John James Andrew:
Offender
or Defender?
A documented
review of the motivation and role of John James Andrew
in
the controversies surrounding the Amendment and his
relationship
with Thomas Williams
and the Unamended fellowship.
The name of John James Andrew is more
often associated with controversy than it is with the contributions he made to
the Christadelphian community. His is a name both championed and villainized.
Although there is sufficient documentation preserved with which to evaluate his
role and contribution to the controversy leading to the Amendment to the
Christadelphian Statement of Faith, Bro. Andrew’s reputations precede and often
preclude interest in such a review.
Bro. Andrew’s role and works have been,
and continue to be, the focus of controversy, allegations and misconceptions.
It is recognized that there is nothing that can be said or written which would
have a significant impact upon strong opinions held concerning this brother.
However, this overview proposes to provide relevant documentation with which
those interested might evaluate the person of John James Andrew for themselves.
Jim
Washeck
February
2002
12 Westwood Est. Dr.
St. Peters, MO 63376-1349
INTRODUCTION
John James Andrew (1840-1907), the very
name elicits emotion and controversy. Bro. Andrew was a pioneer defender of
Christadelphian faith and was well known and respected within the household. In
the early 1870’s, he played a prominent role in opposing the Renunciationist
controversy and worked along side Bro. Roberts in the publication of The Christadelphian. Henry Sulley, in
his preface to the 2nd edition of The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy
(1892) notes the assistance of both Bro. Andrew and Roberts in proofreading and
revising. In 1894, Bro. Andrew took issue with Bro. Roberts’ writings in The Christadelphian and began to publish
his own magazine, The Sanctuary- Keeper (1894-1902). From that point until his death in 1907,
Bro. Andrew, along with Bro. Williams in the United States assumed the role of
defender of Unamended Christadelphian faith.
Bro. Andrew’s efforts and
works are at the same time a source of pride and embarrassment for different
members within the Unamended community. Branded as the father of the Unamended
community by the Amended and, a brother of extremes by individuals within both
fellowships, association with his name and writings has been discouraged in
some circles while at the same time championed in others.
The purpose of this review is to examine
this contradiction and this controversy. What factors account for such
divergent opinions? Which, if any, claims regarding Bro. Andrew are legitimate
and, most important, what impact has this divided opinion had upon the
Unamended fellowship?
REPUTATION: OFFENDER or DEFENDER?
It would be difficult to
assess the role and contribution of Bro. Andrew without first understanding the
strong reputations attached to his name. His are opposing reputations, historically
prolonged and often resulting in preconceptions.
Considering the
Amended community’s focus on Bro. Andrew as the instigator of the Amendment and
the father of Unamended error, it is no surprise that his reputation among that
community is negative. In a letter from Alfred Nichols and Harry Tenant to the
secretary of the Amended Continental Reunion Committee, 10-09-81, they comment:
We indicated our agreement to the proposals made
at the March conference because we understood, at that time, that all the
problems arising out of the J.J. Andrew errors had been examined and as a
consequence agreement had been expressed on the Nature of Man, the Nature of
Christ and the Atonement.
The principle cause of difficulty lies in the strong
inferences which our Unamended brethren seem to expect us to draw, whereby
resurrectional responsibility is directly related to covenant making. We do not
and cannot accept this concept because it appears to us to be the doctrine of J.J.
Andrew in another guise.
10-9-81 Letter to the
Secretary of the Amended Continental Reunion Committee on behalf of CMPA
brethren
We note here the reference to
“J.J. Andrew errors” which specify under this category Unamended beliefs
regarding the nature of man, the nature of Christ and the atonement. Accusation
is also made that the Unamended brethren are following “J.J. Andrew doctrine”
by their belief that resurrectional responsibility is directly related to
covenant making.
Another example of the
Amended viewpoint is found in the Logos, March,
1995:
Bro.
