are christadelphians astray? - The Remnant of Christ`s Ecclesia

The Remnant of
Christ's Ecclesia
ARE
CHRISTADELPHIANS
ASTRAY?
ARE
CHRISTADELPHIANS
ASTRAY?
An appeal to those (of the many
sects) who call themselves the
Brethren of Christ, to consider
their true position in light of
Christadelphian history.
Issued By
THE REMNANT OF CHRIST'S ECCLESIA
PREFACE
The question may well be asked: Why the title of this booklet, "Are
Christadelphians Astray?" Concern among members of that body, evi­
denced by letters of inquiry and in addition, a background of experience as
former members of that body, has lead the Remnant of Christ's Ecclesia to
publish this booklet. This is an effort to bring into focus the position of the
Christadelphian groups, both as a help and a warning against the laxity and
false doctrine embraced by some, and the fellowshipping of the same by
nearly all. The protective doctrine of fellowship has been overlooked in
past and present efforts to achieve reunion among the numerous sects.
These efforts, based not upon the simplicity of God's commands, but upon
compromise and ambiguity of words, cannot be pleasing to the Almighty.
This booklet is an appeal to any who are concerned over the state of the
Christadelphian body, to return to the simplicity and purity of Truth,
based upon the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostles and brought to
light by Dr. Thomas and Robert Roberts. Let such as seek to serve the
Father and His Son, and fear the nearness of the end remember the words
of John:
". . . God is light and in him is no darkness at all.
If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness,
we lie, and do not the truth:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship
one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth
us from all sin."
(I John 1:5-7)
November 1986
2
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction — The Christadelphians
4
Christadelphian History
4
Schisms
7
Dowieites in Edinburgh 1866
7
Edward Turney 1873
7
Partial Inspiration 1885
7
Non-Responsibility of Enlightened Rejectors 1894
8
Thomas Williams 1900
8
The Fraternal Visitor Fellowship 1919-1920
and the Advocate (British Section)
The 1923 Division - Berean
9
9
Clean Flesh Heresy - Australia and America
12
A.T. Jannaway and The Christadelphian Family Journal Bijou Hall
13
Divorce Question 1940 - Dawn Christadelphian
14
Reunion 1957
14
1933 - The Pemberton Trouble
15
Conclusion
18
Other Publications
20
Chart of History of the Truth Versus Apostasy
3
Back
Cover
THE CHRISTADELPHIANS
It has been thought prudent and appropriate to publish an outline of the
course of events which has led to the break up of the Christadelphian body
into many sects and societies.
In microcosm there has been a repetition of those happenings, from the
Middle Ages and before, which saw Christendom divided and afflicted by
religious conflicts.
It must surely be apparent that schism and conflict in the people of Christ
is contrary to His spirit, and if a people are to please Him they must
repudiate those who cause such trouble and who teach things which are
contrary to sound doctrine.
In these last days a great ecumenism is beginning to emerge amongst the
nations in fulfillment of divine prophecy. But perhaps in what is even a
more startling event, Christadelphia is likewise moving toward an ecumen­
ism of their own, where certain sections after many years of separation,
have become joined again. This process is continuing with an apparent lack
of perception that what Christadelphia condemns in Christendom, they are
guilty of doing themselves.
It is one thing to separate from trouble-makers and deceivers; it is
another thing to again join them or their subsequent supporters. Can there
be any difference in principle between withdrawal of fellowship from an
individual who obeys not the doctrine, or from a collection of individuals
who comprise an ecclesia? The individual would not be taken back into
fellowship unless he had an established change of mind (repented). How
then can a collection of individuals who are an ecclesia or a group, be
treated differently by some compromise for the purpose of increasing
numerical power or for the satisfaction of sentimentality?
CHRISTADELPHIAN HISTORY
The Christadelphians as a known religious community commenced
through the work of an Englishman, Doctor John Thomas (medical), who
left England for the United States in 1832. During his voyage across the
Atlantic, a severe storm put all on board the ship in jeopardy of drowning.
It was then, in the hours of his distress, that John Thomas determined he
would seek out the truth concerning life on this earth and God's purpose
with it.
On arrival in the United States he came into contact with certain reli­
gious movements but was not satisfied with the inconsistencies of their
teachings; as a result he found himself in conflict with such people. For
thirteen years he carefully studied the Bible, and thereby the Christianity of
the immediate Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ began to emerge,
which the doctor soon endeavored to teach.
In 1847 Doctor Thomas had gathered around himself a few who valued
what he was trying to do. But as yet they were known as Thomasites, for the
name Christadelphian had not been formulated. At that time Doctor
Thomas declared concerning the gospel that it consisted firstly of "the
things concerning The Kingdom of God" and secondly, the mystery of the
4
gospel, that is "The Name of Jesus Christ." So began the "Baptised
Believers", fellowshipping and rejoicing with him in the Truth which had
emerged into a world of great religious profession, long sullied by myths
and superstitions masquerading as the gospel.
In 1847 Doctor Thomas left Richmond, Virginia for New York City,
accompanied by his still young daughter Eusebia, intending to take ship for
Europe. The destination of his ship was Liverpool, England, from where he
was to make a tour through England and Scotland, inviting the public to
lectures on the approach of the Kingdom of God as evidenced by political
events in Europe.
In August 1848 the doctor was in Nottingham, England, where he had
attentive audiences, and this successful work led him on to Derby, Bir­
mingham, and Plymouth. Later that year he was in Edinburgh, Scotland,
where he spoke many times at the Waterloo Assembly Room on Princes
Street. This was followed up by domestic visits throughout the same area.
