The Fellowship Clauses in the Unity Agreement

Website Article

“The Fellowship Clauses in the Unity Agreement”

Fellowship Clauses in the Australian Unity Agreement

The Fellowship clauses in the Australian Unity Agreement reflect the historical and consistent Central position on fellowship throughout the world. They put the primary responsibility on each ecclesia to deal with any departure from any element of the One Faith that may arise in its midst.

“(a) Where any brethren depart from any element of the One Faith, either in doctrine or practice, they shall be dealt with according to the Apostolic precept and that extreme action would be ecclesial disfellowship of the offender. (Matt. 18: 15-17; Titus 3: 10-11.)” (Unity Book p14).

In the event of the offending brethren being unrepentant, “extreme action would be ecclesial disfellowship of the offender.” This is in keeping with The Ecclesial Guide 32. Sin and Withdrawal and 36. Individual Offences, which is referred to in clause (c) of the Fellowship clauses in the Unity Book.

“(c) The course of action necessitated by the above clauses (a) and (b), will be regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, Sections 32, 41 and 42.” (Unity Book p15)

The terms of the Unity Agreement is that each ecclesia is to faithfully fulfil its responsibilities to preserve the Truth in its midst. Ecclesias have a responsibility to other ecclesias to do this so there will be no error in the fellowship group. Where an ecclesia fails to fulfil its responsibilities in this regard and tolerates error in fellowship, it has failed in its responsibility to other ecclesias by compromising the basis of fellowship and breaking the Unity Agreement.

It is therefore not right or faithful for an ecclesia to wilfully tolerate “departure from any element of the One Faith either in doctrine or practice” and not withdraw fellowship from brethren in error after efforts to recover them in the spirit of Matt 18 have failed.

Bro Cooper and bro Carter made this expectation quite clear as a condition for reunion, in their letter on unity to the Adelaide Conference in 1956.

“Here perhaps we may be permitted to speak plainly. In our efforts to seek unity and peace in Great Britain brethren abroad have reminded us in various ways of the problems that exist in other lands where there are extensions of the troubles here, aggravated by their own local differences. The citations of utterances such as that the Statement of Faith contains blasphemous assertions, by brethren in Australia who are still retained in association, create great difficulties for us. If we have a duty to avoid putting any stumbling block in your path, is not the duty reciprocal and should not you seek to remove grave hindrances to unity, either by so instructing your members that you can happily declare there is oneness of Faith, or by removing from your association, sad though it may be to have to do it, the teacher of error. “Purge out the old leaven” is apostolic counsel.” …

“We take, then, this opportunity to ask your co-operation in the pursuit of peace and unity of those of like mind. If the Lord could hold against a first century ecclesia that they held a doctrine which he hated, or suffered those who held such a doctrine, we see how seriously he views some things. Surely none of us would adopt a position where He would have to say it of us. As, therefore, we hear reports of vocal protagonists of things which are not believed amongst us, making also stout charges against things we do believe, might we ask you to help us either by removing those brethren who make discord and division by their words, or by showing (after enquiry) that the charges made against them are not true. We feel sure that by so doing you will greatly help the cause of truth throughout the world and the work of peace in ecclesias of your land and of ours.” (Unity Book p8, "A Letter on Unity from England")

Bro Carter had also made the same condition for reunion clear in The Christadelphian magazine of the same year.

“For fifty years there have been two groups of ecclesias in Australia. The division arose out of the teaching of the first Editor of The Shield, and the name of the magazine has been used to define the group of ecclesias. …

But the Shield brethren can help. Most of them meet on the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. The Victoria agreement bases fellowship on the acceptance of the truths therein set out, and the refusal of fellowship to any who do not. Those ecclesias, both Shield and Central, who have subscribed to the Victoria basis, are in a position where they must seek, as their own agreement in fact requires, to clarify the position with regard to those Shield ecclesias against which the charges of holding wrong doctrine are made. If the charges are correct, then the Shield ecclesias have a duty to set matters right. If the charges are not correct then let the fact be established. That there is need for something to be done we believe many Shield brethren recognize. The Editor of The Shield has virtually called for it. If there are one or two perverse men whose voices create discord and make division, then the Scriptures tell us what our duty is (Rom. 16:17, 18). A splendid opportunity is before the Shield ecclesias to remove stumbling blocks; a fine opportunity is before the Central ecclesias to meet such action by a willing response.” (The Christadelphian, May 1956)

The fellowship clauses in the Unity Agreement do not provide for the wilful toleration in fellowship by any ecclesia of “departure from any element of the One Faith either in doctrine or practice” including Shield Clean Flesh. Retaining brethren in association with the error of Shield Clean Flesh was a cause of great difficulty to reunion and ecclesias were expected to reform or remove them.

