The Christadelphian, October 1937, CC Walker

“Another ‘Reconciliation League’”

From brother Chas. H. French, Sydney, N.S.W., we have received a document of four pages of foolscap single-spaced typewritten matter, headed “The Christadelphian Reconciliation League,” Sydney, New South Wales. It is accompanied by a covering letter explaining that the League has been formed by a few brethren in Sydney “for the purpose of endeavouring to bring about unity and peace” in the brotherhood.

It admits the existence of “certain questions which divide the brotherhood,” but offers no adequate basis of “Reconciliation” however well-meaning the attempt may be.

The document starts out with a reference to “The Pioneers,” but it does not show any great familiarity with their faith and practice in the matter. Dr. Thomas was once appealed to, to help stop a certain division. He replied that he would do all in his power to establish it! In the early days (the sixties of the last century) Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts were temporarily estranged because the latter for some time tolerated in fellowship men and ecclesias whom the former knew to be unsound. They had not “come out and separated” themselves (2 Cor. vi 17) as the word of God required, and therefore the conditions of “sonship” to the Father did not exist. Some of them were not sure whether or not they were, or had,” immortal souls,” and consequently were at “unity and peace” with “the churches” on that head.

Later on Brother Roberts had to “Break with ‘Dowieism’,” and Dr. Thomas and Brother Roberts were “reconciled.” These things are on record in Robert Roberts: An Autobiography, now unfortunately out of print.

What would the proposed “Reconciliation League” do in a case like this? It certainly could not hinder “division.” “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” This was God’s own question to Israel which walked contrary to God, who in turn walked contrary to them in “punishment.” (Amos 3:1–3.)

The present writer, with nearly sixty years’ troubled experience of ecclesial life behind him, feels reluctant at this late date to say any more on the subject, but, being personally appealed to by Brother French and his fellows in the covering letter accompanying the Circular, adds a word or two on the subject of “Division” and “Reconciliation” as it appears to him at the end of life’s journey.

Our Lord, inculcating “unity,” anticipated and foretold “division.” (Lu. 12:51.) Also, as to the truly “reconciled to God,” that in the end they would be but “few” among the “many”: “For many be called, but few chosen.” (Matt. 20:16.) True, Christ is not “divided;” but the question is who is “Christ” multitudinous? None but Christ can say.

“Concerning the ecclesias of Laodicea” the circular on page 2 does not speak quite as the Lord speaks in Rev. 3:14–22: “I will spue thee out of my mouth!” That is the Lord’s attitude to “lukewarmness.” In fact the Lord approves intolerance of evil throughout these epistles to the churches in Asia. And the apostle John likewise would not tolerate false doctrine (2 John, 7–11). What is to be “The League’s” attitude in such cases?

Brother French truly says that “Ecclesias are responsible to God for their own actions” (p. 3) and not for one another. Then why does his ecclesia seek to do the very thing that in the same paragraph he condemns—“endeavour to make one ecclesia of the whole world”? We give him credit for the best of good intentions, but the thing has been tried again and again, and always and only with the result of making more division.

A form of “Membership” is appended and there is an appeal for “voluntary subscriptions,” along with the projection of a monthly print entitled “Reconciliation.”

“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (1 Cor. 12:27).

C.C.W.