A brother of the NASU committee writes us to object of comments that we included in the article “Burning Questions” that appeared in last month’s version of our web site and may be accessed from the ARCHIVES page. We had made the statement to the effect that the NASU wants us of the Unamended community to accept the BASF as “representing a true and common definition of the One Faith”. The correspondent objects to this statement and contends that the NASU document does no such thing. We contend that by accepting the NASU that we would in fact be recognizing the Amended Statement of Faith (BASF) as a valid outline of the Truth (along with accepting the BUSF), and that to do such thing is unacceptable if the Unamended position is to be maintained.
We have made the following correspondence available so that those interested might see open argument concerning this matter, which then opens up to other issues surrounding the NASU document. The writer who took offense to our comments and questions our “integrity and honesty” had requested that this correspondence remain private. But considering the serious implications of these issues and that nothing personal in nature is addressed in this correspondence, along with the fact that our entire ecclesia position was brought into the argument we feel that this information is to be shared and may be of help to others who have questions on these very matters. During the early days of the Christadelphian Advocate Bro Williams would print extensive correspondence between himself and dissenters (such as what follows) that dealt with controversial matters as to keep the Household informed. So we felt that providing such information is not without precedent. Sometimes names would be withheld other times they would not. In this case we have chosen to withhold the name of the one who has questioned us on our position. We could have only provided selected quotes but this could have had an affect on the proper context of the arguments being made.
INITIAL MESSAGE:
Dear Brother Aaron,
We all believe in our causes and we
are right to speak up for them. However, it is incumbent on us - as brethren of
our Lord and saviour - to do so with integrity and honesty. Otherwise we could
find ourselves amongst those who would sow discord.
I would suggest that you review your
quote below and consider its merits in terms of honesty and integrity.
[And the NASU
wants us of the Unamended community to accept the BASF as “representing a true
and common definition of the One Faith”? (NASU, p. 6) And also wishes us
to concede that world-wide inter-ecclessial fellowship will continue to be
based upon the BASF? Considering the
“absurdity” of the Amendment that characterizes the BASF would not the BUSF
then be the only appropriate and acceptable basis for unity?
] - A. Thomas
The NASU does not want us to
accept the BASF as representing a true and common definition of the one faith.
The NASU doesn't say that, and you have not only inferred it, you have
categorically stated it as a fact. The fact that you have cited a portion of
page 6 in parentheses doesn't excuse the falsehood, it heightens it; as it
indicates that you had it in hand when you wrote the quote above.
As you know, the NASU says:
It is understood and agreed that the
doctrines to be believed and taught by us are the first priciples of the One Faith
as revealed in the scriptures. The two principle
statements of faith, The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF) and the
Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith (BUSF), as set out herein,
(including the Doctrines to be Rejected and the Commandments of
Christ) understood as expressed in the North American Statement of
Understanding (including its Clarification Statements on Responsibility
and Fellowship) represent a true and common definition of the One
Faith.
Aaron, if you argue that your quote
is justified because the statement above includes the BASF,
then it would be equally true to say:
[And the NASU wants us of the Unamended
community to accept the BUSF as “representing a true and
common definition of the One Faith”? (NASU, p. 6)
because it also includes the BUSF in
the same measure. You chose not to say that, however.
I (and numerous others) have worked
very hard to get the treatment of the BUSF that is in the NASU. Your
misrepresentation diminishes that work and is hurtful to me (and likely others
as well - if they saw your quote). I feel compelled scripturally to
take up this offence directly with you in the spirit of Matthew 18.
This email is a private
communication between you and I alone, as we have had previous correspondence
and it has been ammicable in the past. I know you are concerned about the
brotherhood and I respect that and as such, I am writing in a spirit
of genuine entreaty. Disagree with the NASU by all means, but
please do so honestly and with integrity.
Bro. ---- ------
OUR
REPLY
Bro. ----,
I have read and reread the comments I included with the article "Burning Questions" that you find objection to, and I am taken aback by your questions in regards to my "intellectual and spiritual honesty" in regard to this matter. I believe that I have spoken honestly and accurately, but see it as very unfortunate that you don't perceive it that way. It would probably be best if we take a closer look at this.