Farrar criticizes the phrase used by the authors that “Bro. Andrew is the
father of the Unamended Community.” Whilst it is true historically that Bro.
Williams as editor of the Advocate magazine predates the division caused by the
teachings of Bro. Andrew, the statement was considered representatively as
indicating that the Advocate brethren follow the teachings represented by Bro.
Andrew in the areas of resurrectional responsibility and hereditary alienation.
…the
Advocate community adheres to the teachings, which are clearly aligned to those
of J.J. Andrew. For example...a person must “Be baptized for the remission of
sins- Adamic and individual,” ... the Advocate community continues to teach
that we are alienated from God by birth, in addition to personal transgression.
Logos
March, 1995
Pp. 186-187
In this article the Amended
community defends the identification of Bro. Andrew as the “father of the Unamended
Community.” Their allegation that the
“Advocate community” follows the teachings of Bro. Andrew clearly insinuates
that those teachings were introduced by, or identified with, Bro. Andrew.
Within the Unamended
community there has been considerable negative association with Bro. Andrew,
most of which has focused on the controversial nature of some of his views and
his role in the controversy leading to the Amendment. Bro. Thomas Williams in
1905 labeled Bro. Andrew’s belief and action as “extreme” and that label has
continued as a significant element of Bro. Andrew’s legacy. These associations
are cited in Doctrinal Consequences of
Clause 24 BASF:
We
have cited only a few samples of Amended literature and tapes that omit any
reference to the fact that the baptized believer becomes a party to the
Abrahamic covenant and consequently an heir to the things covenanted therein.
Many more samples could be submitted and are on file in the writer’s library. .
. .How did this erosion of doctrine take
place? ... The answer lies in the
title of a booklet that was published in 1894 in Britain, entitled The Blood of
the Covenant by Bro. J.J. Andrew. The Amendment to the Statement of Faith was
introduced in 1898 to counteract the Andrew view. Amended writers and teachers,
since that time, in their zeal to denigrate the Andrew view, have thrown the
baby out with the bath water. The bath water is the extreme position taken by
Bro. Andrew.
Edward
W. Farrar
Bro. Farrar here notes the
Amended community’s overreaction and resulting erosion of doctrine. He
identifies The Blood of the Covenant as
the provocation leading to the process that resulted in the Amendment some four
years later and, references as “extreme” the 1894 position of Bro. Andrew.
On the opposite end of the
reputation spectrum is found recognition and support on behalf of Bro. Andrew.
Bro. Ken McPhee in Christadelphian History - A Story of Division, comments:
In
the 1890’s a very vigorous controversy arose. This controversy was principally
between Robert Roberts and J.J. Andrew who discerned a drift in Robert Roberts’
writings in “The Christadelphian” magazine in 1893. The drift was away from the
firmly declared teaching in the writings of R.R. from 1870 to 1883 and J.J.A.
published excerpts to demonstrate the drift. He began to publish his own
magazine, “The Sanctuary Keeper” and in the first issue, July 1894 he published
an indictment against the teaching of “The Christadelphian.” This was pretty
strong stuff and caused a great resentment against J.J. Andrew among the
friends and supporters of Robert Roberts.... We have believed for many years
that the continuing effort by the Amended brotherhood to blame the division of
1898 on Bro. Andrew is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Christadelphian
History - A Story of Division
In this reference Bro. McPhee
addresses the motivation of Bro. Andrew and presents the circumstances leading
up to the resentment which resulted.
In response to the Logos article reviewed earlier, Bro.
James Stanton responded with a letter to the editor published 3 months later:
I
have never heard the expression that J.J. Andrew is the father of the Unamended
community. But I do know that his views have been for years and currently are
shared by many in the Unamended. ... The Amended have a right to call J.J.A.
extreme because his views do not agree with theirs, but the Unamended hold his
views by and large on the purpose of baptism, inherited alienation including
that of Jesus, and the grave-releasing efficacy of the blood of the covenant.
