Q1: |
Is the NASU causing dis-unity by promoting unity? |
A1: |
Certainly, nothing could be further
from the intent. The NASU initiative was started in recognition
of the fact that Christadelphians in North America are already divided
into factions. As with past unity initiatives, it was felt by a
number of brethren that this ought not be the case, and that there
is strong scriptural support for the principle of a single united
Body.
The intent of the NASU proposal is to be as inclusive as possible
where there is understanding and agreement on scriptural principles
and it is aimed at eliminating and not increasing factions within
the Christadelphian community. The fear that attempts at unity will
cause further factions has been raised as an argument against all
previous efforts. It is incumbent on all brethren to act in good
conscience and take personal responsibility for their own positions
with regards to this proposal. Objective assessment of any proposal
should be based on its merits and not on fear. |
| |
|
Q2: |
What is the NASU Steering Committee's plan for
fellowship implementation issues such as dealing with ecclesias
which feel they cannot participate at this time? |
A2: |
As noted in the last paragraph of
the fellowship section of the NASU document, it is the intent to
address details of fellowship implementation at a later date. Further,
the letter that accompanied the NASU proposal recognizes the value
of consulting the brotherhood broadly for its advice and assistance
in planning future steps. |
| |
|
Q3: |
How does the NASU proposal plan to deal with
balancing various fellowship issues like ensuring consistency
in fellowship practices versus ecclesial autonomy issues, etc.? |
A3: |
As with the question above, the
details of implementation are yet to be worked out and will require
the wisdom and input of the broader community. Although some of
these issues seem very difficult and daunting, similar situations
have been resolved elsewhere in the world. More importantly, nothing
is impossible for God and we are confident that these issues can
also be resolved with His guidance. |
| |
|
Q4 |
Why has BASF clause 24 been
repeated on page 5 under the heading Resurrectional Responsibility,
when it already occurs in the statement of faith section of the
document? |
A4: |
The only material difference between
the BUSF and the BASF is in this clause, and the only difference
in BASF # 24 and BUSF #25 is the amendment (in parentheses). It
was important to have the exact wording presented to the reader.
The specific wording is commented upon in the bullets which follow,
and it was important that the wording be presented in the context
of the full clause. |
| |
|
Q5: |
In the Resurrectional Responsibility
section, why is the third bullet needed when the first bullet
addresses the stated reason for the amendment? |
A5: |
BASF clause 24 exists and its amendment
must be addressed. Its inclusion and bullet 3 remind all readers
that the amendment speaks of two factors, knowledge and calling,
and not just the single factor of knowledge. Bullet 3 further acknowledges
that the identification of who is called is not for man to determine,
but God. The language "those ... whom His justice demands"
identifies the selection of those raised for condemnation on these
two bases as being subject to the demands of God's justice |
Q6: |
Also in bullet three, what
is the rationale for making the positive assertion that God "will
raise to condemnation those rebels and unbelievers whom His justice
demands" [emphasis added]. |
A6: |
When God's justice demands that
something happen, it is certain to happen. The word "may",
would not be appropriate in this circumstance |
| |
|
Q7: |
There has been speculation
among both Amended and Unamended brethren that God may raise wicked
men such as Hitler for judgment. How does the NASU deal with this? |
A7: |
In the NASU this matter is left
open by the statement in the first bullet on page 5 which says,
"God's hands are not tied in any way from raising for condemnation
any rebels and unbelievers He deems to be so deserving, regardless
of whether they are baptized or unbaptized." This issue has
not been a point of difference between the two communities. |
| |
|
Q8: |
Does the NASU provide an effective
defense against "clean flesh" thinking? |
A8: |
Some have raised this and similar
questions because the NASU does not use certain phrases or words
that are associated with this and related controversies. The approach
has been to avoid use of language that has been embroiled in past
controversy. Such terms or phrases have different connotations to
different readers who have varying levels of familiarity with their
history. Simple language was used to express teaching that can be
directly supported from Scripture. Those involved in NASU discussions
have gone to great lengths to thoroughly treat the subjects of Adamic
Condemnation (which deals with the nature of man) and The Lord's
Involvement in His Own Sacrifice (which deals with the nature of
Christ) in such a way that one could not embrace both NASU and the
clean-flesh error. Some have suggested that the NASU will provide
an excellent teaching tool on the Atonement and a bulwark against
clean-flesh thinking in North America. |
| |
|
Q9: |
It is sometimes asserted by
some individuals that "Amended brethren believe X",
and "Unamended brethren believe Y", and that there can
be no common expression of understanding between the two communities.
The NASU suggests otherwise. How is one to know which of these
claims is accurate? |
A9: |
The NASU resulted from a process
of broad input. Amended and Unamended brethren met using the Bible
to discuss the subjects that have historically been associated
with the division. Position taking, short-hand phrases and jargon
were put aside. The intent was to discover first hand what each
other believed, to see if there was a sufficient basis to move
toward unity. Although many pioneer works are well known, understood
and respected in both communities, their writings were not used
as complete or current expressions by the brethren now involved
in face-to-face discussion of issues related to unity. It was
felt that that the only accurate way to determine a common expression
of understanding was through direct Bible study and discussion
between brethren.
In general, brethren who make claims about "what the Amended
believe" and/or "what the Unamended believe" do
so based on "positions" they have heard or read about
- from sources not directly or currently involved. The difficulty
with this is that brethren write as individuals, and within specific
contexts. Further, this approach lacks the opportunity of dialogue
to clarify the writer's full intent and context. It is also true
that brethren really represent only themselves when they write,
and may or may not represent others as accurately or comprehensively
as they can themselves
The only reliable documents that can claim to represent whole
communities' "positions" are the respective statements
of faith - both of which are included in the NASU document. Some
brethren claim that it is the positions that exist beyond the
written text of the statements that are the real areas of difference.
These supposed areas of difference became the subject headings
of the NASU document and were discussed face to face amongst many
brethren in the fashion noted above.
One has to consider which is more likely to represent a true understanding
of the two communities:
a) The product of several years of Bible study and discussion
involving over a thousand Amended and Unamended brethren from
a wide variety of ecclesias in different areas who have reviewed
and contributed to the NASU; or,
b) Selected quotations from diverse writings and contexts,
without the benefit of dialogue to clarify the full context
and the writers' intent.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
which would be more suitable if you wish to print it. You may also view
the