Ecclesial Autonomy

Ecclesias have a responsibility to other ecclesias to preserve the Truth in their midst, so ecclesial autonomy is not licence to tolerate error.

This has always been the historical and consistent Central position on fellowship was the basis for the previous reunions bro Carter had been involved in. At the time of the reunion in 1958, this historic Central position had only been recently stated by bro Carter.

Only eight years before the reunion bro Carter wrote;

“Support is sought for the theory that ecclesial action is not scriptural from allusions in the Letters to the Seven Churches. It is said that false teaching existed in these churches but the Lord did not require the faithful to separate from the unfaithful. This seems a strange argument. We cannot suppose that the Lord would in his own letters require a different course of action from what the Spirit had required through Paul’s letters. But why does the Lord find fault? Was it not because the doctrine of Balaam was tolerated, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes? If the ecclesias had applied the instructions in Paul’s letters they would not be blameworthy. We might note further that the Lord addresses the “angel” of the church on behalf of the churches. The appeal and the rebuke is to the community in each place; and while each church is severally addressed, to each the warning is added that “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. While the faults of Ephesus are particularized in the letter to that church, the warning is for all others.” (The Christadelphian, Dec 1950)

Only five years before the reunion bro Carter wrote;

“Ecclesias are autonomous, and it is a principle to be jealously guarded that ecclesias manage their own affairs. But that does not mean that an ecclesia can tolerate or eschew any belief or conduct without regard to other ecclesias. Individuals have free wills, but that does not mean they can do as they wish. To live in society imposes limitations, and when a man joins any society there inevitably follow restrictions on personal freedom. In city life the pedestrian has the security of appointed street crossings only by accepting the restriction that he shall cross when the “lights” permit, and the motorist limits his freedom and honours the restriction to “stop”. On a moorland path a solitary walker moves as he will, but restraints are inevitable in social life. It is not less so in ecclesial life.

The basis of fellowship is the common acceptance of certain beliefs which are called “The Truth” or “The Faith”; but these beliefs need definition to ensure that understanding is sufficiently uniform. Hence we must have a Statement of Faith; and while it would be within the province of each ecclesia to draw up its own, it is obvious that some brethren have greater skill than others in formulating a doctrine. There is something to be said for a uniform statement, widely accepted, even on the grounds of the efficient formulation of the things believed. There may, too, be circumstances when a well-recognized Statement may be used as a touchstone to establish that two ecclesias hold identical views, particularly when there has been recognized divergence on the part of one ecclesia or even doubt about its position. The use of a Statement in this way implies no exaltation of a Statement above the Scriptures, but a wise use of it as an instrument for a special purpose.

It is sometimes said in support of an unregulated freedom for every individual ecclesia that the Lord dealt with the faults and virtues of each in his letters to the churches. This is true, but it is sometimes overlooked that the seven letters were sent as one document to all the churches, and not as separate letters to each church, and each contained the counsel that “if a man have ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. The letter to Smyrna, while dealing with Smyrna’s affairs, had lessons for the other six; and so with each letter. While there was individual responsibility on the part of each ecclesia, this was a collective responsibility of its members (“if any man have ears to hear”); and the individual ecclesia was not without some relationship to the ecclesias as a whole (“hear what the Spirit saith to the churches”).” (The Christadelphian, Oct 1953)

This was also made clear by bro Cooper and bro Carter in their letter on unity to the Adelaide Conference in 1956, only two years before the reunion.

“We have an ecclesial responsibility to the Lord, in Adelaide, in Melbourne, in Sydney, or in any other place. And that responsibility is ours in our own ecclesia. We must have the right of judging the position of our members, with their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies and in doubtful cases each ecclesia must decide. While this belongs to us (and we should see that none takes it from us) we have a duty to other ecclesias. While an individual ecclesia, we are also a part of the One Ecclesia—the Church, and our duty to other ecclesias is to preserve on our part the Truth and let the light shine unobscured by vain speculations. But the converse is sadly true—if an ecclesia willfully and persistently preaches error, how can we avoid responsibility except by disclaiming association? If this principle has on occasion been pressed too far, we must not therefore fail to give it its proper place.” (Unity Book p8, "A Letter on Unity from England")

This letter explains the meaning and intent behind the fellowship clauses (a) and (b) in the Unity Agreement. The “converse” of an ecclesia faithfully preserving the Truth in its midst is termed as an ecclesia that “wilfully and persistently preaches error” by tolerating it in fellowship. These are the only two positions described and there is no in-between position.

