Challenges
Following the death of Brother Thomas in 1871, and as editor of the largest circulating magazine within the Christadelphian community, it fell to Brother Robert Roberts at the age of 31 to guide the ecclesias. Within 15 years he had to deal with two major ecclesial problems and respond to numerous lesser matters as editor.
Renunciationism
Just six months after laying Brother Thomas to rest, Brother Roberts, in November 1871, published a short article by Brother David Handley that led to controversy and division. It was called “No Man Can Redeem His Brother”. In it Handley stated of Christ that:
“… though Son of David’s daughter, and ‘made of the woman’, he was a new creation – ‘the Lord from heaven;’ not dependent on Adam for his life, but received it direct from the Father, as John hath it (5:26; 6:57). Here, I think, we see the wisdom of God in redemption. A body in our nature; a life independent of our race; the life of the flesh is given for the life of the world; here is what men of business call twenty shillings in the pound.”
At about this time (July 1871) Brother Edward Turney of the Nottingham ecclesia was appointed by Brother Roberts to provide answers to correspondents in The Christadelphian. In 1873 Brother Turney distributed a tract entitled “Questions and Answers” containing 32 questions and in which he “renounced” his understanding of the atonement and held a view similar to Handley’s. He believed that Jesus was not a son of Adam, his body was not under condemnation, he possessed a ‘free life’, and he was not redeemed by his own sacrifice. (see Doctrine to be Rejected #4 in the basf)
In the July 1873 issue of The Christadelphian Brother Roberts responded to Turney’s views in a 15 page article entitled “The Sacrifice of Christ – Questions Answered According to the Truth, Which Is Never to Be ‘Renounced’”. This was followed in August and September by 7 and 18 page articles entitled “The Sacrifice of Christ”. In October Brother Roberts’ address “The Slain Lamb” (given on 29 August) was published over 20 pages, and further comments from readers. An additional eight pages were written being a list of 85 points to explain the Scriptural teaching. In this same issue it was reported that the Nottingham ecclesia had divided and about 40 members (out of 135) left to form a new meeting supporting Brother Roberts.
Brother Evans, writing in 1959, provides a useful overview of the situation:
“The Birmingham Ecclesia met at the Atheneum Hall on August 26 to hear answers which were given by brother Roberts to the theory propounded by brother Edward Turney. Brother Craddock proposed and brother Egginton seconded, that brother Roberts should question brother Turney, who was to lecture on August 28, but questions were not allowed as the time had been fully taken up by brother Turney, and so brother Roberts called a meeting at the Temperance Hall for the following night to refute the statements by brother Turney, but the attendance was not what had been expected. I remember being told that brother Roberts’ nervous condition after these meetings was so disturbed that he was confined to bed, and at the Sunday morning meeting on Sept. 14 a letter written by sis. Roberts at the dictation of brother Roberts was read explaining that his doctor kept him in bed through illness. He implored the brethren to refuse to follow those who were inclined to follow the ‘new theory’. It was about two weeks later before brother Roberts could resume activities. After further discussion on the course which should be pursued to preserve the Truth a meeting was held on October 30, 1873, of some 142 brethren and sisters who firmly repudiated brother Turney’s views that “the body of Jesus was not under condemnation” but that Jesus possessed “a free unforfeited life”. Other resolutions were passed chiefly dealing with the property of the Ecclesia, and a committee of three were appointed to deal with matters pro tem pending rules being agreed to by which the Ecclesia should be governed. The brethren appointed were Thomas Davies, Charles Meakin and Robert Roberts. The proposed Rules for Guidance of a Christadelphian Ecclesia were adopted on November 13, 1873. They were in substance those which exist today in the Constitution of the Christadelphian Ecclesia.”
(The Christadelphian, 1959, pages 292–293)
In 1874 Brother Roberts estimated that about 200 had been lost to Renunciationism, but these numbers were restored soon afterwards as followers of Turney came to understand their mistake. Brother Turney died on 18 March 1879. On the other hand Brother David Handley was reimmersed on 21 April 1881 after acknowledging his errors. He died on 31 July 1886.
