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).