In the terms of the Unity Agreement therefore, an ecclesia is either faithfully preserving the truth in its midst, or it is wilfully preaching error. If an ecclesia retains in fellowship a brother "departing from any element of the faith" they have adopted a position of supporting false doctrine and are effectively “preaching and propagating” it by allowing its influence to remain, even if they require such members to not promulgate the false doctrine. All members are responsible for that and are therefore “preachers of the word” that their position supports.

"If a brother departing from an element of the faith retains membership, either he accepts an imposed silence which is doubtfully justifiable; or, there is diversity of teaching. Since, however, all members of an ecclesia are preachers of the word, diversity would seem to be inevitable. But the apostle enjoins that all speak the same things that there be no division among the brethren (1 Cor. 1:10)." (The Christadelphian, March 1948)

This explains the meaning and intent behind clause (b) of the fellowship clauses.

“(b) If it is established that an ecclesia sets itself out by design to preach and propagate at large, false doctrine, then it would become necessary to dissociate from such an ecclesia.” (Unity Book p15).

An ecclesia that does not fulfil fellowship clause (a) to faithfully preserve the Truth on its part but tolerates error in fellowship has broken and compromised the agreed basis of fellowship. Fellowship clause (b) then applies because that ecclesia has failed in its duty to other ecclesias to preserve the Truth on its part and has adopted a position of supporting false doctrine or practice in doing do. It is effectively preaching and propagating false doctrine by allowing its influence to remain and should therefore expect disruption in their relationship with other ecclesias. .

They should expect the nearest ecclesias to initiate a process of restoration and recovery with them in the spirit on Matt 18. Dissociation from such an ecclesia is a last resort after a proper process of restoration and recovery in the spirit of Matt 18 by the nearest ecclesias has failed.

It has never been the Central position that an ecclesia can tolerate in fellowship those who depart from any element of the One Faith, either in doctrine or practice. The fellowship clauses in the Australian Unity Agreement are consistent with the historical worldwide Central position on fellowship that had only been recently stated by bro Carter and was the basis for the previous reunions he had been involved in.

The wording of clause (b) in the Australian Unity Agreement is very similar to bro Carter’s explanation of the historical Central fellowship position in 1945.

“If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.” (The Christadelphian July 1945)

The same similarity of wording is seen in the reunion agreement outlined in the Jersey City Resolutions in 1952, only six years before the Australian Unity Agreement.

“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.

If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching false doctrines, or to retain in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming fellowship.” (Jersey City Resolutions)

The same principle of withholding fellowship when error is taught and the doctrines commonly believed are not subscribed to was expressed in the "Time to Heal" articles which formed the basis of reunion in the U.S.A. in 1940.

"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.

... It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend fellowship when “all speak one thing”. (The Christadelphian, December 1940, John Carter)

The Central position did not change with the Australian Unity Agreement. Bro Carter and bro Cooper did not, (and had no authority to), negotiate a different basis of fellowship in Australia to the rest of Central elsewhere in the world, and at no time did the other Central ecclesias throughout the world agree to fellowship Australian ecclesias on a different basis to the worldwide Central basis of fellowship that already existed.

The intent and meaning of clause (b) in the fellowship clauses of the Unity Agreement is therefore consistent with the historical worldwide Central position on fellowship. Ecclesias have a responsibility to dissociate from an ecclesia that willfully tolerates error after a proper process of restoration and recovery in the spirit of Matt 18 has failed.

The Ecclesial Guide

This is proved by the fact that the fellowship clauses in the Unity Agreement are to follow the scriptural principles in the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, which outlines the historical Central position on fellowship.

The Ecclesial Guide does not support the concept of tolerating error in fellowship by an ecclesia which is clear from 32. Sin and Withdrawal and 36. Individual Offences, The Ecclesial Guide. Ecclesias have a responsibility to faithfully preserve the Truth in their midst. The Ecclesial Guide supports the historical and consistent Central position that an ecclesia that wilfully persists in retaining in fellowship those with false doctrine should be dissociated from.

The Ecclesial Guide states that the bond of union between ecclesias is the one faith and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is clear that if differences concerning this bond of union arise between ecclesias they should be dealt with on the same principles as individual offences against the Truth as outlined in 36. Individual Offences and 32. Sin and Withdrawal.