Without quoting the entire paragraph once again I will quote the sentences that YOU YOURSELF have put into bold type. You put into a bold and underlined form that, "The two principle statements of faith" which refers to the BASF and the BUSF, "understood as expressed in the North American Statement of Understanding"..."represent a true and common definition of the One Faith."
Now without getting twisted in political jargon let me break this down for you as to what I (and others as well) believe this to say.
1.
The
NASU document recognizes both the BASF and BUSF to
"represent a true and common definition of the One Faith."
This is the NASU's words not mine. I nor anyone else can
deny that the BUSF is mentioned in the NASU, as well as the
BASF, and no attempt has been made to say otherwise or lead individuals to
another conclusion.
2. If the above is
true then an Unamended individual or ecclesia that accepts the NASU
document as a valid expression of faith or basis of
fellowship (already breaking break on the BUSF basis), would
also in fact be recognizing the BASF as a "true
and common definition of the Faith", sense such an
endorsement is found in the NASU document. If I read it correctly I
believe that the NASU stands for the North American
Statement of Understanding. I
would hope that any individual would only endorse such a document if they
themselves also share the same UNDERSTANDING or position.
Unfortunately it is a "Understanding" that is seriously flawed.
3. Whether or not the BUSF is
recognized by the NASU as valid or on an equal footing with the BASF is
not the question here. The problem lies within the
fact that the BASF DOES NOT "represent
a true and common definition of the Faith", but yet it
endorsed as such in the NASU document. One cannot logically
except both at the same time when both Statements are mutually exclusive
of each other.
4.
When I
said, "the NASU wants us of the Unamended
community to accept the BASF as 'representing a true and common definition
of the One Faith", why would I make mention of the
NASU's endorsement of the BUSF as well? Again, the problem does
not lie in the NASU's endorsement of the BUSF but its included endorsement of
the BASF. And, if you noticed in my comment I used
the term "us" twice. This indicates those to whom this
comment was addressed, which is others within the Unamended
Community - those who already have a copy of the NASU document and
are fully aware of what the document states. The NASU can endorse the
BUSF until the "cows come home" but as long as it also endorses the
BASF then this is wherein the problem lies and the very problem that I was
calling attention to in connection to Bro. Williams' comments on the matter as
referring to the Amendment as an "absurdity". Do you
wish to be found endorsing an absurdity? I surely do not and that is
where my concern rests.
5. To try to make this even more clear: If I would have stated "that the NASU accepts both the BASF and the BUSF as valid " the problem still rests with the fact that the NASU recognizes the BASF as acceptable. If the NASU committee wishes us of the Unamended community to accept the NASU document as a viable solution for "unity" then you are in a very real sense asking us to endorse what is written in the Statement. And what in fact is found in the Statement is an endorsement of the BASF. If you deny that fact then it is clear that NASU effort is something far more devious and manipulative in nature then the Unamended Community has ever faced- by putting into writing one thing but yet telling us that it means something else!
I said and will continue to say that "the NASU wants us of the Unamended community to accept the BASF as 'representing a true and common definition of the One Faith'". This is an accurate assessment based upon what you all put into writing. Maybe it is not the intention of the framers of the document for it to be understood this way but this is what it appears to say. I really find it difficult how you or anyone else could admit anything otherwise. If the NASU committee wishes Unamended ecclesias to accept the NASU document as a basis for unity, then by going along with it we would in fact be recognizing the BASF as having equal footing with the BUSF based upon the statement that they both are considered by the NASU document as to "represent a true and common definition of the One Faith." This is absolutely unacceptable and the point that was being made. To further strengthen my conviction as to my observation are the comments made in the very next paragraph (NASU, p.6) in regards to the fact that "it is recognized that the touchstone for inter-ecclesial fellowship between North American ecclesias and Christadelphians ecclesias worldwide is the BASF." This should make one wonder if the BUSF would even be considered on equal footing with the BASF once everything was said and done. Really makes me wonder about "intellectual and spiritual honesty". Is there an attempt being made here to fool the Unamended community? Have you all been fooling yourselves?