It was a great work which came to involve over two hundred and fifty
addresses in Britain. After Edinburgh, the doctor proceeded to Harrogate,
Yorkshire, where he stayed with a family named Carter and spoke several
times in private gatherings to those of friendly interest. Following this
five-month tour, he was again in London where, after a very needed rest, he
began writing his book, "ELPIS ISRAEL", early in 1849. Upon complet­
ing this work, the doctor made a second tour through England lecturing at
Newark, Birmingham, Liverpool, Dundee, Aberdeen and other places he
had previously visited. The visit to Aberdeen was significant to a young
man there by the name of Robert Roberts, who eventually received the
gospel of The Kingdom of God and The Name of Jesus Christ.
After having spent two and one-half years in England, Doctor Thomas
returned to the United States. He resumed publication of a magazine
originally entitled "THE HERALD OF THE FUTURE AGE" - but with
the name changed to "THE HERALD OF THE KINGDOM AND AGE
TO COME". This monthly magazine continued for eleven years engender­
ing much interest and correspondence. During this period Doctor Thomas
made visits to various parts of the United States and Canada.
From 1856 to 1868 the doctor was involved in the study and writing of
"EUREKA, AN EXPOSITION OF APOCALYPSE". However, the
commencement of the Civil War in the United States brought about the
suspension of the magazine, "THE HERALD OF THE KINGDOM"
which was never resumed.
In 1862 the brethren gained during Doctor Thomas' first visit to Britain,
invited him back. In May of that year the doctor arrived at Liverpool, from
thence to visit Huddersfield, Halifax, Leeds, Nottingham, Birmingham,
Edinburgh, as well as a number of other places where communities of the
Thomasites had developed. His tour did encourage these few, but his
lectures on this occasion did not attract much attention. When the doctor
returned to the U.S.A. in February 1863, he was depressed with the thought
that the Truth would "go to the wall" in Britain.
In America once again, the doctor continued the writing of his exposi­
tion of the Apocalypse ("EUREKA"). Another form of communication
5
was now made through the English-produced monthly magazine "THE
AMBASSADOR", which was commenced in 1864 by Robert Roberts,
who had been encouraged to publish it by Doctor Thomas. Previously
Robert Roberts had written from Scotland in 1856 to the doctor, express­
ing appreciation for the work of his older brother in Christ, whom at that
time he had not personally met. Robert Roberts soon proved to be a
remarkable and energetic supporter of Doctor Thomas and a great rallier
to the Truth.
In the United States, civil war had commenced. The conflict was between
the Northern Federal Government with Washington as its capital, led by
President Abraham Lincoln, and the newly-formed Confederate States of
America, with its capital in Richmond, Virginia, which had seceded from
the U nion in the spring of 1861. It was not in the first sense a war over negro
slavery. Lincoln's reiterated reason for war was to preserve the Union;
therefore, it was a conflict against Secession, for the Republican party
(Lincoln's) in 1861 had pledged themselves to prohibit only the expansion
of slavery.
The brethren of Doctor Thomas found themselves threatened by the
draft (conscription). Federal law did exempt all who belonged to a denom­
ination conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, on condition of paying a
given sum of money, working in a hospital, or finding a substitute. But
"Thomasite" was no denominational definition. The name "Christadelphians" - meaning Christ's brethren - was then chosen, and first put into
effect in an exemption petition and certificate for a few in Ogle County,
Illinois. The procedure was subsequently made official by the County, and
the document was then kept in readiness for a draft emergency. The doctor
having achieved for the brethren this safeguard from the Federal Govern­
ment, then wrote to the brethren in the south, sending a copy of the petition
so that they likewise might be prepared against the demands of the Confed­
erate authorities.
On finishing the last volume of "EUREKA" in 1868, Doctor Thomas
accepted an invitation from many in Britain to visit for a third time.
Arriving with his daughter on the 18th of May 1869, he proceeded to
Birmingham, where the Ecclesia had grown into a large community of
believers. From thence he visited and lectured at various other British
cities, namely: Bilsthorpe, Nottingham, Leicester, Tewkesbury, Mumbles,
Swansea, Devonport, London, Maldon, Scarborough, Whitby, Halifax,
Manchester, Edinburgh, Leith, Tranent, Galashiels, Wishaw, Paisley,
Beith, Cumnock, and other places also.
The Truth had not "gone to the wall" - it was flourishing, and Robert
Roberts now at Birmingham was busily and energetically producing the
monthly magazine, "THE AMBASSADOR". It was now suggested that its
name be changed to "THE CHRISTADELPHIAN". The doctor at this
time made certain financial arrangements consolidating and establishing
the brotherhood's publication to ensure its continuing witness.
When Doctor Thomas returned to the United States, he had made up his
mind to change his residence back to his native country; ill health deve­
loped, and he died in New Jersey on the 5th of March 1871, after only a few
days' illness, aged 65 years.
6
SCHISMS
It might be assumed that disunity did not take place until after Doctor
Thomas' decease. But this was not the case, for in 1866 apostasy reared its
head among the believers in Scotland.
