John says that when our desires are used in opposition to the will of God they are ‘lusts’ that are ‘of the world’: “the lusts of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life are not of the Father but of the world.”(1 John 2:16). Other Apostles also use similar language describing them as: ‘deceitful lusts’ (Ephesians 4:22); ‘foolish‘ and ‘hurtful lusts’ (1 Timothy 6:9); ‘youthful lusts’ (2 Timothy 2:22); ‘divers lusts’ (2 Timothy 3:6 / Titus 3:3); ‘worldly lusts’ (Titus 2:12); ‘fleshly lusts’ (1 Peter 2:11); and ‘ungodly lusts’ (Jude 18).

A fuller examination of this question is provided in the Appendix.

This is the error that found its way into the BUSF which led to the false belief that entering into ‘covenant relationship’ through baptism is the basis of responsibility to resurrection and judgment. It is this error that lies at the heart of the issue.

In Central, we believe that “knowledge and calling” are the basis of responsibility and those who come to a “knowledge and calling” of the gospel WILL be raised to judgment, but baptism assures resurrection to judgment.

You seem to reject this understanding.

Rather, you seem to believe that coming into ‘covenant relationship’ is the basis of responsibility to resurrection and judgment, and that God will also raise others upon a different basis.

It is this belief that responsibility to resurrection and judgment is tied to ‘covenant relationship’ through baptism that we reject. It seems to us, that this is the doctrine of Andrewism but in a different guise.

What this shows is that you are content to remain in a community that openly promotes the erroneous doctrine of racial alienation; you have declared that you will continue to fellowship with Unamended ecclesias on the basis that they do not reject your ecclesial position. In other words you are eager to benefit from the best of both worlds.

You also say in this connection, “We do not feel that scriptural “fellowship” and “membership” are synonymous terms” (page 26). We cannot agree with you on this point as we believe that the scriptures teach precisely this.

Paul reminded the Corinthians, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (koinonia, fellowship) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (koinonia, fellowship) of the body of Christ?” (1Corinthians 10:16); the Corinthians fellowshipped those in the Body of Christ; but they were also members of that body as pointed out in a later chapter, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (1Corinthians 12:27). They are synonymous terms and the Unamended community has chosen to remain outside of the fellowship that they once belonged to. During the formative years of the Christadelphian faith there were others who “went out from us”, but who later elected to return to the worldwide community under such reunion documents as the Jersey City Resolution (1952); the Suffolk St Agreement (1956); the Australian Unity Agreement (1958). Why cannot you do the same? The success of all previous reunions was achieved because all parties agreed on a common statement of faith and became members of the same community.

Until you, as members of the Unamended community, declare your intention to draw a clear line between those ecclesias that are not in fellowship and those that are, so that the practices understood by the Central Ecclesias, as expressed in the December Tidings Magazine article on Fellowship are complied with, we cannot acknowledge there being a reasonable basis for fellowship. By remaining part of the Unamended community you continue to perpetuate the division that occurred with JJ Andrew.

Another section causing concern is your statement (page 27): “In general, our observation has been that the ecclesias that have severed fellowship with us are those ecclesias that are most often perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being associated with Andrew error. We don’t know that they espouse error, however, we do accept and respect their decision to withdraw from our ecclesias due to the stand we have publicly taken. We no longer consider these brethren in fellowship.” We find this statement confusing ; it questions whether error is being promoted in the Unamended community by some ecclesias in spite of clear statements that have been made in the Advocate Magazine in 2006 on the Atonement and Resurrectional Responsibility issues.

You comment a great deal on the practice of the Central community accepting Unamended members in fellowship throughout the world (page 27-29), providing a selection of photographs to illustrate the point. We do not doubt your claims about Unamended members travelling worldwide and being accepted in Central environments; we do however question whether this is accepted Central practice. It has been an unfortunate fact of community history that not all Central members are fully aware of the differences that exist in North America nor, sadly, do some really care about community protocol; we would be naïve to say otherwise. Notwithstanding the exception does not make the rule and some of us who have also travelled widely are not aware that the Central community has changed its position over the past one hundred years.

The Christadelphian Bible Mission has stated that it maintains a very firm policy that they only break bread on the basis of the BASF, and that they teach this as part of their routine work (quoted from correspondence with the CBM Chairman, 2012). Because of the difficulties arising from WCF visitors in mission areas, funding is no longer accepted from the WCF. The Christadelphian Bible Mission of the Americas issued a policy statement some years ago stating its determination to continue meeting under the BASF and to discourage the involvement of individuals who were not members of the Central community. Similar examples can be provided.

Our purpose for submitting this information is not to question your word in these matters but to point out that presenting a list of areas that have accepted Unamended members does not qualify as a shift in position for the Central community and therefore cannot be used to support your own acceptance in fellowship without belonging to the Central community.

With these general comments we will now consider the questions posed in this next section.

We must understand that outside North America agreements have been reached with the BASF as the keystone statement of faith. The question remains; why are the UA08/NASU ecclesias able to say they meet on the BASF outside Canada but insist in Canada that they meet on the NASU? (see NASU, page 9) Please note that the 2001 NASU originally included the BASF as the touchstone for inter-ecclesial fellowship but was later excluded when the 2003 NASU was proposed.

In answering items ‘b’ and ‘c’ we would direct you to your quotation from Bro. C.C.Walker The Christadelphian, 1900, p.526 A.E.F. in your section entitled: “Meetings and Mediators” with bold highlighting “But we have no power to deal with disputes in a far country” (your presentation, page 32). We remain committed to the belief and practice of fellowship in the Central community is on a common doctrinal basis. We do not knowingly support cross-fellowshipping. We are aware that inconsistencies exist and that being consistent will be only more difficult with the UA08.

