and giving assurance of intention to take the
scriptural course to terminate his association with such ecclesia.
3.—That members of our ecclesia recognize the duty to break bread only with
ecclesias which accept the doctrines and precepts set out in the B.A.S.F.
together with the explanation of clauses 4 to 12 given in the “Time to Heal”
articles.
(The Christadelphian, 1958, page 143)
Comments by brother John Martin (1970)
“And so there appeared in ‘The Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 1940
articles which were entitled ‘A Time to Heal’ and brethren from Los
Angeles, realizing that the truth was now held, generally speaking,
throughout that country, and that they had no real cause for division with the
brethren in England wrote for assurances from ‘The Christadelphian’ office
that they would reject the “Clean flesh” heresy and stand by the truth, and
they received those assurances and those articles were printed in ‘The
Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 40 and brethren from Australia wrote to them
on the same score and received assurances that we did hold those doctrines
in common and there began to be put into motion the machinery of unity b/s
and the unity which we now enjoy today began right back at that time and
was only achieved because faithful brethren, humble brethren, spent hours of
their lives, sleepless hours of their lives, working steadfastly towards unity on
the basis of truth and that is being challenged today. When those
articles appeared in the 1939 and 40 ‘Christadelphian’ they of course
created a good feeling amongst the brotherhood and as I said the
machinery was put in motion for ecclesial unity.” …
“they adopted the four negative points which the “Time to Heal” article set out
- that they would deny the doctrine of “clean flesh” - and they adopted the six
positive points which spoke of the clarity of the truth. And on the basis of
rejection of error and wholehearted acceptance of truth by 1953 unity had been
virtually achieved in Melbourne.” (Cumberland, 1970, “Echoes of Past
Controversies”)
Page 11
Comments by brother John Martin at Yagoona Meeting
(May 2000)
“Roland, do you believe that God required of our Lord, OUR Lord, as an
individual, do you believe that God required of him to make an offering for that
with which he was born?”
Double-Click Icon
It sets out in four items the doctrines to which objection was taken in 1923:
2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ
never made any offering for himself.
Note: The above quotations from the pages of the Christadelphian speak for
themselves. Some, in an attempt to distract from the issues, have called into
question brother Biggar’s soundness (he was one of those responsible for the
Los Angeles 10 Points cited), representing him as an extremist &c. That is only
so much dirt cast into the air by clean-flesh sympathizers. Brethren, nay, entire
ecclesias could read the 10 points, understand and accept them as written and
find unity on that basis. The 10 points came into disrepute by some only after the
death of brother H.P. Mansfield and the “unity” effort began its universal or world-
wide (which is the literal definition of “catholic”) push.
Page 12