Author Archives: COD

LG Sargent deplored new common understandings

In response to public discussion on whether the serpent was literal, a number of ecclesias in the UK passed motions banning those who held such views from their platforms and circulated their position to garner collective support.  Bro Sargent supported individual autonomy but deplored defining common understandings of the statement of faith and the spread/publication of such positions which he saw as dangerous to unity.  Of course LG Sargent would be condemned by the {now withdrawn} Motion 8 even though he would agree with elements of it.  His counsel below remains relevant. Continue reading


A common understanding? A strategic retreat.

When someone withdraws from a contest they started it tells you about the strength of their position.  The draft business meeting agenda for the 2018 Australasian Conference included a motion from Salisbury (SA) and Wilston (QLD) supported by Enfield (SA) ecclesia.  They were trying to achieve majority agreement on THE way to read the basis of fellowship and thereby exclude evolution creation.  Despite having the many votes of the Inter Ecclesial Advisory Committee (a group of SA ecclesias), they withdrew the motion at the last minute.  Why?  Because many east coast ecclesias advised SA of their opposition.  Rather than face public defeat, the South Australians withdrew.  Will they now cease insisting their understanding is the only understanding?  that they alone are right?  We can only hope so – a little tolerance of different consciences is after all biblical. Continue reading

The enigma of creation – a new book

Enigma of CreationBro Rick Bower has written a new and interesting book.  The introduction reads – “In recent years, few topics have generated more interest and prompted more debate across the broad spectrum of Christian denominations, than that of the Biblical creation texts. And in particular, the text of Genesis 1 has played a controversial role. So then, the goal of this work is only to encourage a deeper and more sensitive approach to the creation text of Genesis 1. This approach must necessarily incorporate the ancient perspectives of the original, Biblical audience, as well as the spiritual aspects of the text which are explicitly revealed to us.”

As he says in the book’s preface

“The goal of this work is not dogma. And yet the evidence is presented in such a way, so that all of it can be accounted for in any conclusions which the reader may reach. Of course, I offer my own conclusions for consideration. Ultimately, the goal of this work is only to encourage a deeper and more sensitive approach to the creation text of Genesis 1. To that end, I pray that this work strengthens your faith in God, and His Son, as much as it has mine.”

Bro Rick Bower’s work can be purchased on Lulu here


Happy (?) birthday – and a question

13 June 2018 marks a year from the recommencement our blog and FB page.  The site closed in Feb 2016 but re-opened in response to misleading articles in The Lampstand Magazine. We thought we might get about 2,000 views in a year, but such is the concern for what is occurring that we passed that milestone in our first full month and as our birthday approaches we are nearing 25,000 views.

We know some are not fans this page (or us).  Ok.  In a discussion which is so often heated (or threatening), we wanted to model another approach.  At times we have been perhaps too robust.  We aren’t perfect.  And yes we have tired of the trolling/baiting approach of some.  But we want to present how we can read scripture, plus highlight some of the historical variety in our community – much of which is unknown &/or ignored today.

So now a question.  What would you like to see in some upcoming posts?  Don’t feel the need to paste walls of text, just enough to get us started – we can always ask for more detail if your point is unclear.

Superstitions – which we don’t buy into – suggest a wish on your birthday is a thing.  Well if such vapours meant anything we would wish for peace on the subject of Gen 1-5 so we can all move on to live in Christ rather than wrangling about Adam.

LG Sargent on the serpent and Gen 3

LG Sargent wrote a in support of a literal serpent (a view we share) after allowing varying viewpoints to be put.  No calls for disfellowship or “common understandings” on the issue.  Tolerance of exploration.  LG Sargent, despite putting his conclusion, acknowledged that there are difficulties of understanding Genesis 3.  He also repeats Bro Thomas’ observation that God placed evil within Adam from the beginning and that trial was part of God’s design.  A worthwhile read highlighting our past ability to consider different views without splitting.

Continue reading

LG Sargent on freedom of discussion

LG Sargent’s comment around a controversial article suggesting the serpent in Genesis 3 was not literal ( we think it is literal!) was bound to raise eyebrows.  The conclusion of his cover note shows a maturity and tolerance of exploration absent in conservative quarters of our community today.  Rather than seeking to narrow fellowship and man the barricades LG Sargent hoped the community would  “…be capable of reasonable and informed judgment on Scripture interpretation”.  His comments are worth a read:

Continue reading

Eastward in Eden – past speculations


I believe the serpent in Genesis 3 was a literal being created by God with capabilities for the express purpose of testing Adam & Eve.  The following article “Eastward in Eden” from the 1964 Vol 102 Christadelphian Magazine disagrees, proposing the serpent is a literary device.  Obviously LG Sargent (the editor) disagreed with that assessment.  The article also touches on the ability of Adam & Eve to have evil thoughts.  Once upon a time variances in views and explorations were tolerated and explored – though passionately debated.  Worth a read and consideration of how difference should be dealt with.

Continue reading