Response to IEAC Creation Statement/8
by brother Mike Pearson
←back to index
Conclusion
There is complete agreement that the creation account in Genesis IS infused with the majesty and holiness of God. However, a literal reading of Genesis introduces certain contextual issues, and even within our community there have been several variations on how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. The interpretations that have been defined in the IEAC statement do not reflect our community’s original stand on this matter, nor do they represent the view of many those in our community.
The matters discussed in this paper show that our community has been debating these points from its earliest days. Our early scholars were open in their thoughts on the matter, and never once saw the need to make these into matters of fellowship. Therefore, to insist that matters should be a basis of fellowship is an act which divides those who endorse this document from those who established our community.
What’s more troubling though, is that this need not be such a divisive issue.
Perhaps this is the greatest irony, that acceptance of fellowship has now come down to us giving ”unqualified endorsement” of man-made documents that themselves require further documentation to clarify. This is contrary to the thoughts of those instrumental in creating these useful documents. For example; Bro Roberts wrote in the Ecclesial Guide, “so long as it is understood that the written definition is not an authority, but merely the written expression of our identical convictions, there is not only no disadvantage, but the reverse, in reducing the faith to a form that shuts the door against misunderstanding”[1] Bro Carter similarly said “we base our case on the Scriptures as the ultimate authority. Bro. Snelling’s comment does raise the issue of what is the final basis of authority. The Statement of Faith is a worthy effort to define what we believe the Scriptures teach. It necessarily reflects the emphases of the time when it was compiled”[2]
Later in 1989 a wide number of prominent brethren (including W F Barling), wrote an open letter to The Christadelphian defending the BASF while at the same time saying “it is not possible for fallible minds to devise any Statement which is infallible and covers all situations. Were that possible, one would be entitled to demand the endorsement of every single word of the Statement by everybody in the truth. But because it is not possible, such a demand is unwarranted, and is a mistaken attempt to exalt the B.A.S.F. to the level of inspired Scripture”[3]
We speak of Christ as our intercessor, we and hope and pray that he will find excuses to include us amongst those he considers faithful; yet we are ever inventive when it comes to devising methods to exclude each other. This is simply not the spirit of the gospel, and this behaviour is explicitly condemned in 1 Corinthians 1:9-15.
