Resistance to "THE Statement of Faith"

The Birmingham Ecclesia's statement was not intended to be "The Christadelphian Statement of Faith" and leaders in the community actively resisted suggestions that it should be given that status:

C. C. Walker

Brother C. C. Walker succeeded Robert Roberts in 1898, editing The Christadelphian Magazine until 1936.

1903

It is suggested that the Birmingham brethren might meet the objections named by removing the word Birmingham. The answer is they have no authority to speak for any community but their own. They say over the head of their propositions: “A Statement of the Faith, forming our Basis of Fellowship.” They cannot say “The Statement . . .  forming all the ecclesias' Basis.” They would soon be reminded of this if they attempted it. There are several “churches” in England who have different but equivalent statements. There is no reason why this should not be so; neither is there any reason why an ecclesia should not adopt the “Birmingham Statement” if it sees fit to.

— Walker, C C, The Christadelphian Magazine: Vol 40 (1903), p 412

1904

Brother R. W. asks us to countenance the movement at the antipodes to “give up the word ‘Birmingham’ and substitute ‘Christadelphian.’” Our answer must be as before: We have no authority so to do. Neither has anyone else. The Birmingham ecclesia can only speak for itself; and it is so with every other ecclesia. We entirely sympathise with every godly effort for unity on a pure basis; but it would be a mistake to issue a document under the above title, because it would imply the right of the issuers to speak for the whole household of faith, which right does not exist. The principle of ecclesial independence must be jealously guarded, and it is the beginnings of things that have to be watched. There is no desire on the part of the Birmingham ecclesia to impose its form of words on any ecclesia; but there can be no valid objection to any ecclesia adopting it if it sees fit. But to adopt this statement and give it a universal title that the Birmingham ecclesia conscientiously refrains from giving it, does not seem to be right at all. If a group of Australian ecclesias desires a common statement, let them accurately define its scope and limitations. We are happily agreed as to the “one faith,” but let us be careful about our definitions. Ecclesiastical history is a warning to us in this respect.

— Walker, C C, The Christadelphian Magazine: Vol 41 (1904), p 113

1924

Some well-meaning brethren are exercising themselves in making new “Christadelphian Statements of the Faith.” We do not refer to any particular instance in these remarks, and the aims and objects are in some cases highly respected by us, though not in others. We do, however, object to any individual or ecclesia issuing a document called “THE Christadelphian Statement of Faith.” There are several such current and none of them with the slightest authority. We should have to have a sort of œcumenical council like the Roman Catholic Church to produce such a document. And when we had got it, how much better off should we be? It is quite open to any ecclesia (as the Birmingham ecclesia) to issue “A Statement of the Faith forming their Basis of Fellowship.” And it is quite unobjectionable for others to adopt the same with or without modifications that do not materially affect its spirit or substance. But do not let any of us suppose for a moment that any such adoption or adaptation is going to make much difference in our troubles. It is the “one mind” on the Word of God that is the great desideratum. It never has obtained upon earth and never will obtain until the Lord abolishes sin and death. Years ago (Feb., 1905, The Christadelphian, pp. 78–80) we made some remarks “Concerning Creeds” in reply to the late Mr. J. B. Rotherham. They are worth reading again now, but are too long to reproduce here.

— C. C. Walker, The Christadelphian Magazine: Vol 61 (1924), pp 29-30

1927

T.E.W. writes:—
1. – What does the “amended” portion consist of?
2. – Is it not time the word “amended” was deleted?
3. – And if at all possible “Birmingham amended,” making it read “The Statement of Faith.”

ANSWER.–
1. – The phrase “amended statement” is an unofficial description of “The Constitution, etc.,” of 1898 and onwards. The reference is to section 24. which deals with the question of resurrectional responsibility. The “amendment” was a mere verbal matter, the doctrine not being interfered with.

2. – There is no question of “deletion” the term not being in the document. You cannot stop people’s mouths, nor extinguish the miseries of controversy.

3. – No ecclesia has authority to issue a document to be called “THE Statement of Faith,” though it has been done by at least one. The most that any ecclesia can rightly say is, This is our Constitution and Statement of Faith. Thus, as concerning The Birmingham Temperance Hall Ecclesia, the title runs: “The Constitution of the Birmingham Temperance Hall Ecclesia . . .  in which is contained A Statement of the Faith forming their Basis of Fellowship.” It, or an equivalent with slight modifications, has been adopted by many ecclesias all over the world as a practical working basis. To this there can be no valid objection. On the other hand, many ecclesias will have nothing to do with it, preferring their own formulæ. To this also there can be no valid objection, so long as we are agreed concerning apostolic faith and practice. Like our correspondent, we groan in the presence of current controversy, but we can all take comfort in the thought that the Lord is at the door.

— C. C. Walker, "The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith", The Christadelphian Magazine: Volume 64 (1927), pp 215-216