Now, if the NASU withdraws any mention or endorsement of the BASF in its "Understanding" and endorses the BUSF as the only basis for unity and inter-ecclesial fellowship then I will gladly retract my statement that you find objection to. But until then I see that I have no choice but to continue to say what I have been saying.
You hypothetically mention in your letter, "if you argue that your quote is justified because the statement above includes the BASF, then it would be equally true to say: And the NASU wants us of the Unamended community to accept the BUSF as 'representing a true and common definition of the One Faith' ?" I would suppose there is some truth to that, but that is not the problem or issue that I was addressing. You seem to pretend that since you have included the BUSF in the statement that you have created some kind of legitimate loophole for yourselves in order to be free of criticism. ONCE AGAIN, The problem is not with the NASU's endorsement of the BUSF but with its included endorsement of the BASF. Let's try to keep that clear, remembering that the reality of the matter is that you cannot accept both Statements as valid at the same time. This is the problem that page 6 (1st paragraph) creates for itself. It is like saying "I accept both Evolution and Creationism as valid explanations of the Earth's beginnings." As a Creationist, which belief do you think I am going to take issue with if someone stated such a thing? Likewise, as an Unamended individual, which Statement of Faith do you think I am going to point out as error? No matter how hard you all try to make two different belief systems appear to be one, the reality of the situation will always come back on you.
One final thing, you say "I (and numerous others) have worked very hard to get the treatment of the BUSF that is in the NASU." Quite frankly, no matter how hard or sincerely you all have worked the result still falls seriously short. The NASU committee does not represent this ecclesia as well as many other ecclesias in the Unamended community. I do not recall that there ever was a vote or open forum that sanctioned the effort like the Continental Reunion efforts of the past. So what ever work has been done in this regard has not been done on behalf of the Unamended Community as a whole. You say that my "misrepresentations diminish that work". No Bro. Doug, the "work" has diminished and compromised the Truth, which has been and is currently being clearly demonstrated by other well seasoned and skillful brethren. Anything I have said is only a confirmation of what has been recently mentioned or already has been stated and restated over the past 100 years. Call into question my "intellectual and Spiritual honesty" if you wish, but this will do nothing to remove the problems that are inherit in the NASU effort and the difficulties and unrest that the NASU has created in the Unamended community. Attempts to call into question or discredit my character will not change that fact.
I have said enough for now.
Sincerely yours in the Master's Service,
Aaron Thomas
Aaron,
M' thinks ye doth protest too much.
Your voluminous reply does not address the point. As I pointed out in my email and you re-iterated in yours, the underlined and highlighted portion of the NASU says: "The two principle statements of faith ... understood as expressed in the North American Statement of Understanding...represent a true and common definition of the One Faith."
This indicates clearly what the NASU is all about. Both statements are there with the NASU, understood as expressed in the North American Statement of Understanding
The NASU is the understanding that reconciles the differences in the communities by setting out common expressions of understanding. So it is the NASU that you should argue against. The only difference in the BASF and the BUSF is the RR clause. Some have argued that there are other differences (although they appear nowhere in the statements). The NASU deals with these perceived differences in the 4 sections and ultimately deals with the RR section as well. Clearly the BASF doesn't go into these things, so to characterize the NASU as "[wanting] us of the Unamended community to accept the BASF..." is patently false - still - in spite of your protestations.
The NASU itself is the proposed representation of "a true and common definition of the One Faith" - not the BASF alone any more than the BUSF alone (as you have graciously acknowledged). This is what the NASU says. Therefore, if you have an argument, again, it is with the NASU.
You seem to acknowledge that (albeit not quite as graciously) below:
No Bro. Doug, the "work" has diminished and compromised the Truth, which has been and is currently being clearly demonstrated by other well seasoned and skillful brethren.
