The Christadelphian March 1940, John Carter

“Discussions on Fellowship and Belief”

We have received reports of two series of meetings which have been held to discuss the differences between the Central Fellowship and the Suffolk Street Fellowship, which cannot be given in full because of their length. We will, however, try to summarise them faithfully.

Bro. H. W. Craddock (Croydon) reports that in London two meetings were held of representatives of the ecclesias in the London area in our fellowship, when the following resolution was adopted:

“That those brethren and sisters who desire the association of our fellowship shall accept, adopt and profess the principles of the One Faith and the Commandments of Christ as defined in the Birmingham Central Statement of Faith, at present in use”.

Arising from this resolution it was agreed that “the Suffolk Street brethren must accept unreservedly what we impose on ourselves”; and for any reunion there must be “a unanimous vote of the brethren and sisters comprising an ecclesia in the Suffolk Street Fellowship. A majority vote will prove unacceptable”.

An invitation was then sent to a committee of Suffolk Street brethren, to meet these representatives of our ecclesias. Representatives of the Suffolk Street ecclesias in Colliers Wood, East Ham, Finsbury Park, Forest Hill, Watford, Willdesden Green, held three meetings with brethren E. C. Ayres (Walthamstow), S. W. Boulton (Enfield), R. P. Bull (Tooting), G. S. Clark (North London); H. W. Craddock (Croydon), W. H. Dean (Wood Green), A. J. Drakes (Streatham), H. Entwistle (Ealing), W. C. Hookham (Brixton), F. Johnson (West Norwood), D. J. Lander (West Hendon), J. Newton (Ilford).

It was found that on the subject of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, those who were formerly on the “Advocate Basis” had a definite paragraph in their Statement, and the ecclesias in Suffolk Street had recently added “a printed slip affirming such belief”, and it was stated that “an individual declaration of unqualified belief in the total inspiration of the Scriptures” could be obtained.

The representatives jointly studied in detail the Birmingham Central Statement of Faith. It was found that clause 24 presented a difficulty. Evidence was produced by bro. Hookham, of the teaching long held by us, from Anastasis, bro. Roberts’ writings in The Christadelphian for 1882, and from a London Statement of Faith of 1882.

Discussion shewed that Clause 24, on Resurrectional Responsibility, was not acceptable to the Suffolk Street brethren, and that there was “a pronounced cleavage of view”.

As there was failure to reach agreement on this subject it was agreed that “detailed discussion on ‘Fellowship’ matters would serve no useful purpose”.

“A brotherly spirit was maintained throughout the discussion, and it was mutually agreed to discontinue the meetings”.

Five meetings have been held between representatives of Lancashire and Yorkshire ecclesias of the two sections. The brethren taking part in the discussion were:

Central Fellowship: S. Fowler, W. Gee, F. Grosvenor, F. E. Lindars, W. Norcross, A. Norris, R. Tennant.

Fraternal Visitor Fellowship: T. Grosvenor, A. E. Owler, H. Sanderson, J. Smith, P. Standeven, A. Standeven, T. M. Stevens.

Discussion shewed that there was agreement between these brethren on the subjects of Inspiration, Military Service, Taking Part in Politics and Immortal Emergence. On the subject of Resurrectional Responsibility the following resolution was unanimously accepted:

“That resurrection affects all those who are responsible to God through a knowledge of His revealed will (God only being the judge as to where sufficient knowledge exists). All such, just or unjust, baptized or unbaptized, will be brought forth to judgment”.

On the question of fellowship the following was agreed:

“That the above points (on which differences of views have been alleged to have existed between the two fellowships) must form part of any basis of faith, and be accepted without reservation, in any fraternal co-operation which may ensue from these meetings”.

On the question of marriage, all agreed that marriage with the unbeliever is against the law of Christ, but there was a difference concerning the nature of the action to be taken in such a case.

We have also received another communication from these brethren, requesting the publication of the following resolution, passed unanimously at one of their meetings:

“That the representatives appointed by the ecclesias in the North of England to consider the question of Amity send a letter to the Editor of the Fraternal Visitor, signed by brethren J. Smith and A. Norris, on behalf of their respective fellowships, protesting against, and deploring the appearance in the Fraternal Visitor for October, 1939, of an article by bro. Moye, Australia, on the Nature of Christ, which advocates views that we, and the ecclesias we represent, consider both unsound and unscriptural”.

The following comments may be made. We are glad to note the measure of agreement on some disputed points on the part of the brethren who met. It is important that the necessity should be emphasized for individual acceptance, and not a majority vote of an ecclesia, of the matters that are under discussion. It is evident that the brethren in Suffolk Street fellowship hold divergent views on the question of resurrectional responsibility (as we know, they also do on the question of Immortal Emergence). In this connection we cannot see how the brethren who have subscribed to the fellowship resolution in Yorkshire can consistently retain fellowship with those in the south. Must they not either get their brethren who cannot accept our position to change their minds, or, alternatively, cease to fellowship them?

In connection with the article which appeared in the Fraternal Visitor to which exception is taken, it will be remembered that some reference to this was made in The Christadelphian for January, pages 40–42, and the error pointed out. We approve the description of it as “unsound and unscriptural”. But when an article is printed in a magazine which gives the Intelligence of ecclesias, it can only be regarded as representing the teaching of the fellowship.

These notes give an opportunity to emphasise that The Christadelphian supports the doctrines defined in the Birmingham (Central) Statement of Faith; and the Intelligence is accepted on the understanding that the ecclesia sending it accepts that Statement of Faith. We would also draw attention again, for the assurance of enquirers in United States in particular, to the statement on “The nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ” in The Christadelphian, May, 1939, page 228, and to the endorsement of this statement as setting forth the truth in regard to the doctrine and to fellowship, by the Arranging Brethren on the Central Ecclesia, June, 1939, page 276.

With this assurance we appeal to the ecclesias in the States who have been separated on this doctrine to heal the wounds of division where no grounds for it exist.

Ed.