THE DOWIEITES IN EDINBURGH 1866
George Dowie of Edinburgh was a persuasive man. While paying lip
service to Christadelphianism he wished to give toleration to erroneous
views on the immortality of the soul, that there is a personal devil, and also
a place of eternal punishment where sinners are kept in torment. Of course,
such views were an absolute challenge to the word of God and to the work
of Doctor Thomas. If toleration had been allowed to extend itself among
the ecclesias, it would have been the ruination of Christadelphia. Robert
Roberts, bolstered by Doctor Thomas, challenged this laxity with a result­
ing declaration of disfellowship from the Dowieites by the Birmingham
Ecclesia, followed by most of the Christadelphian ecclesias.
EDWARD TURNEY 1873
Doctor John Thomas was now dead and Robert Roberts had succeeded
him. Edward Turney was an important member of Christadelphia in this
period, and his failure was in exalting his own opinion on the nature of
Christ. He renounced some of his former Christadelphian beliefs and
moved to spread his ideas throughout the Christadelphian community.
This was an undermining of truth and of the work of the deceased doctor.
The main error propounded was that Jesus Christ was not, as other men,
under the sentence of death because of sin, and that Jesus gave Himself to
the death upon the cross merely as a "substitute" for sinners, to pay a
ransom for them. So the true teaching was passed over, namely: that Jesus
had to struggle against sin which was working in Himself, and in first
overcoming His own fleshly temptations obtained eternal redemption for
Himself and then for His brethren. Turney's erroneous teaching had to be
resisted for it was a denying of the truth concerning the Name of Jesus
Christ. At first Christadelphia was shaken by this trouble, but eventually it
dwindled, as Turney did not retain any great degree of support, although
similar ideas were taught by one Bell, in Australia and A.D. Strickler in the
United States a generation later. Christadelphia declared they would have
no fellowship with the "Clean Flesh of Christ" doctrine or with those who
maintained it.
"PARTIAL INSPIRATION" 1885
This trouble started with one or two influential Christadelphians who
began to propagate their view that the word of God is only partially
inspired. This was an undermining of the clear scriptural declaration that,
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." (II Timothy 3:16) Some
thought it did not matter that a few held this erroneous view, even though
they themselves did not agree with it. The stalwarts along with Robert
Roberts could not accept that the Christadelphian body should allow itself
to be a vehicle for that which would cause doctrinal disunity by allowing
latitude of interpretation concerning which teachings were important and
which could be discarded. Division resulted: those with Robert Roberts
were known as the Temperance Hall Christadelphians; those with the
7
"Partial Inspirationists" became known as Suffolk Street Christadelphians, whose laxity became a by-word.
"NON-RESPONSIBILITY OF
ENLIGHTENED REJECTORS" 1894
J.J. Andrew was the main antagonist of Robert Roberts when the view
was propounded that only those baptized into Christ would be subject to
the judgment of Christ. Of course, Robert Roberts resisted this technical,
unscriptural view: that people could become aware of God's laws and
requirements and yet could flout responsibility thereto by refraining from
baptism. J.J. Andrew did not have much support in Britain, but in North
America it was a different story, for one Thomas Williams took a similar
stance to Andrew and so the numerically strong Advocate group came into
being. It caused a great division between the American and British ecclesias. Ultimately those who followed the J.J. Andrew's view in Britain
joined with the "Partial Inspirationists" who were lax enough to receive
them. The Advocate group in America however, continued in their own
position, holding the view that it did not matter whether its members
believed in "non-responsibility" or otherwise. So came into being the two
positions of the "Amended" and the "Unamended" Statements of Faith Birmingham Temperance Hall demonstrating their staunchness by the
"Amended", and the Advocate their own self-assurance by adhering to the
other; that is, to the Unamended Birmingham Statement of Faith. The
amended statement came about when Robert Roberts arranged a special
meeting for the majority at Birmingham, when new rules for the ecclesia
were drawn up and an addition was made to the Statement of Faith. The
statements, Amended and Unamended, thus became the rallying points of
the two positions. Temperance Hall also reaffirmed in their Statement that
" . . . those who know the revealed will of God . . . obedient and disobedient
will be summoned before His judgment. . . ."
THOMAS WILLIAMS 1900
After the death of Robert Roberts and J.J. Andrew, Thomas Williams
who was the editor of the "CHRISTADELPHIAN ADVOCATE" visited
Christadelphians in England. Temperance Hall however remained aloof.
One of the philosophies circulating among those of the Advocate persua­
sion was defined as follows:
"If it be recognized that Adam brought death upon the entire race
by his sin, that baptism frees men from the permanent power of
death, and that such of the baptised as die will rise through their
relationship to Christ, but that it is possible God may, by His
independent power, raise some others, this would not be con­
sidered a barrier to fellowship."
God's sure declaration through His Son was thus ignored: "He that
believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned (condemned)." (Mark 16:16) How right was Temperance Hall not
to follow the path of re-union.
In time, several attempts were made to effect re-union by an English
section of Christadelphia which was with the Advocate group. But what
8
materialized was that only a minority in Yorkshire who opposed the
adoption of the "Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith" as a condition
of fellowship, and who therefore met separately, joined with certain Lon­
don ecclesias who followed J.J. Andrew. Thomas Williams journeyed from
the United States to these ecclesias, fellowshipped them, and as a result of
his work, twelve ecclesias were gathered together as an English branch of
the Advocate movement in 1903. Their magazine became known as "THE
CHR1STADELPHIAN HERALD" replaced later by the "CHRISTADELPH1AN FELLOW LABOURER".
