45. Distance and Fellowship
This final chapter is added to the section “The
Objections Considered”, even though it is not a Scripture citation,
because it 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”
(Matt. 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 Brother Roberts 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”, The
Christadelphian, Vol. 20, No. 233 — Nov. 1883 — p.
528).
If it appears that this position is at variance with Brother
Roberts’ 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” (John Carter, “A House Divided”, The
Christadelphian, Vol. 94, No. 1115 — May 1957 — p. 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?”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 102, No. 1211 —
May 1965 — p. 214).