We would like to ask you to consider what impact your fellowship arrangement is having on the Central community and its resultant division.

We consider ourselves to be in fellowship with ecclesias that use the same doctrines and precepts as their basis of fellowship. At present, we believe that there are material differences between the BUSF and BASF and that the historical doctrinal differences between the two communities remain and have not been adequately clarified. Until such time that we can determine whether we have a common basis of fellowship, we do not consider ourselves to be in fellowship with Unamended ecclesias.

“Ecclesial Autonomy means that an ecclesia can decide how it is going to take certain decisions within its own ecclesia so long as those decisions do not disturb that basis of fellowship which they have in common with surrounding ecclesias. Within those parameters an ecclesia can do what it wants without any outside interference… Ecclesial Autonomy does not allow an ecclesia to fellowship those who deny a foundation scriptural principle contained in the Statement of Faith. It cannot do that because to do that is to step outside of the basis of fellowship that they share in common with all of the other ecclesias in the world… Ecclesial Autonomy gives great freedom but within limitations, and those limitations are set by our basis of fellowship. It does not allow an ecclesia the opportunity to extend the emblems to someone who is in a different fellowship. If there are issues of fellowship, they must be resolved. An individual must join an ecclesia in the Central fellowship in order to share the memorials… Ecclesial Autonomy does not allow us to step outside of that… An ecclesia cannot comment upon the internal affairs of another ecclesia, so long as they do not involve First Principle matters. If they are starting to involve First Principle matters then it is not unreasonable for an ecclesia to ask an ecclesia what they are doing. In fact, it would be the right thing for an ecclesia to do. If an ecclesia departs from the One Faith then that ecclesia forfeits its place in the Central community. How that is handled is a different matter.”

CMPA Editor, Mid-Atlantic Bible School 2006, talk on Ecclesial Fellowship, Part 1 (Bibletalks4U.com)

It is erroneous to suggest that simply because someone is called “a brother” or has been baptized, they form part of the body of Christ. Who forms part of the “body of Christ” will be revealed in the Last Day. However, while we believe that we have a responsibility to restrict fellowship from those who do not believe the same things, we also believe that we have a responsibility to extend fellowship to those who do believe the same things. In Central, it is our common understanding of the First Principles of Truth which forms the basis of our fellowship together. Our inter-ecclesial fellowship is based upon this principle and it is through the voluntary application of this principle that the integrity and harmony of the Central Christadelphian body has been maintained. We have a heartfelt desire to be able to extend to a hand of fellowship to Unamended ecclesias. Our appeal to you is that, for conscience sake, you give us peace of mind that the Unamended ecclesias that wish to fellowship with us have a common understanding of the same doctrines and precepts of the Truth that bind us together in the Central Fellowship.

No doubt as in all things human, there are inconsistencies. However, scripturally, doctrine is the focus of our responsibility and as believers we must hold to the fundamental truth of the gospel. Doctrine is a public matter and is not an area for compromise. Whatever inconsistencies and flexibility have been shown on the baptismal front it matters not. Common doctrine is the basis of fellowship and the Unamended brethren do not share that with us. We do not know the numbers of who believes what, but we genuinely desire to reconcile with those who believe the same things as we have believed in the Central fellowship.

Based on the examples of scripture, fundamental departures in a single area of doctrine or practice are sufficient to engage in a process to recover and reconcile (this process includes in the end if unsuccessful in earlier stages, withdrawal). Consider the following:

Jesus gave up his life and he calls us to do the same – do we really do it – not even close to what he did – but in principle we must. Can you relate to Job? None of us have experienced the loss he has – but we relate to him even though our suffering and loss may not be comparable. Can you relate to David’s murder and adultery? We might not have sinned as he did, but we understand the principles of sin, lust, pride, death and forgiveness. In the end they are the same. Can you relate to a brother like Hymenaus? Either being him or dealing with him? It might not be the specific doctrinal error that he had, but we can relate to it because it is another fundamental error.

If you cannot see this, then the scriptures will become powerless and empty page after page. While none of the characteristics listed by these verses may apply to any one of us (yet who can claim such a high standard?), nonetheless the principle stands; this is the exhortation emphasized by the apostle Paul in 1Corinthians 10 where he parallels the Corinthian ecclesia to those in the wilderness, idolaters, fornicators etc., (verses 6-10). The Corinthians may not have literally built a golden calf or danced naked; they may not have literally brought in a Midianitish woman into the ecclesia, but the principle held true and Paul extended a sober warning to the brethren and sisters. The exhortation applies equally to us all.

Our basis of inter-ecclesial fellowship remains the gospel of the ‘One Faith’ as conveniently summarized in the doctrines and precepts contained in the BASF. This has been our basis of fellowship for over 100 years and it remains our basis of fellowship today. We do not believe that UA08 provides an adequate basis of fellowship with Unamended Christadelphian ecclesias because we do not believe that it is consistent with the doctrines and precepts contained in the BASF.

It is accepted that each ecclesia is independent and can make their own decisions, but not without ramifications. If it is a matter of fundamental doctrine, then the ecclesia concerned must understand that they have departed and that their straying will not be accepted by the group. It is sad that the implementation of the UA08 has resulted in members being forced to leave their ecclesias and further that ecclesias have forced their will on the larger community such as never has been seen before in this area. It is surprising that a question like this can be asked. A small number of ecclesias have banded together and have unilaterally imposed a different basis of fellowship and a different way of practicing fellowship upon the local ecclesias and are attempting in the process to break down Central fellowship.