THE FRATERNAL VISITOR FELLOWSHIP
AND THE ADVOCATES (British Section)
1919-1920
After the Advocate group became established in Britain, those who had
divided from Temperance Hall over "Partial Inspiration" approached
them for the purpose of re-union. Ultimately there was agreement to
amalgamate, as the "Partial Inspirationists" (known as the Fraternal Vis­
itor Fellowship - or Suffolk Street) now accepted the scriptures as being
totally inspired. Both sides were prepared to leave the doctrine of nonresponsibility of enlightened rejectors as an open matter. Attempts for
re-union with the Advocate group in the United States however, failed.
THE 1923 DIVISION - BEREAN
World War I (1914-1918) brought many tests to Christadelphia. There
were some who weakened their stand in the face of conscription and other
war requirements. Others however, stood firm. Within five years after the
Great War there was no means of containing the disparities. For example,
in 1917 a member of Birmingham Temperance Hall had become a special
constable, with the quiet tolerance of leading members. This was in opposi­
tion to the belief from earlier times, when Robert Roberts had written:
"A brother joining the police force . . . would rightly forfeit the
approbation of his fellow-believers
The office . . . involves the
employment of personal violence. In this respect it is on a footing
with the calling of a soldier. . . . "
Then another also joined the force and it was said by some that the
policeman's "use of force is judicial" - it being submitted "that we are to
discriminate between judicial force and personal violence." It is "a defi­
nitely appointed means for the suppression of evil . . . it is moral and
beneficent in result. . . . " The policeman's baton was likened to the father's
rod, and it was contended that the chastisement of the unrighteous within
the city was therefore right. It was not altogether easy to deal with such
misconceptions because other members were working in munition facto­
ries. Furthermore, there was considerable support for those who con­
tended on the behalf of the special constable.
Finally a resolution was passed amending the Statement of Faith in
"Doctrines to be rejected": " . . . That we are at liberty to serve in the Army,
take part in politics, or recover debts by legal coercion" - that we insert alter
the words "in the army," the words "or as police constables." This move
however, did not clear the ecclesia of the views already propounded that to
9
be a police-constable was not incompatible with the law of Christ. The
Birmingham leaders and their supporters however, were not prepared to
deal scripturally with the matter after amending the Statement of Faith.
Indeed the most prominent member had stated some years before that he
did not believe Christ would condemn a brother who belonged to the Royal
Army Medical Corps, although later he denied it. A minority now felt that
the ecclesial failure to recognize and to oppose the participation in violence
of any form, was wrong. These protestors were considerably impeded by
those in position at Birmingham. As ecclesial unrest continued, this minor­
ity organized themselves for the separate breaking of bread, preparing also
a circular called, "OUR APPEAL" - which they distributed at Bir­
mingham, making known the discussions and correspondence into which
they had entered because of their protests. Birmingham leadership was not
pleased, recommending that fellowship be withdrawn from this minority,
as they had "established a separate meeting . . . refusing to submit to the
arrangements preferred by the greater number." The minority's reply was
that they had not "set up a separate meeting" in the "rival and hostile" sense
implied, but were constitutionally standing aside according to ecclesial
rules, pending the public consideration of their reason for separating with a
view to its removal. This was so that they might return to fellowship which
was a constitutional right.
At a special meeting, the resolution of the Birmingham leadership to
withdraw from the minority was rejected by a majority of those who
attended. Those in charge at Birmingham still persisted in their endeavor to
place the minority in the wrong. The protestors became known as the John »
Bright Street Ecclesias with a certain Viner Hall as a prominent member
among them. Mediation was attempted by the Clapham (London) and
Ilford Ecclesias, but this work was not successful. A certain A.T. Jannaway
was then brought in by the Clapham Ecclesia to meet C.C. Walker of
Birmingham, this taking place in December 1921. Then in January 1922,
another meeting between Clapham and Birmingham representatives took
place. This was followed by a Clapham statement that evidence revealed
both sides at Birmingham had been unbrotherly and provocative in their
language.
In February 1922 Clapham communicated with Birmingham their inten­
tion of fellowshipping both sides as there was no valid reason for this
dispute at Birmingham to continue.
In June 1922 Birmingham Temperance Hall attempted to be reconciled
with John Bright Street (the minority), suggesting a meeting to this end.
John Bright Street obstructed this motion on the grounds that Birmingham
Temperance Hall had wrongly dealt with them, although they were satis­
fied that the original trouble had been rectified. The matter dragged on,
and although John Bright Street was seen to be at fault, so also were the
Birmingham Temperance Hall leaders who, it was felt, had an implacable
attitude toward John Bright Street.
A.T. Jannaway wrote of these views about the continuing trouble in
January 1923, also referring to other anxieties affecting the ecclesias that
were not directly connected with the Birmingham trouble. Some were
critical of this work, fearing more trouble would be caused if these views
were circulated. As a result of this continuing disagreement, these com10
ments were sent only to the Birmingham leaders rather than to the rank and
file.
The Birmingham leadership then arranged for a special meeting with
their counterparts at Clapham after which they offered the following
statement:
"In order to secure peace, and for the sake of the brotherhood, we
are prepared to recommend our ecclesia to cancel unconditionally
their withdrawal from John Bright Street brethren, provided the
John Bright Street brethren unconditionally and without reserva­
tion withdraw their resignations which preceded our withdrawal.
We make this suggestion also provided the Clapham brethren will
support this effort to bring about a settlement of the dispute."