Obviously, we don't feel we have diminished or compromised the Truth in any way in the NASU. Let me also assure you that no such thing has been "clearly demonstrated" by other well seasoned and skillful brethren. Most of the feedback we have received in in the form of brethren suggesting that the "Amended really believe X, how does the NASU deal with that?" This sort of question doesn't question the viability of the NASU, it ignores what the NASU says the Amended are saying altogether - and sets up a straw man that they then ask us to account for. Generally, those taking this approach avoid the opportunity to hear from us directly at all costs and seem to want to make their observations and pronouncements without the benefit of having gone through the NASU in full context with those involved in drafting it. What about you and your ecclesia? You have made a pronouncement without having gone through a meeting with the NASU people directly. Is that fair? Are you willing to hear from us? We will come to your ecclesia at our expense if you are. You can invite whoever you want to attend.
In the article you put out that I responded to, Bro. Williams was defending against those who did exactly the same thing! They were drawing conclusions without hearing the whole context. They undoubtedly had the writings of Andrew in their possession for the most part - as you have the NASU in your possession. (Some would have taken more time to look at it than others - true to life). Williams however, felt compelled to be there to give them the benefit of the whole context which can make all the difference in the world - as your article shows.
Aaron, sometimes it is hard to be objective and passionate at the same time. However, it is critically important that we do so. I can see now (by your reply) that you may not have been consciously deceitful in your quote, but perhaps unable to see what was actually written. Fair enough. We all do that from time to time. I hope you can see what the NASU quote actually says with this explanation.
Further, I hope that you and your ecclesia take advantage of our offer to come to your ecclesia and get the whole story from us, with context and explanation. After having done that, you will be able to speak out passionately and credibly about the problems you have with the NASU. The optional route of answering a matter before hearing it - all of it - (as with your article) is what you are left with.
Brother ---- ------
PS Please, if you feel the NASU is in error, show me where and in due course (this sometimes takes a while) I will answer you. Start at the first section. Where does the NASU contradict the scriptures or the BUSF? Where in the second section? etc.
Bro. ----,
You refer
to my answer to you as a "voluminous reply" that "does not
address the point." I prefer to be thorough in my responses to
questions and "the point" was indeed addressed over and over
again. The fact of the matter remains that even though you and I clearly
have a different take on the implications as to what your document states (p.6,
paragraph one), the wording and included context of the following
paragraph certainly indicates an acceptance - or let's use other related
words to hopefully clarify the situation - indicates a recognition
or tolerance of the validity of the BASF. Remember, the
second paragraph continues to state that "it is recognized that the
touchstone for inter-ecclesial fellowship between North American ecclesias and
Christadelphian ecclesias worldwide is the BASF."
According to my Webster's Dictionary the word "touchstone" is defined
as: "a test or criterion for determining the quality or
genuineness of a thing" and the synonym is listed
as "STANDARD". Now since what I
read in the NASU document recognizes the BASF as the
"touchstone" or "STANDARD" of "worldwide"
fellowship then it seems very clear that no matter what amount of clever
wording you have all attempted to produce the final "test or criterion for
determining the quality or genuineness" of fellowship is still the
BASF. It is the "Amendment" that has and continues to be (among
other serious issues) a barrier to fellowship. It is the
"Amendment" as an official representation of the Central Fellowship's
position as it is worded that it is in violation of the Gospel
Truth. I would have hoped that you would have gotten that much from
Bro. Williams' article besides your apparent distraction to my
comments. Until you can satisfactorily answer that problem I think we
have little to talk about in regards to other issues that appear or do not
appear within the NASU document. You are right when you say that it
is "the NASU you should argue against". It is
because these items are found in the NASU that I made mine objections
known in the first place.
