3. The Ecclesial Constitution
Baptism introduces one into the family of God.
Every family has (or should have) its own rules. It is necessary, therefore,
along with the exalted concepts, to discuss also some rather down-to-earth
rules. The necessity of rules of order, as embodied in our
“Constitution” (a copy of which you have received or will receive),
is explained by Robert Roberts, first editor of “The
Christadelphian” magazine:
“In all communities, large or small, there
must be order and mutual submission, in order to attain the objects of their
existence.
“In small bodies, few and simple rules will
suffice. In large bodies, there will be more need for precise and definite
regulations, having reference to what duties certain persons will attend to, how
such are to be appointed, under what conditions their duties will be exercised,
and so forth. Two things have to be secured in the conduct of an ecclesia, which
are capable, in a wrong mode of working, of becoming inconsistent with one
another, but which, with care, wisdom, and patience, can be so reconciled as to
both have their full and effective place. The one is ORDER, and the other
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Both are essential to the healthy and harmonious life of an
ecclesia. The danger is that one or other may be sacrificed, in the endeavour to
secure either. Care should be taken that neither is secured at the expense of
the other. Let not order quench individual liberty, and be sure that individual
liberty is not allowed to destroy order....
“The only practical basis of order in the
circumstances existing in our dispensation is that of mutual consent, expressed
in the process known as voting, which literally means voicing, or speaking your
mind. If God would speak, as in the day of the Spirit’s ministration,
there would be no need for man to speak; but, as God is silent, there is no
alternative but to make the best appointments we can amongst ourselves, aiming
in all things to come close to His mind and will, as expressed in the written
word.
“The principle of government by consent can
only be practically applied by listening to the voice of the greater number,
technically described as ‘the majority’. There are well-founded
objections to following such a lead in certain matters: but in this matter, what
other principle can be acted on? Shall seventy-five submit to the contrary
wishes of twenty-five? Is it not more reasonable that in matters of general
convenience the lesser number should submit to the greater?....
“The ecclesia does not appoint masters, but
servants. In principle, the ecclesia is the doer of everything; but, as it is
impossible in its collective capacity to do the things that are to be done, it
delegates to individual members the duty of doing them in its
behalf.”
