Reunion Committee Meeting's Minutes -- March 27, 1981 pg 1

THIS DOCUMENT ALSO AVAILABLE IN PDF FORMAT

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

NOTE: COMMENTS IN BLUE ARE MINE - J.B. SCARAMASTRO

CONTINENTAL COMMITTEE BRETHREN

Friday, March 27, 1981

John (Jack) Brewis (Williamsville Ecclesia)
William Butts (Washington D.C. Ecclesia)
Frank Haughton (Worchester, Massachusetts Ecclesia)
Ashley Higham (Jasonville Ecclesia)
Wally Scott (London-west, Ontario Ecclesia)
R. R. (Dick) Stone (Los Angeles Ecclesia)
Roy A. Styles (Detroit Ecclesia)

INDEPENDENT EFFORT BRETHREN

Alfred Nicholls
Don Styles (Detroit Ecclesia)
Harry Tennant

AREA DELEGATES

Harold (Bart.) Bartholomew (Vernon, B.C.) (Vernon Ecclesia)
Alvan Brittle (Mendham, New Jersey) (Echo Lake Ecclesia)
Arvin Brokaw (New Ross, Indiana) (Brownsburg Ecclesia)
Gar Cooper (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) (Pittsburgh Ecclesia)
John Hensley (Ontario, California) (Los Angeles Ecclesia)
R. (Bob) Lloyd (Altadena, California) (Glendale Ecclesia)
Norman Luff (Manitoulin Island, Ontario)
Brian Pearse (Toronto, Ontario) (Scarlett Road Ecclesia)
Julio B. Scaramastro (Country Club Hills, Illinois) (Chicago, Ecclesia)
Malcom Shrimpton (Victoria/Vancouver, B.C.)
Ted Sleeper (San Francisco, California) (San Francisco Ecclesia)

OBSERVERS

R. (Bob) Brinkerhoff (Chino, California) (Los Angeles Ecclesia)
George Carrick (Hamilton, Ontario) (Hamilton Ecclesia)
Paul Edwards (San Francisco, California) (San Francisco Ecclesia)
Alex Higham (Salem, Ontario) (Salem Ecclesia)
Max Millar (Burlington, Ontario) (Hamilton Ecclesia)
Warren Phillips (Meriden, Connecticut) (Meriden Ecclesia)
Peter Robinson (Burlington, Ontario) (Hamilton Ecclesia)
Paul Schlicker (Bucks County, Pennsylvania Ecclesia)
Don Snobelen (Victoria, B.C.)
Jim Styles (Livonia, Michigan) (Detroit Ecclesia)
Ken Styles (Detroit Ecclesia)
Paul Wade (Houston, Texas) (Houston Ecclesia)

Frank Haughton presiding.
Alfred Nicholls gave opening prayer.
Conduct of the meeting stated by Frank Haughton.
Frank calls upon Don Styles to make his presentation.

DON STYLES PRESENTATION:

1. We are faced with a judgment decision.

2. It is not a black and white matter that we are dealing with. (Such a statement represents Don's opinion which does not happen to be that of others including myself.)

3. It would have been nice if God had put on record a statement of doctrines for fellowship.

4. The only reason we are considering reunion is the doctrine of the unity of the body.

a. John 17:19,20,21 is brought forward to support his reason for considering reunion. The article entitled "Fellowship--its Spirit and Practice" which originally appeared in the January 1972 Christadelphian was also brought up at this point.

b. The doctrine of God-manifestation was appealed to as requiring us to consider the above reason.

c. We recognize that there are variations of view that if they were brought out would cause division. (Of what value is such a reason? How can we justify adding additional problems by referring to ones we already have? It would seem that the rational thing to do would be to try and limit or eliminate as many problems as possible. It would seem that the scriptural thing to do is to contend against all error and not allow an increase in the amount of error because you already have some to deal with! To put it another way, it does not make much sense to drill a second hole in your boat to control the water coming in the first!)

d. We must strive for peace and not emphasize problems. (Problems can not be solved until they are identified as such and then they can be dealt with. It is only an ostrich mentality which thinks that by sticking one's head in the sand that the problem will be solved. Problems do not tend to go away by themselves! Problems that are shelved remain there until taken down and dealt with.)

e. The situation we are presented with is a matter of attitude. (It would seem to me that the present bottleneck is doctrinal and that true reunion can not take place until it is resolved no matter what everyone's attitude is.)

f. Both groups are faced with problems in the areas of the military, jury duty, the charismatic movement, etc. which cut across fellowship lines. (Another poor reason for reunion is offered! Such problems face the Jehovah's Witnesses also; therefore, should we join with them to battle these problems? The obvious answer is emphatically no! Why? Because of doctrinal differences! Likewise in the case under consideration even though the doctrinal differences are not as great. However, doctrinal differences are doctrinal differences no matter how great or how small they are!)

g. The present situation is brought up where in some localities small groups of both Unamended and Amended exist in close proximity but can not meet because of inter-ecclesial fellowship problems. (Again, another non reason is offered which avoids the real issue which is fundamental doctrinal difference. All this point is--is an appeal to the emotions and not to reason!)

h. A possible threat of a chaotic inter-ecclesial situation developing if a reunion is not arrived at. (Again, another non-reason is appealed to for support. Obviously, this is an emotional appeal and not one of reason. It is the old cry of wolf when in fact the course that is being suggested is allowing the wolf of doctrinal error in! Sound and firm leadership can limit such a problem. In fact, the only situation that can develop if reunion on an unsound basis is rejected, is that where some Amended might join the Unamended and vice-versa. However, if reunion is effected on the present unsound basis, then we will have a much more complex situation for the Andrewites will split from the rest of the Unamended who are joining a portion of Central, and the conservative element will split from this new group created by this unsound reunion basis. Thus reunion is being brought about by splitting both the present Unamended and Amended bodies. Reunion via Disunion!)