“42. Ecclesias in Relation One to Another … The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist.”

“37. Ecclesial Differences … These are different from individual offences, and yet they stand nearly related to these, and are best dealt with by the same general rule that Christ lays down for them.” (Ecclesial Guide)

This is the historical and consistent Central position based on Scripture that bro Carter outlined in The Christadelphian of 1945, only 13 years before the Australian reunion.

"If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.

The spirit in Peter writing of Israel says, “But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2 : 1). How were such false prophets to be treated? Moses says they “shall be put to death” (Deut. 13: 5). Even a “brother,” “son,” “daughter,” “wife,” or “friend,” who attempted to introduce idolatry was not to be spared (v. 6 to 11). The object was that Israel might be purged of evil. Communities were to be dealt with on the same principle as individuals. If it were reported that any one city had commenced to “serve other gods” (v. 12, 13) “then,” said Moses, “shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein” (v. 14, 15).

The comparison drawn in Peter’s epistle between false teachers in fleshly Israel and spiritual Israel is evidence that this Mosaic enactment contains a lesson for us. The use of sword or anything destructive is out of the question; a practical protest by refusing to fellowship is the full extent of permitted action. The command to “enquire” is not at variance with New Testament injunction; it is in harmony with it. When, therefore, it is reported that any brother or ecclesia is following false doctrine, it is not only permitted, but it is obligatory on other brethren and ecclesias, to “enquire and make search, and ask diligently,” to see whether it be true and the thing certain. If it is, the responsibility of their position leaves no option but that of repudiating complicity with the evil." (The Christadelphian July 1945)

Block Disfellowship

Withdrawal of fellowship from an ecclesia under these circumstances is very different to "Block Disfellowship", as bro Alfred Nicholls points out in The Christadelphian September 1982. He defines “Block Disfellowship” as when “a group of brethren or ecclesias has withdrawn from another ecclesia over what is in their opinion some error of doctrine or more usually of practice and then withdrawn from all other ecclesias who do not support that judgement, on the ground that the latter are involved in the sin of the first ecclesia.”

"To put the matter in perspective" bro Nicholls cites bro John Carter from 1945 above in support of this in (The Christadelphian September 1982)

"In the above article Brother Whittaker has drawn attention to the question of withdrawal from ecclesias. It has happened more than once that a group of brethren or ecclesias has withdrawn from another ecclesia over what is in their opinion some error of doctrine or more usually of practice and then withdrawn from all other ecclesias who do not support that judgement, on the ground that the latter are involved in the sin of the first ecclesia. This is sometimes known as “block disfellowship” and clearly has no sanction in Scripture.

However, sometimes the circumstances are such as to challenge the judgement of other ecclesias and require their decision. To put the matter in perspective we offer the following extract from an Editorial Note on “Inter-Ecclesial Responsibility” (The Christadelphian, July 1945): “… ecclesias have a duty to make rules regulating their procedure in harmony with the principles of ecclesial life laid down by the apostles. And ecclesias are related to each other as members of the body of Christ. While the Lord rebuked each of the seven Churches for its faults, he added to each of the letters to the Churches that he that hath an ear should hear what he said, for what he said was intended for all to hear. The rebuke of one was a warning to all to avoid the evil rebuked. If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has a duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognised among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth: when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.” (The Christadelphian September 1982)

Contradictory Views on the Fellowship Clauses

Clause (b) of the fellowship clauses in the Unity Agreement has not always been understood correctly in the way it was clearly intended.

“(b) If it is established that an ecclesia sets itself out by design to preach and propagate at large, false doctrine, then it would become necessary to dissociate from such an ecclesia.” (Unity Book p15).

There is a view that clause (b) allows for an ecclesia that wilfully tolerates error to remain in fellowship, as long as it requires its members with error not to promulgate it.
There is also a view that clause (b) only applies if an ecclesia adopts false doctrine as its position and does not apply where an ecclesia assents to the Unity Agreement but retains some members in its fellowship who hold false doctrine.
There is a view that ecclesias are autonomous and if an ecclesias chooses to retain some members in its fellowship who hold false doctrine other ecclesias must accept it in fellowship, even if they don’t agree with it, as long as the ecclesia officially assents to the Unity Agreement.