The John Bright Street brethren, of course, did not feel that they had done
wrong in their original stand over those serving in the Police Force, and
A.T. Jannaway was of the conviction that the Birmingham offer was
deviously sidestepping the real original issue. Eventually he prepared a
resolution for the Clapham managing brethren proposing the withdrawal
of fellowship from the Birmingham Temperance Hall Ecclesia because of
their unfaithfulness to the commands of Christ, unless they altered their
views. In the voting at Clapham a considerable majority supported him.
The belief was expressed that the "Constitution" of Birmingham Temper­
ance Hall Ecclesia had become more important than God's word in those
continuing difficulties. Clapham's view was expressed as follows:
". . . if under existing conditions, we continue in fellowship with
the Temperance Hall, we commit ourselves to the toleration of this
position - that it is not a sin to use force in the service of the
Sin-powers of the world; that it is not wrong to fellowship brethren
who join the constabulary; and that we sanction the exclusion
from fellowship of faithful brethren and sisters, whose only fault is
that of protesting against the unscriptural proceedings of the
Temperance Hall Arranging Brethren."
At a meeting on the 23rd of April 1923, a large majority at Clapham
determined to make their stand against the conditional requirements made
by Birmingham for reconciliation with John Bright Street, and also against
the indecision of Birmingham in not being completely forthright against
work in the Police Force and even in the Noncombatant Armed Forces. A
minority who could not agree left Clapham at this time.
Later Birmingham Temperance Hall by resolution on May 1st 1924,
stated:
"That in future we will receive only those who restrict their fellow­
ship to brethren and sisters of the Temperance Hall fellowship."
Temperance Hall required a declaration supporting this resolution by July
31 st, 1924, although silence would be construed as support. Some ecclesias
made a request for further information. One of the answers given was, "it
was entirely incompatible for a brother of Christ to be a constable", but it
was not to be regarded as a sin, for, "if Paul baptised a policeman I
11
personally would not take the responsibility of disfellowshipping one."
Nevertheless it was acknowledged that a fully enlightened Christadelphian would not join a police force.
Those not satisfied wrote to Birmingham Temperance Hall Arranging
Brethren expressing how they felt. The reply from Birmingham indicated
they were not prepared to take any other action to effect a clearing. Ecclesias
who were disturbed at this attitude then determined to consolidate them­
selves against what they saw as unfaithfulness and open unrighteousness in
Temperance Hall. So came into being the Berean Christadelphians - a
mainstay of which was the Clapham majority in London.
The leadership of Temperance Hall closed any further discussion with
the Bereans as follows:
"We as an Executive are not open to re-discuss the question you
raise, neither the conversations between individual brethren. Our
final word was issued in the pamphlet "BIRMINGHAM FRIC­
TIONS 1917-1923." Since then we have closed the matter."
CLEAN FLESH HERESY AUSTRALIA AND AMERICA
While the troubles over constabulary service etc. were going on in
Britain, "clean flesh" apostasy was rampant elsewhere. The doctrine was
propagated that Christ was "clean" in the flesh (overlooking how necessary
it was for a sacrificial offering to be made for Him at His birth). Also it was
claimed that Jesus did not die for Himself on the cross, but as a sacrificial
substitute for the sins of His brethren and sisters, a ransom for the debt of
all sin. Thus Hebrews 9:12 concerning His entering into the holy place by
His own blood, ". . . having obtained eternal redemption," was placed at
one side. Also Hebrews 5:8, ". . . yet learned He obedience by the things
which He suffered
A certain George Cornish of Melbourne, Australia had propounded this
theory even from the closing years of the nineteenth century. Later John
Bell of Sydney continued to proclaim the "clean flesh" theory. It caused
division, one faction fellowshipping Temperance Hall and the other fellowshipping the Fraternal Visitor, that is, Suffolk Street. The group with
Suffolk Street was identified by their magazine, "THE SHIELD" edited by
John Bell. Birmingham however, did not take a scrupulous stand against
"THE SHIELD"; as a result some Australian Christadelphians declared
themselves for "the Berean" position, opposing "clean flesh".
A leading upholder of the "clean flesh" heresy in the United States was
Allen D. Strickler of Buffalo, New York. The Buffalo Ecclesia divided over
this man's heresy and the trouble spread through the United States and into
Canada. Strickler had a considerable amount of support in America but
not in Britain. A certain William Smallwood of Toronto attempted to
oppose Stickler's teachings, but amazingly Birmingham Temperance Hall
fellowshipped both sides for a number of years, and after Strickler's death
Birmingham Temperance Hall editor wrote:
"In Canada and the U.S.A. there is much trouble and confusion
12
over brother A.D. Strickler's unhappy pamphlets, which he wrote,
as he says, with a sincere desire to do the Truth service before he
passed off the scene. But, alas, it has been a dis-service indeed."
Birmingham's editor C.C. Walker therefore, influenced many in America
to tolerate "the vagueness of a very old brother who, when questioned, is
found to be sound in the faith" (namely A.D. Strickler). Many others,
however, especially some who had been caused hurt and damage by
Strickler's teachings, determined to withdraw from Temperance Hall
because of their excusing and supporting wrong. From among them came
the remark that Strickler was "the biggest theological acrobat that had ever
entered the Christadelphian arena". This group declared ". . . we will not
fellowship brother C.C. Walker, nor the Birmingham Temperance Hall
Ecclesia, nor any associated ecclesias until they disfellowship brother A.D.