Don Styles now proceeded to read The North American Unity Proposal from the Preamble through the section entitled "General Beliefs." Under the section entitled "Fellowship" it was pointed out that there were really no problems here for both groups were faithful to their statement of faith. Under the section entitled "Nature of Man" the phrase "transmitted to all his posterity" was explained to mean "the effects were transmitted" and that some such wording should be added to the text.

Bill Butts comments: This document does not go as far as I, Wally Scott, Don Styles, Alfred Nicholls or Harry Tennant would like it to go. He now emphasized that he supported the BASF.(So why is he responsible for a document which abandons part of it? A document which turns responsibility to the Judgment Seat of Christ for the enlightened rejecter into a maybe! How can a statement of faith be built on possibilities? If something is not a definite truth, then it should not be in the Statement of Faith. If it is a definite truth, then it should not be abandoned for the sake of reunion with a group who does not believe it to be so. It is my firm conviction that light is the grounds of resurrectional responsibility as taught since the days of Bro. John Thomas and that it is not just a possibility or a maybe anymore than the Kingdom of God being here on earth is a possibility or a maybe! It is an absolute fact!) He believes that the rift is so small that he is willing to support this reunion proposal because of the problems that will develop if we do not. (Note the two assumptions: (1) The rift is small. (2) Problems will develop if we do not have reunion. In regards to assumption number one: The BASF is a minimum statement of saving truth. It thus follows that no matter how close you are to it, if you are below it, then you are below the minimum amount of knowledge for salvation! To put it another way, if you have to jump ten feet to clear a thousand foot deep chasm and you only jump nine feet, then it is all over. Ten feet was the minimum requirement and anything less would not be sufficient for jumping to safety. No matter how close you think nine feet happens to be it will not save you from certain doom on the chasm floor below.)

He then stated that he was supporting it as the best we can get and that eventually the ship of state will right itself. (Note: the two points made in this statement: (1) This document is not what we would like, but is the best we can get from the Unamended. (2) The ecclesial "ship of state" will right itself despite the permitting of less doctrinally than we would like. Frankly speaking, if this is the best we can get doctrinally, then it is unacceptable. We either maintain the clarity of the truth on this issue or we do not! I believe the clarity of the truth must be upheld. We must not reduce its clarity or introduce doubt concerning it by making it only a possibility. In answer to the second point, ships do not right themselves by damaging their hull. In order for the ship to right itself it requires the work of qualified people correcting the damage and not increasing it. Likewise, true to the analogy, the ecclesial "ship of state" can only be kept afloat by avoiding those influences that could damage it, or repairing damages that occur, through the use of the skills of highly qualified brethren following strictly the rules of the manual that must govern the work; namely, the Bible.)

Wally Scott comments: Don Styles has reported well the feeling and rapport that they had developed with the Unamended. (Note that such a statement indicates an emotional response and not one which is governed by The Scriptures.) He pointed out the Unamended's desire to accommodate our position. (How? By our capitulation to their understanding of responsibility? After all, we can no longer maintain the definition of responsibility as set out in Clause XXIV of the BASF as a first principle or make it a test of fellowship! Is this the accommodation of our position? It sounds more like us accommodating them!) He stated that the Unamended would support this document wholeheartedly. (Why shouldn't they since they still can maintain their beliefs about responsibility!) He claimed that he would support it. He referred to the unity of the body as brought out by Don as supportive of his position. (Of course, the Bible clearly establishes that doctrinally there must be unity of mind to have unity of body. Where is it in this case?) He claimed that he had a very comfortable feeling that they were of the same mind about the Truth. (Note that this is an expression of "feeling" and not an objective analysis of their beliefs. In fact, they do not teach or believe the same things about resurrectional responsibility as we do. Therefore they do not hold the Truth as we understand it to be clearly set forth in the Word of God.) He hoped that they would eventually accept the BASF wholeheartedly. (How can they wholeheartedly accept it since the acceptance of this document removes part of the BASF to accommodate them? By accepting this document, we are agreeing that responsibility as set out in Clause XXIV is not clearly revealed in the Scriptures. How can we convince anyone that it is scriptural once you acknowledge it as not clearly scriptural? Who is even going to care to discuss an item that cannot be shown to be clearly the truth anyway? After all, it is only speculation since it can not be proved and of what value is speculation in regards to anyone's salvation?) He pointed out that the Unamended are willing to withdraw from those who persist in error. (By this he means Andrewites and not Williamites. All through this discussion the erroneous view of Thomas Williams is accepted as permissible by those who wrote this document. It is never treated as it clearly should be and that is as error.) He stated that he will give his wholehearted support to this document!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Introductory Note and Text (supplied by Paul Schlicker)
Follow-up To Paul Schlicker by J.S. Scaramastro
List of Suggested Reading Materials