Distance and fellowship
This is one of the mottoes which through long and perhaps
careless use acquires almost the force of Scripture. Under this heading or
something similar, some brethren would contend that great distances and lack of
personal interaction do not mitigate one's "fellowship" responsibility at all.
In other words, an ecclesia (or an individual for that matter) must become
acquainted with the facts in any alleged wrongdoing no matter where around the
world, and take "fellowship" action, just as if the problem were
local.
The especially sad thing about this line of reasoning is that
it appeals for support to the very principles that should be the most uplifting
and comforting to a believer in Christ -- that is, the essential worldwide unity
of faith of believers with Christ and one another -- and makes these wonderful
ideals the basis for unwarranted and hasty dismemberment of the spiritual Body.
In the ultimate sense, neither distance nor time is a barrier to Biblical
"fellowship", for it was Christ himself who told the disciples, "I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world" (Mat 28:20). But only a very impractical
person -- or one thoroughly bent on a negative course of action -- could fail to
comprehend that distance, as well as time, can be a mitigating factor in the
ability of fallible mortals to get at all the facts of a doubtful and disputed
matter. Sometimes it is the course of wisdom to admit one's inability to judge
aright; sometimes the wisest words are simply: 'I just don't know for
sure'.
Although in certain circumstances RR is made out as a foremost
exponent of this unrealistic fellowship approach, it is clear when considering
all of his actions and writings that the practical outworking of such a
"cut-and-dried" approach was quite different from the impression given by a few
random citations. An actual example, which concerned the brethren in my
locality, serves well as illustration:
In 1883 a group of Texas brethren submitted a "position paper"
concerning a regional controversy to The Christadelphian, requesting its
publication. (The exact nature of the difficulty is irrelevant to our present
purposes.) Brother Roberts printed the ecclesial news only, omitting the
statement as to fellowship difficulties in Texas. The comments he added to the
correspondence give his reason:
"The publication of your statement would only raise a controversy, which could
not only do no good to any of us, but involve others in troubles best localized.
We can afford to refer all doubtful matters to the tribunal of Christ, not
doubtful, perhaps, to those who see clearly on the spot, but doubtful to those
at a distance, who can only see them through the medium of conflicting
representations" ("Fraternal Gathering", Xd
20:528).
If it appears that this position is at variance with RR's
thoughts elsewhere given, I can only say that it is not my desire to portray
anyone long deceased -- especially one of the spiritual stature of Robert
Roberts -- as inconsistent. However, it should never be forgotten that no man,
no matter how wise in the Bible, no matter how well respected for his work's
sake, no man (but Christ) has ever been perfect, or perfectly
consistent.
A balanced view of Christadelphian history leads to startling,
but understandable, conclusions: When controversies plagued large centers of
Christadelphians -- like Birmingham, London, or Adelaide -- and touched brethren
in editorial capacity, or otherwise well-known or influential, then those
troubles were quickly exported to the most remote corners. But when a similar
controversy arose in an isolated area, Texas for example, it was generally
localized and ignored; thus it died out after a few unsettling years. There
seems to be no more rational explanation as to why the "partial inspiration"
question, for example, is still extant, but the "priesthood" question and other
esoteric matters died well-deserved deaths. One is forced to the belief that the
latter-day body of Christ would have been much better off had more such
questions been localized, and ecclesias at a distance been allowed to concern
themselves with their own affairs only.
"We must keep firmly to two rules, which might be considered by extremists to be
contradictory, but which are complementary. All ecclesias as a basis of
co-operation must acknowledge the same fundamental truths, while at the same
time each ecclesia must have the right of judging any doubtful case. The first
maintains the truth; the second provides for an ecclesia taking account of all
the factors in any borderline case, these factors being only known to the
members of that ecclesia. There must be mutual respect for each other's
judgments" (JC, "A House Divided", Xd
94:187).
"When fire breaks out there is need for calm, careful action. Panic is
disastrous. Fanning of the flames is foolish. Spreading the fire to other places
would be criminal. When controversy breaks out there is need for calm, careful
thought, and all the facts of the fire drill have their spiritual counterpart.
Our history as a community sadly illustrates the dangers of spreading
controversy, and the evil of provoking controversy.... Let us be on the Lord's
side to fight for unity, to put out fires of controversy, to rebuke those who
would spread the fires afield. Together let us all pray that Christ may not be
divided today" (H Osborn, "Is Christ Divided?", Xd
102:214).