Strickler, and those who believe and fellowship his errors". They stated
they would support the British Berean Ecclesias and so became the Berean
representatives in the United States and Canada. After the death of
Strickler in 1939, Temperance Hall sought for re-union with these Ameri­
cans and was largely successful for many returned to them from 1950 on.
A.T. JANNAWAY & THE CHRISTADELPHIAN
FAMILY JOURNAL - BIJOU HALL
The "BEREAN C H R I S T A D E L P H I A N " was the important
publication for the Clapham group of ecclesias. However, A.T. Jannaway
decided to produce another magazine in conjunction with an E.W.
Browne, and this was called "THE CHRISTADELPHIAN FAMILY
JOURNAL". This publication began to speak on the subject of divorce in
November 1924. Later, towards the end of 1925 F.G. Jannaway (A.T.'s
brother) along with G.H. Denney, began to go into the same subject. A.T.
Jannaway's stance was that divorce was permissible on the grounds of
adultery, for then he claimed, divorce did not go against scriptural prin­
ciple. He quoted Robert Roberts' writings for support. It was to be
expected he would be resisted; however, A.H. Jannaway (the brother of
F.G. and A.T.) suggested, "That the question of divorce should be left as
previously an open question, and should such a case arise it should be dealt
with on its merits." He was opposed by F.C. Ford of Clapham who said:
" . . . suing at law for the enforcement of any right whatsoever is to
be shunned by a servant of Christ . . . we refuse to discuss the
question of Divorce (now agitating the ecclesias) as being a thing
which should not be so much as named among us . . .".
Ford was supported by a fairly large majority. So A.T. Jannaway and those
with him left Clapham and established themselves at Bijou Hall, Clapham
Common, as a separate ecclesia. W.J. Elston of Nottingham, a member of
the Bereans, wrote in May 1926, showing that going to law for any cause
was wrong, declaring also that marriage as defined by the Law of Christ,
was not to be dissolved for Jesus had said, "What therefore God hath
joined together let no man put asunder." Furthermore, the exceptive
reference of Matthew 5:31-32 referring to the wife put away for fornication,
did not allow for divorce by law or a later re-marriage. A.T. Jannaway
wrote challenging W.J. Elston's interpretation, and certain at Ilford went
even further, and in the process of deliberating on A.T. Jannaway's behalf
13
gave the appearance of allowing polygamy in special circumstances if
national law sanctioned it. Some of A.T. Jannaway's own supporters
objected to this, and Robert Roberts was quoted:
"Polygamy is opposed to the principles of Paul, who, in all his
writings only recognizes "one wife". (Titus 1:6, Eph. 5:31,33,1 Cor.
7:2, 12-27) This is sufficient for us, without discussing the case of
the ancients, who lived under a different order of things. We are
subject to Paul as the appointed teacher of the Gentiles . . . "
Ilford reacted by saying it was wrong to introduce the subject of polygamy
as a reason for withdrawal of fellowship. It was their conviction that Christ
and the apostles did not forbid polygamy except for bishops and deacons.
A.T. Jannaway reacted by resolution saying that ". . . Bijou Hall regards
polygamy to be contrary to the teaching of Christ and the apostles, and
consequently, refuse the fellowship of any who cannot believe t h i s . . . " The
Ilford faction therefore, broke away and became known as "The Ecclesia of
God", the "Polygamy Group" or later as the "Seventy Group" and is still
existing as a separate entity, but having similarities with Bereans.
DIVORCE QUESTION 1940 DAWN CHRISTADELPHIAN
The trouble over divorce at this later time really had commenced in Los
Angeles, California. A sister who had divorced her husband because of his
unfaithfulness was withdrawn from, although it was recognized that she
had been the innocent party in the divorce. Later she met a man who
became a Christadelphian. They were married, but he was then withdrawn
from for marrying a divorced person. They attended ecclesial meetings for
eleven years but not to "break bread". Eventually they made a plea for the
renewal of fellowship in September 1938, which by majority vote of the
Arranging Brethren was granted. After five months they were withdrawn
from again, it being stated that their expressing regret for their marriage
while continuing to live together, set aside the scriptural principle relating
to divorce. Some members of the Los Angeles Ecclesia objected to the
action against them and considerable dispute followed, the ecclesia divid­
ing into several groups. Clapham London Ecclesia then entered into the
controversy publishing a statement emphasizing that suing at law was
scripturally wrong and that divorce under any circumstance was wrong by
New Testament principle. But some sympathized with the couple saying
that although they agreed divorce was wrong, now since the couple had
expressed repentance they should be allowed to resume fellowship without
being required to part from each other. The result was division and the
majority changed their name to Dawn Christadelphian, still maintaining
complete opposition to divorce within the ecclesia.
REUNION 1957
Central Christadelphia (Temperance Hall) re-united with Suffolk Street
(Fraternal Visitor) in 1957. C.C. Walker, the leader of Temperance Hall
had declared in 1931:
"You will be in no danger of obeying the Truth;* [i.e. have no
♦Publisher's clarification for U.S. usage.
14
problem concerning obedience to the Truth]; in the fellowship of
"The Christadelphian"and the Birmingham Ecclesia. Even should
this ecclesia be dead as the Church in Sardis, if you walk worthily
you will be saved. (Revelation 3:4)"
By 1957 Temperance Hall, when they became allied with Suffolk Street,
said they were determined never to have another division. But some were
dismayed by this because it was so contrary to original Christadelphian
principles. These broke away calling themselves "The Old Paths Christadelphians". Their view was expressed as follows:
" . . . Ecclesias separated for generations on fundamental doctrinal
issues, were brought together on a majority vote of individual
Ecclesias, by accommodation over Statements of Faith and
adjustments of terminology to enable those of opposing views to
subscribe to the modified or ambiguous wording."
