“These are beneficial when restricted to purely spiritual objects (i.e., let the brethren assemble anywhere from anywhere, and exhort, or worship, or have social intercourse together); but they become sources of evil if allowed to acquire a legislative character in the least degree. Ecclesial independence should be guarded with great jealousy, with the qualifications indicated in the foregoing sections. To form ‘unions’ or ‘societies’ of ecclesias, in which delegates should frame laws for the individual ecclesias, would be to lay the foundation of a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life. Such collective machineries create fictitious importances, which tend to suffocate the truth. All ecclesiastical history illustrates this.”
Roberts, R. (1989 edition). The Ecclesial Guide (pp. 31–32). Birmingham: The Christadelphian.
Shout out to the Interecclesial Advisory Committee (IEAC) in South Australia. Created to run combined activities they have since branched out into doctrinal enforcement (eg via their “Reaffirmation Statement” – see here for comments!)
Bro Ken Drage was a member at Watford when the evolution controversy broke in the 1960s. He has written an open letter addressing evolution and some of the history from the debate which centred around Bro Lovelock. The impact of emotion and pressure from others is noteworthy – as is his observation that the 1960’s discussion were civilised though highly charged (such civility is lacking today!). Bro Ken’s letter is reproduced in full below – it should be mandatory reading, so over to Ken… Continue reading
How could and why would God allow Adam to fail (or creative him such a way that such failure was inevitable)? Surely sin and death were never part of God’s creative plan! So say some as if their musings are authoritative or the only opinions ever held within our community. Such is “very short-sighted” according to the 1894 Christadelphian Magazine article by Sis Mary Brabyn. R Roberts published the article under the heading “the Apparent Failure of Freewill”. Though a convinced literal creationist she articulated that Adam’s failure set the basis for a far more effective salvation of man than Adam’s mere obedience could achieve. For in Adam’s failure, God’s mercy and love would be demonstrated and appreciated. Continue reading
In December 2009, in response to an article on creation, a brother wrote to and was published in The Christadelphian Magazine saying (among other things), evolution challenges our interpretation of the bible (not the bible), a range of views needs to be accommodated and evolution is not atheism nor unfaithful. The full letter is reproduced below: Continue reading
Our pioneers and earliest commentators believed we should study Scripture using the best scholarship in science, history, archaeology, textual criticism, lexicography, and Bible study, leaving us an excellent example. They used science and scholarship to combat doctrinal error,  believing scientific facts always supports the Bible.    They accepted the scientific evidence for the age of the earth    and pre-Adamic human beings,    despite rejecting evolution.  They wrote articles arguing the Genesis flood was not global,  that the days of Genesis 1 were not necessarily literal, that the Bible cannot be understood simply through literal interpretation,  and that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.   They supported the most modern Bible available (the Revised Version), and promoted Tischendorf’s New Testament, based on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, which they regarded as ‘the three most ancient original’ manuscripts. Continue reading