You have asked us to listen to what you all are trying to
do. You have tried to sell the NASU to us as acceptable terms for
unity. I am afraid that it is you (the NASU committee) that
has failed to listen. The only viable standard for true unity
that has been expressed by many of the Unamended community is a
rejection of the BASF by the Central Community and a return to the original
basis. The NASU has not accomplished this but has given us
something else to where the BASF is acknowledged on equal footing with the
BUSF and alone is recognized as a "touchstone" for worldwide
fellowship. The only acceptable standard is a return to the original
basis (pre 1898). This has been contended for by the Unamended community
for the past 100 years. It would appear that the NASU is acting like
children who know what the standard is, know they can't change it, so try
to find a way around it. I see this behavior demonstrated on a daily
basis with my own students at school. What part of the word
"no" do you all not understand? This is the answer to
why many of us have come to the decisions we have made. For those
well founded upon the principles of Truth that the Unamended community has
always contended for your attempts have made the decision
to "just say no" extremely easy.
I referred
in my last message to "well seasoned and skillful brethren" who have
clearly demonstrated the fact that the NASU has diminished the Truth. I
take exception to your response that "no such thing has been clearly
demonstrated". You say that you want to hear objections but it
seems that when those objections are raised you fluff them off as
invalid. Bro. Garvey through Doctrinal Insight has more then "clearly
demonstrated" in his efforts the failings of the NASU. Bro.
Wayne Tanner has been very explicit in showing deficiencies in the NASU
document through e-mails that have been circulated throughout the
community. I am also aware of the concerns expressed by Bro.
Joe Arabia., and of the meeting that took place between the Advocate
Committee and the NASU before Bro. Farrar died. I know the San
Antonio ecclesia has expressed concerns to you all in writing. The St.
Louis Ecclesial Statement along with the Clinton, AR Statement also raised
concerns. If you reject these brethren's comments and positions as
demonstrating the problem that is the NASU then I see little benefit in getting
into a long and drawn out rehashing of these issues with you when clearly we do
not agree.
You seem
willing to send a delegation down to our meeting to discuss the issues but
why did the NASU committee pull out of a scheduled meeting with
the San Antonio ecclesia when they requested that it be audio and
video taped? This does not seem conducive to creating an atmosphere
of trust in order to have an open and fair dialogue. I think
it would be safe for you to assume that the NASU committee is
not welcome to come speak to our ecclesia. As I have already
mentioned, you all have made saying "no" very easy. If
this has some bearing on my credibility then so be it. This will not
keep me from speaking passionately about what I believe. I didn't realize
that meeting with the NASU committee caries the keys to deciding who
is credible and who is not. And I am still perplexed as to why we
are expected to give the NASU any serious consideration when it has no
mandate from the Unamended community as a whole to act in the first
place. If it started off as a "grassroots" effort involving
local ecclesias then it makes little sense that the matter is now being
forced on the entire community.
Since this
matter is clearly not resolvable between us and you have dragged our ecclesia
into the subject matter it is clear that this is no longer a personal
issue, so I no feel inhibition against sharing this correspondence with
others who might be intersted. This matter isn't about
personal trespasses but about very big issues that affect us
all. I am sure that you will be disappointed by such a decision but if
you believe what you have stated then you have nothing to be ashamed of as I am
not ashamed of the position that I have taken.
Yours in
the Master's Service,
Aaron
Thomas
Aaron,
Here are a few straightforward questions
for your consideration.
1.
What
are your specific objections to the treatment of doctrine in the NASU?
2.
If you
were in Malawi, Africa and decided you decided (as in, your
choice) to break bread with the Christadelphians there, on what basis would
you reasonably expect to do so? (Please understand that the only basis most
Christadelphians like this know of throughout the world is the BASF. If
you asked them about the BUSF - or the NASU - they would have no idea what
you were talking about).
3.
You
say: "The only acceptable standard is a return to the original basis (pre
1898). This has been contended for by the Unamended community for the past 100
years." What about the NARP which certainly did not make this
recommendation at all? Involved with the NARP were the most senior brethren in
our community. Do you think that these brethren were not the "Unamended
community"?
4.
You
say: "It is the "Amendment" as an official representation of the
Central Fellowship's position as it is worded that it is in violation
of the Gospel Truth." Do you feel that those holding the BASF are fundamentally
wrong? Do you consider them brethren?
Being that our discussion is between
you and I and is about the merits of the NASU, I am mostly interested in
an answer to the first question. (I believe we have covered your quote on
the fellowship issue as much as we are likely to).
