Keeping Our Perspective
(Editorial - February 2002)

During the past few weeks, most of us have had our first opportunity to consider the North American Statement of Understanding (NASU).  The intent of this statement is to set out a common understanding of the doctrines which have divided North American Amended and Unamended Christadelphians for more than a century.

Upon prayerful consideration, many of us will realize our long held doubts and fears have been addressed.  We will feel those who accept the NASU, along with the BASF or BUSF, should truly function as one community in Christ.  Others of us, however, will examine the document with a magnifying glass, imagining ambiguity in many clauses and sinister intent in some sections.

Before being hyper-critical of the NASU and the process from which it arose, we urge consideration of three fundamentals of the one faith.

Doctrine of the one body
Baptism is more than the individual being baptized into fellowship with the Father and the Son; it is inclusion into a community of believers established by God; we are all baptized into one ecclesial body: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free” (I Cor. 12:13).

The ecclesial community is therefore not man’s idea; it is not a Christadelphian idea; it is God’s idea.

Using the figure of the human body, the apostle Paul makes it perfectly clear that the believer is to fully cooperate with God’s plan: “There should be no schism (mg. division) in the body; but the members should have the same care one for another” (I Cor. 12:25).

Implementation of this doctrine in the first century caused no end of problems, but the apostles would not countenance any other way.  Slaves and slave-owners must treat each other as equals in the community of Christ; Jews and Gentiles must learn to live together.  In the December Tidings, we reviewed Acts 15 and the submission required on the part of everybody to make the doctrine work in practice.

If we are going to keep our perspective right when considering unity, we simply must recognize the prime importance of implementing the doctrine of one body in Christ.

The flesh favors division
The second fundamental to remember is that our natural instinct is for schism.  We know that “the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit…for these are opposed to each other to prevent you from doing what you would,” and among the works of the flesh Paul includes “strife…dissension, party spirit” (Gal. 5:17,20 RSV).

Accordingly, we must acknowledge that while the command for unity is of the Spirit, the desire to exclude others from our company is of the flesh.  We see it all the time in our children, as two are constantly trying to exclude a third, or older to exclude younger.  That divisive instinct, we are told, is a fundamental working of the flesh.

Paul stresses this point in addressing divisions among the brethren in Corinth.  They might claim they were just standing up for sound teaching.  Paul knew better: “But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh…for you are still of the flesh.  For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?  For when one says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ and another, ‘I belong to Apollos,’ are you not merely men?” (I Cor. 3:1-4 RSV).

Of course, we say, not all strife is wrong for we must oppose iniquity and false doctrine.  That is true, but the scriptural warning is clear: the flesh loves strife and division so our natural instincts favor division.

Again Paul makes the point in Romans 16: “Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties…For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites…” (Rom. 16:17-18 RSV).  This is not to say that we should never question a matter or disagree with others.  It does say we should beware of doing so, because the flesh loves to cause strife and division.  All of the attitudes needed for unity – submission, conciliation, peace – are of the spirit, not the flesh.

Therefore, in evaluating the NASU as an opportunity to solve a long-standing division, we must accept the fact that, for most of us, our natural instincts will argue for maintaining division.

The breaking of bread
A third fundamental is that sharing the emblems together is a vital aspect of being one body in Christ.  “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?  For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (I Cor. 10:16-17).

Bread itself speaks of many grains of wheat being brought together to form one loaf.  As those baptized into Christ share the one loaf, they are testifying that they, too, are many persons brought together into the one association in Christ.  It should be clear that it is not acceptable for believers to share fellowship in every other way except the emblems.

Another writer puts it this way: “Division has always been a disease of the church…The Love Feast, which should have been the sign and symbol of perfect unity, has become a thing of divisions and class distinctions.  And here there is something which only the newer translations reveal.  In the older translations, it is said that to eat and drink at the sacrament without discerning the Lord’s body is the way to judgment and not to salvation.  But in the best Greek text, the word ‘Lord’s’ is not included (cf. RV, RSV).  The sin is -- not to discern the body; that is to say, not to discern that the church [ecclesia] is a body, not to be aware of the oneness of the church, not to be aware of the togetherness in which all its members should be joined” (William Barclay, Ethics in a Permissive Society).

Although Barclay would have a broader view of what constitutes “the church,” the point he makes is worth careful consideration.  Over the years, some Unamended and Amended have enjoyed warm fellowship, shared scripture and preaching activities, done everything together except break bread together.  They have put the emblems in a separate category from all other aspects of association.  This is clearly not a scriptural teaching.  Sharing the emblems is a vital aspect of putting into practice the doctrine of the one body.

Our appeal
Our appeal is not that just any terms of unity should be accepted because division is wrong.  Our appeal is that we each view this effort toward unity within the context of some clear scriptural teaching: 1) the unity of believers in Christ is a first principle of the gospel; 2) our fleshly instinct favors division; 3) sharing the breaking of bread is a vital, not incidental or optional, aspect of implementing the teaching of the one body.

Don Styles

Return to Top