Support for the Jews
The significance of the Jewish people in God’s plan and purpose has always been a key teaching in the Brotherhood from the early days of Brother Thomas, and it still is. Based on the promise to Abraham regarding the blessing on those who bless him, this interest in the Jews was manifested in numerous practical expressions of support, particularly fundraising. The first example of this was in 1874 when £4 was collected for the poor Jews of Jerusalem. The next year a total of £131 was raised to support the development of Palestine.
“As our readers are aware, the Jewish Board of Deputies in London have appealed to the Jews and to ‘the friends of Zion’ in general throughout the world, for funds to prosecute a scheme for the Jewish agricultural cultivation of the Holy Land. Their object is to honour Sir Moses Montefiore on his retirement from a 50 years’ connection with the Board, who has requested a proposed testimonial to him to be put into this form; but though this is their object, the effect of their scheme will be to lay the foundation of the pre-adventual return of prosperity to Zion. This is an object with which many can sympathise who would not readily be stirred by personal sentiments towards Sir Moses.”
(The Christadelphian, 1875, page 129)
The sisters also became involved in making clothes for poor Jews in Palestine. By 1882 the funds raised were very significant, being nearly £300, and a large quantity of clothing was also contributed.
Brother William Gee of Crewe
One brother made a very personal contribution to Palestine by emigrating there. He was William Gee (1848–13/6/1916) of the Crewe ecclesia. Within two years of his baptism he decided to emigrate to Palestine.
Brother Gee left England on 13 April 1888 and took with him a perfume still and a number of scientific beehives. Soon afterwards a communication from Haifa (he arrived there on 6 May) announced the shipping of “an enormous quantity of (Palestine) bulbs” for the English market. He soon started exporting dried mounted flowers to England and manufacturing wax and harvesting herbs for distilling. For a time he worked for the company building the Acre to Damascus railway. However after 20 years he returned to England in 1909, his wife having died, and his projects all failed. He died on the 13th June 1916 at the age of 67.
The ‘Inspiration’ Division and Brethren Robert Ashcroft and Joseph Chamberlin
Robert Ashcroft (1842–14/10/1921) was a Congregational minister. He was baptised on 11th June 1876 (aged 34) and lived in Rock Ferry, three miles from Liverpool. Brother Roberts (aged 37) was evidently so impressed by the conversion of a minister that he wrote a 16 page article entitled “A Congregationalist Minister Becomes Obedient to The Truth, Un-‘Revs.’ Himself, and Gives Up a Salary of £400 a Year”.
In May 1877 Ashcroft’s speaking appointments were listed in The Christadelphian. His attractiveness as a speaker extended to invitations from overseas. The January 1883 issue of The Christadelphian lists Robert Ashcroft as the Assistant-Editor.
In late 1882 another Minister was baptised. This was Joseph H Chamberlin (aged 35), a Methodist New Connexion minister from Stoke-on-Trent. He was later to ally himself with Ashcroft. In July 1883 he also came to work in the Office being unable to gain employment elsewhere.
The conversion of men of high education and religious status was a great thrill to the brethren. However in October 1884 Robert Ashcroft commenced a magazine called The Biblical Exegetist. A serious problem immediately arose when the content of the first and only issue became known. It advocated that the Bible was not wholly inspired. In response Brother Roberts wrote a series of articles running to 22 pages in the December issue of The Christadelphian responding to Ashcroft’s ideas on inspiration. These were followed by three pages of letters from others also expressing grave concerns. Thirty-five pages of the January issue were also focused on the inspiration controversy.
From January to September 1885 Ashcroft published another magazine called The Truth. This was then superseded by The Fraternal Visitor. The January 1885 issue of The Christadelphian discusses a possible division in the ecclesia, including concern about the process that might be involved. The Renunciationist division of 1873 involved Brother Roberts issuing a printed card that if not endorsed by each brother and sister effectively put oneself out of fellowship.