By 1958 re-union, in large part, was also achieved with the Australian
connection of Suffolk Street by John Carter of Birmingham Temperance
Hall (Central). Nevertheless some Australians would not participate in the
agreement and are still known as "THE SHIELD" (John Bell's magazine)
and continue to uphold Bell's "clean flesh" views. There were also some
who would not accept the compromise evident in the re-union with Bir­
mingham Central (Temperance Hall), these joined with the "Old Paths"
Christadelphian Ecclesia.
1933 THE PEMBERTON TROUBLE
In 1933 a resolution was passed by majority vote in England at Pemberton, Lancashire, Berean Ecclesia, that sisters be permitted to "give helpful
suggestions at business meetings and also to ask questions at the Bible
Class through the medium of paper". A minority resisted, but F.G. Jannaway at Clapham had already written his advice on January 3rd, 1933:
" . . . I Corinthians 14:34... undoubtedly forbids a sister exhorting
or lecturing; but wisdom is profitable to direct so in a small
meeting, for instance, where a wise sister saw that the brethren
were about to make an unwise move, she would be fully justified in
quietly suggesting a postponement, in order to give an opportunity
for further consideration. Be careful to give extremists a wide berth
. . . Should any brother insist on airing his views; or should any
sister insist on speaking generally at Ecclesial meetings, such
would have to be dealt with under the interdict of 2 Thess. 3:6".
The trouble grew because some could not accept that sisters should be
pushed forward in this way. In 1904 in the Christadelphian magazine it had
been said, ". . . no woman worth the name of a sister would insist on
breaking silence in face of the apostolic writing. In a Bible class, a sister
might put questions through a brother, or in writing. Paul's regulation was
not intended to discourage women, but to eliminate the disorders that were
current in the Corinthian ecclesia. It requires careful handling nowadays".
Of course it was evident that Pemberton was going further than this.
15
The minority at Pemberton withdrew when they were unable to persuade
the majority to rescind their resolution, and they then sought for the help of
F.G. Jannaway who replied he had nothing further to say to his letter of
January 3rd. The Pemberton minority, as a result, turned to W. J. Elston of
the Nottingham Ecclesia for help. Nottingham Ecclesia after enquiry told
the Pemberton majority that unless they changed, Nottingham would
withdraw its fellowship, and on not receiving a response did withdraw from
Pemberton majority in April 1933, notifying "THE BEREAN CHRIS­
TADELPHIAN" of the action they had taken, so that the ecclesias could
be informed through the magazine of the action taken. This notification,
however, was not published by the Berean editors.
The hesitation of Clapham disturbed Nottingham, and so on May 21st
1933, a decision was announced to their members refusing association with
Clapham Ecclesia. This was ratified by the Nottingham Ecclesia a few
weeks later, in June. One, J.B. Strawson of Nottingham objected that this
action was precipitate, and so he and a few others were separated from the
main Nottingham assembly. Later, under pressure from Clapham, the
Pemberton majority did rescind their resolution as follows:
". . . Whatever may have been our position in the past, and
whatever ideas may have been advanced in the interviews with
brethren at any time, we now believe that the Scriptural command
of the Apostle Paul forbids sisters speaking in the mixed assem­
blies of the Saints, including Business Meetings and Bible Classes,
but questions and suggestions may be submitted through a
brother, and this we are prepared to uphold."
Clapham was now apparently satisfied, but those who had labored
against the error looked for an expression of repentance, but this was not
forthcoming.
In August 1933 Pemberton added to their statement:
"We wish to add to our statement of June 28th, which has been
sent to all the ecclesias in fellowship, that we wholeheartedly
accept and endorse the position set forth by the editors of the
Berean in their Editorial remarks in July issue".
In the meantime the minority at Pemberton rejoined with the majority on
July 16th. The expression of repentance, however, was not evident; and as
Clapham was resistant to the matter going any further, division took place
between Nottingham Ecclesia (and those belonging with them in other
places) and the Berean Christadelphians.
Nottingham then made additions to the Statement of Faith:
"We repudiate the teaching that sins may be divided into two
categories, the one containing those requiring withdrawal, and the
other containing those which may be condoned.
We repudiate the teaching that those on the right side of Christ will
be selected from all the sects of religion which bear the name
"Christadelphian". The name Christadelphian having no more
16
value than the name "Christian" where there is departure from The
Faith.
We believe the command that sisters must be silent in the Ecclesia
is clear and definite, and to nullify this command by using slips of
paper, or a brother, to express their views in the Ecclesia, is a
wicked attempt to make void the command.
We uphold the divine precept that it is dishonoring for a woman to
be shorn of her hair.
We uphold the Law of Christ which forbids the yoking with
unbelievers and we believe Partnerships, Membership of Trade
Unions and Co-operative Societies to be such a yoking and there­
fore forbidden.
That for all persistent disobedience to divine commands, we are
commanded to withdraw, and that withdrawal means that the
fraternal salutation must be withheld, and that the offenders must
be, to the true Ecclesia, as the outside Gentile.
We repudiate the teaching that God sent an Angel to tempt Christ
to sin; believing that Christ was tempted of his own natural desires
in the same way that His brethren are tempted".