These views about clause (b) cannot be correct for the following reasons;

These views would make clause (b) contradict clause (a) and make it acceptable for an ecclesia to not uphold clause (a). An ecclesia that does not uphold clause (a) has already broken the Unity Agreement and compromised the basis of fellowship with other ecclesias.
These views would make clause (b) also contradict clause (c) that says clause (b) should be "regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide." The Ecclesial Guide says that the bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. Any ecclesial differences on such matters should be handled by the same principles as individual offences. If a whole ecclesia wilfully retains error in fellowship after a proper effort to recover and restore them by other ecclesias has failed, then all the members of that ecclesia are responsible for breaking the fundamental scriptural principle to not tolerate error in fellowship and should therefore be dissociated from.
Ecclesial autonomy does not mean an ecclesia can tolerate false doctrine in fellowship without consequences in its relationship with other ecclesias. Ecclesias are related to each other and have a responsibility to other ecclesias to uphold the “reception of the one faith” as a basis of fellowship between themselves. An ecclesia that wilfully tolerates false doctrine has already adopted a position of supporting false doctrine and is effectively “preaching and propagating” it by allowing its influence to remain even if they require such members not to promulgate it. Other ecclesias have a responsibility to dissociate from an ecclesia that continues to wilfully tolerate false doctrine.
These views are inconsistent with the historical and consistent Central position on fellowship expressed in the Ecclesial Guide and the Christadelphian magazine. These views imply that the worldwide Central position changed or that Australia has a unique position to the rest of the Central worldwide group, which are incorrect. These views are however consistent with the Shield fellowship position on fellowship that allowed ecclesias to retain brethren with error in fellowship.

A Difference in Essential Doctrine or Judgment of Fact?

The ecclesias who claim that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement effectively operate on a different basis of fellowship to the majority of Central ecclesias in Australia who only accept the historical Central view on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F.

This minority of ecclesias and brethren do not consider the two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement as a difference in essential doctrine that is a condition of fellowship, but as a difference in judgment of fact that should not be a condition of fellowship.

The implications of this with the latest resurgence of Theistic Evolution are obvious and demonstrate how Theistic Evolution is incompatible with the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. as a condition of fellowship.

They claim that The Ecclesial Guide 42. Ecclesias in Relation One to Another applies in this case despite the fact that these separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement represent a serious difference in essential doctrine. The Shield Clean Flesh doctrine always has been, and still is, regarded in Central as error in essential doctrine that cannot be tolerated in fellowship.

The Australian Unity Agreement did not change this historical Central position in Australia or anywhere else in the Central world.

Yet some brethren and ecclesias claim to assent to the Unity Agreement while wilfully tolerating false doctrine and practice. For example, the Halifax St ecclesia maintain that “a brother (it has accepted into fellowship) can hold views contrary to any one or more of Salisbury's 4 points and still conscientiously and validly assent to the Unity Agreement…

Adam's nature was mortal and biased to sin (like current humans) before the fall;
There was no change in Adam's nature as a consequence of his transgression;
Contemporary evolved humans were coexisting with Adam and Eve at creation, and
Not all humans have descended from Adam”

(Statement of Outcomes: Adelaide-Salisbury meeting 20 August 2020)

This makes such an assent to the Unity Agreement hollow and meaningless. This is not an assent to the agreed basis of fellowship, but to a different basis of fellowship that has not been agreed to, which is the old "Shield" basis of fellowship that is precluded by the Unity Agreement. It effectively legitimises the toleration of false doctrine in fellowship under the guise of unity where there is division on essential doctrine. This is union without unity. This is union without unity. As bro Ashton observed;

"There is a serious irony in the fact that the different groups claim assent to the same Unity agreement, but have no real unity in practice. The saddest fact of all is that the doctrinal problems which have existed concern the central doctrine of the gospel of truth—the Atonement.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

Ecclesias who maintain that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement attempt to avoid scrutiny by demanding that their assent to the Unity Agreement be accepted without question, using legalistic wording for the basis of fellowship at joint events such as “fellowship is extended on the basis of the “Unity Agreement without addition or further explanation”.

The only way that The Ecclesial Guide "42. Ecclesias in Relation One to Another", has any application to those who maintain that that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement, is that the “reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord” is no longer the “bond of union” between ecclesias.

Bro Carter expressed the worldwide Central position of fellowship regarding ecclesias who are not loyal to the truth defined in the B.A.S.F.;

To maintain a position that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement is itself a breach of the Unity Agreement. Only the historical and consistent Central view on the Atonement is acceptable in fellowship which is the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. The Unity Agreement precludes the Shield Clean Flesh view on the Atonement being retained in fellowship because it is an opposing view that is erroneous.