Finally, I suggest that we continue
this dialogue in a spirit of civility and try to eschew and suggestion of
hostility. Regardless of one's views of the merits of the NASU, we should be
able to communicate as brethren of our Lord (both of us) without malice or
anger. If it turns out after we have discussed what you feel are the
shortcomings of the NASU document, that you conclude one thing and I another, so
be it. We are called to live in peace. Your article, and even your suggested
remedy of going back the way things were 108 years ago underscores that.
In the One Hope,
---- ------
Bro. ----,
As I mentioned in my last message to
you I see little benefit in getting into a long drawn out rehashing of the
issues if what has already been explicitly expressed by the efforts of brethren
such as Joe Garvey and Wayne Tanner are not seen as satisfactory objections by
you or the NASU committee. Question #1 of yours has been dealt with
repeatedly and I for the time being have nothing more to add to the matter then
what has already been written. Also, I feel that I have
answered all of your questions up to this point (including your previous questions
several weeks ago in regards to our ecclesial position in relation to the
Responsibility issue), [this previous
correspondence referred to can be seen by going to the Archives Page under
January] but I do not see that you have given
me answers to what I believe to be crucial matters. I do
have thoughts on the additional questions you pose but to answer them at
this point will take us very far away from the far more fundamental issues
at hand. And until some of these outstanding issues can
be explained I think I have done enough answering of your questions
for now. Especially when my answers to you are regarded as
"voluminous", and not addressing "the point", or that
I "protest too much". I have already come to conclusions
regarding the NASU so any further efforts to convince me otherwise I can
assure you are a waste of time and spiritual energy on both our parts.
I will say that regarding your
questions #2 and #4, these seem to be issues that you all have
struggled with. I wish that it could be realized that these matters
cannot not be scripturally resolved by trying to bring two different belief
systems under a vaguely written document that both sides can interpret in their
own way. This is not unity Bro. ---- but something else. So even
before one discusses specific objections to the NASU wording, there
is a serious issue present in relation to the existence of the NASU
concept in principle in the first place.
Someone has sent me links to the
Christadelphian Waymark (Amended) that has been dealing with these matters
but from the opposite side of the fence so to speak. Though I
definitely disagree with his promulgated doctrine in reference to
"responsibility" and also do not agree with some of his observations
as to the wording of the NASU, I do think that his overall concerns as
to the deficiencies in the NASU effort are interesting and dovetail nicely
with my concerns, albeit from a very different point of view. The
material can be found at:
http://www.christadelphian-waymark.org.uk/nasucorr.html
http://www.christadelphian-waymark.org.uk/nasuresponse.html
In the Master's Service,
Aaron T.
The brother who began this correspondence replied with one additional short message in which a couple of his questions from his previous list were again repeated. We did not feel it necessary to answer any further questions until the NASU committee (more specifically the brother who began the correspondence) could properly address our concerns on more fundamental issues regarding the NASU. It is also useless to go into specifics in regards each point of the NASU document when 1) It has already been done, 2) The NASU refuses to acknowledge many questions or complaints, and 3) The NASU is flawed in principle in the first place in that you cannot bring together two different belief systems together under a bridging like document that due to its vagueness can be interpreted in any way you choose. So going into details regarding the wording of the NASU under every single point is a mute issue. There seems to be a vicious cycle that one gets into when trying to reason with those who are pushing the NASU initiative. Many explicit concerns have been raised regarding the NASU issue but yet those concerns are obviously ignored as if they never existed. One can choose to argue, reason, etc. as long as they wish on this subject but it is clear that those promoting the NASU have made up their mind to make it work no matter what the consequences may be. At the same time there are those of us on the Unamended side that have made up our minds not to endorse the NASU. So what now? As we have heard mentioned on more then one occasion “the battle lines have been drawn.” It is so very unfortunate that we see such a thing as “battle lines” among those who call themselves Christadelphians at this late date prior to our Master’s return. But if we love the Truth of God’s word, do we proceed to compromise that Truth for the sake of a make believe unity effort?
A. Thomas