The repudiation of the error that an "Angel tempted Christ to sin" was
aimed at those who regard Robert Roberts' writings to an unwarrantable
degree. Robert Roberts had written on the subject of Christ's temptation in
the wilderness, "that the whole narrative shows it was brought to bear by an
external tempter - a person". Some, as far away as Australia, believed this
person was an Angel from God, disregarding James 1:13, "Let no man say
when he is tempted, I am tempted of God . . . "
The name "Christadelphian" was then dropped by Nottingham (and
those associated with it) as having lost its meaning, just as has the word
"Christian". These however continued in the faith of Doctor John Thomas
and Robert Roberts.
Previously in 1927 F.G. Jannaway of Clapham had written:
"... In those far off days, to withdraw from, or be withdrawn from
that community whose Headquarters were in Birmingham, was, in
the mind of the writer, to be outside the One Body of Christ. Now,
however, there are at least twelve Fraternities calling themselves
Christadelphian, and yet each refusing to fellowship the other
eleven. This division of the original body has led me to take a wider
view than I did in 1875, for I am convinced it is more than possible
that those on the 'right hand' in the Day of Judgment, will include
some from each of the said divisions, notwithstanding their pres­
ent separation."
It was because of this that Nottingham added to the Statement of Faith,
"we repudiate the teaching that those on the right side of Christ will be
selected from all the sects of religion which bear the name
"Christadelphian".
17
CONCLUSION
It is obvious from the foregoing there has been a change of view, for F.G.
Jannaway admits it as quoted. The question is, "Can the Table of the Lord
be divided?" The very description of the bread and the wine is of commun­
ion (common union). "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for
we are all partakers of that one bread." (I Corinthians 10:17) The Spirit
plainly declares ". .. ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the
table of devils." (I Cor. 10:21)
Who is it that causes disunity? Surely it is those who decline from The
Truth, whose apostasy already evidenced itself before withdrawal. "They
went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they
would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might
be made manifest that they were not all of us." (I John 2:19) It is no use
philosophizing that minorities "went out"; those who spiritually depart "go
out" through their own declension even though they be majorities.
Division has been a continuing feature throughout man's history,
whether politically or religiously. When men, after a period of disunity,
attempt to unite, this endeavor results in confederacy. But it is not of God.
"Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A
confederacy . . ." (Isaiah 8:12) Division was evident soon after Christ's
ministry. The preserved record shows distinctly that not only was there
schism, but also that efforts to re-unite were neither attempted nor advised.
Hymenaeus and Philetus were prominent members with a following. But
the Spirit says the word of such people "will eat as doth a canker; Who
concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already;
and overthrow the faith of some. "(II Timothy 2:18) Would the Spirit have
allowed "the progeny" of such to return to the true Ecclesia en-bloc?
The ecclesia in Ephesus was told, "Remember therefore from whence
thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto
thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou
repent." (Revelation 2:5) Would the Spirit have found re-union with this
Ecclesia acceptable at a later time? The candlestick was removed for failing
to repent; would the successors of the unrepentant be given the candlestick
back?
Christadelphian history should warn all present day Christadelphians
that their tangled situation is a Christendom in miniature. A bringing
together of all the factions under one banner may result in a considerable
"political" strengthening through the increase of numbers, but to what end
if it is not of the Spirit? Surely it can be nothing more than a shadow of the
world ecumenical movement which is also growing as divinely predicted.
Those who publish this outline, The Remnant of Christ's Ecclesia,
believe they support the Truth as embraced by Doctor John Thomas and
Robert Roberts, but Christadelphian has become merely a name for a
group of discordant factions. The Remnant is no longer identified by that
name, for Christadelphia has lost the spirit of its founders and the Truth of
God, which they upheld.
18
In the belief that the return of the Lord Jesus is near, this outline has been
written in hopes that it will arouse any who are concerned about the laxity
and falling away from the Truth in the Christadelphian body to a realiza­
tion of their responsibility to heed the divine command:
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith
the Lord . . . and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and
daughters . . ." II Corinthians 6:17-18.
19
The following articles are available, at no cost, to any who are interested:
Doctrine of Fellowship
The Lord's Table and Fellowship
A Few Names Even In Sardis
A Timely Question (Divorce)
The Remnant Magazine (Monthly)
20
A HISTORY OF TRUTH VERSUS APOSTASY
TRUTH
APOSTASY
1848 Baptized Believers
(Dr. John Thomas)
1864 Christadelphian
name adopted.
Immortal Soul,
Personal Devil, Doc­
trine of Fellowship
denied.
1873 Christadelphian . . .
now known as Tem­
perance Hall
Ed. Turney
Clean Flesh.
1885 Christadelphian, ..
Temperance Hall
Suffolk St.
Parial Inspiration and
refusal to withdrawn
from this heresy.
1894 Christadelphian, ..
Temperance Hall
Advocate
Non-Responsibility of
Enlightened Rejectors did not believe in
"withdrawal".
1923 Berean Christa­
delphian
1926 Berean Christa- . . .
delphian
(later Central)
Special Constabulary,
voting, taking oaths,
clean flesh.
Bijou Hall
Divorce permissible.
1933 Ecclesia of Christ .
(the name Christadel­
phian lost its distinc­
tion and meaning).
1954 Remnant of
Christ's Ecclesia
Salvation possible in
all sects of Christadelphians, sisters speak­
ing.
Ecclesia of
Christ
Nicolaitanism, work
condemned but not
worker.