At a meeting on the 2nd February 1885 the Birmingham ecclesia did not agree to pass a resolution declaring the Bible wholly inspired. The majority (of one) felt that the issue was not one for Birmingham (Ashcroft was a member at Liverpool) and were concerned that those who did not see a need to withdraw (yet personally believed in inspiration) would find themselves separated from others.
From September 1885 Brother Roberts wrote a series of articles on “To the Elect of God (in a Time of Trouble)”, including “The Final Consolation” and “A Letter to My Enemies”, endeavouring to reassure the Brotherhood. They are some of his finest writing.
On 22 July 1886 the Birmingham ecclesia adopted a new Constitution (including their Statement of the Faith) with a “Foundation Clause” added.
“Our Foundation – That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and his purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation.”
Many years later Brother John Carter summed up the controversy as one of “fellowship” rather than “inspiration”.
“We have always maintained that the primary issue between the two fellowships had to do with fellowship; that the rule which only removed from office anyone who departed from some element of the One Faith left the door open for many errors to be tolerated. What we have written is there for anyone to read. But because these brethren tolerated some erroneous doctrine knowing it to be such, we cannot therefore justly conclude that those they baptized believed the error. At the time of the strife and the heated feelings in 1885 some may have interpreted the resolution on inspiration in a perverse way and others may have tolerated them. But the resolution which was drawn up by Brother Roberts was adopted.”
(The Christadelphian, 1956, page 145)
This dispute resulted in the Suffolk Street Fellowship. Through the efforts of brother Carter reunion in Britain was achieved in February 1957.
Interesting articles
From the age of 25 when The Ambassador began, Brother Roberts was asked to answer numerous questions, both doctrinal and practical. Some of the practical issues are listed below and illustrate the extraordinary range of questions he had to address. Some of the questions may seem odd to us but the ecclesia was a new thing and there was very little precedent for knowing what to do.
“It was not merely the incessant travelling, speaking, writing and editing. Problems and knotty questions were coming in from all over Great Britain, and even from beyond the seas. If anyone found a difficult passage of Scripture the editor was asked for an explanation. If a recalcitrant member carried democratic liberties to an extreme, causing trouble and contention in a meeting, the editor was expected to put matters straight. There were problems of exposition, of ecclesial management, and of the application of scriptural precept to modern life, some problems difficult, some amusing, and some absurd. Answers were sometimes printed in the magazine, sometimes given in private letters, and sometimes by word of mouth. For the most part these problems were new; there was no tradition to which they could be referred, they needed thought and application. For the most part the answers to difficulties revealed a remarkable maturity of judgment in so young a man. They certainly needed hard work.”
Islip Collyer, Robert Roberts, page 51
Some of the subjects covered included the following:
- Worship of Christ
- Role of Sisters
- Clothing fashions
- Families at Christ’s Return
- Use of the ‘Magic Lantern’
- Vaccination
- Suing at Law
- Letters of Transfer
- The Type of Bread and Wine
- Charging Interest
- Freemasonry
- Children Fighting
- Smoking
- Eating Blood
- Drinking Alcohol
- Theatre-going
- Reading Novels
- Saving Money
- Fornication
- Brethren and Competitive Cricket
- Conducting a Funeral
- Christmas and Easter
- Eating Pork
Any young brother or sister (and most older ones too!) would be challenged by most of these issues, let alone to be virtually alone from the age of 25 to deal with any and every question or issue that arose within the Brotherhood. Whether all of his answers have stood the test of time and further Scriptural study is irrelevant. The fact that so many have, and that our position on inspiration and the atonement, absolutely fundamental issues, owes so much to Brother Roberts, is the legacy for which we should all be very grateful. It is extremely doubtful that any of us could have managed as well.