James
S. Stanton
Logos June
1995
In this letter Bro.
Stanton affirms that the Unamended community does by and large hold to Bro.
Andrew’s views and teachings.
Lastly, in the March 1997 Advocate, a review entitled “Reflections
on a Pioneer:”
Among the prominent
names of the pioneers of our faith is one that stands out as a principal
defender and activist. This man is more often associated with the controversy
surrounding aftw of his teachings, than he is with the many other contributions
that he made... We are speaking of Brother J. J. Andrew ...
The position of this magazine has always
been that the general understanding of Bro. Andrew in these areas is consistent
with the teachings of Bro. John Thomas and the teaching contained in Bro.
Roberts’ final work, The Law of Moses.
The Advocate Committee
Advocate March
1997
Here the Advocate Committee recognizes the controversial nature of Bro. Andrew’s teachings on resurrectional responsibility while expressing support for his teachings on those related subjects labeled as error by the Amended community.
The challenge of a review of Bro. Andrew’s impact and contribution to the truth is sorting out fact from fiction, or, reputation from reality. Without doubt, he was a focus of attention in events leading up to the Amendment and he maintained a prominent role in following years. As we examine his part in this history, perhaps each of us should evaluate and assess whether Bro. Andrew should be considered as offender or defender. It seems everyone has an opinion regarding Bro. Andrew, but are those opinions based upon tradition or individual assessment? To assist in the assessment of this controversial and complicated man, the following topics are proposed for review:
1. The
Blood of the Covenant
2. Bro.
Andrew’s change in belief
3. Bro.
Andrew’s relationship with Bro. Williams
4. The
last years
THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT
Most Christadelphians know
very little about Bro. Andrew, and few have read his controversial booklet, The Blood of the Covenant. Yet this is
the work for which he is best known. Bro. Andrew explains in the preface to the
first edition that he wrote this booklet in 1894 to address the subject of the
atonement:
Twenty years ago the
One Body passed a controversial conflict concerning the nature of Jesus Christ at
his first appearing. It was then clearly demonstrated that Christ was, by
birth, related to condemnation in Adam to the same extent as the rest of the
race, and that He was made of the same fallen, or sinful nature.
It fell to my lot to take
a prominent part in the aforesaid conflict, and as the result of it I wrote the
pamphlet entitled “The Doctrine of the Atonement.” The scriptural principles
embodied therein constitute the basis of what 1 have here written; and they are
consistently applied to the several steps by which men may pass from
condemnation in Adam to immortalization in Christ.
The
Blood of the Covenant
The Blood of the Covenant received a hostile reception by some in England and
immediately became a source of contention. This contention pitted Bro. Andrew
and Bro. Roberts against each other, lines were drawn, sides were taken, and
the topic of resurrectional responsibility became the focus of attention and
controversy. At the same time some English brethren began allegations of
“extreme teachings” against Bro. Andrew.
When one reads The Blood of the Covenant, one may
identify specific teachings that would qualify as controversial, however, none
were new to the Christadelphian community. Identified controversial subjects
include:
1) violent death as the decreed punishment
for sin;
2) 8th day sin;
3) Enoch’s translation and,
4) Resurrectional responsibility - only
those in covenant relationship.
These interpretations were
within the Christadelphian community in Bro. Andrew’s day as they are in our
community today. Such interpretations are generally accepted and tolerated as
of minor consequence. Most do not consider refusing fellowship with their
brethren if they believe that Enoch is not literally dead but rather preserved
in an unconscious state, or, if they believe that God originally intended the
death sentence foretold to Adam to be an immediate cutting off rather than a
dying state. Resurrectional responsibility interpretations have always been a
source of contention. With some exception, the Unamended community does not
subscribe to the interpretation that God will raise those outside covenant
relationship strictly for punishment. Our community has traditionally
determined not to make this subject a matter of fellowship! Various
interpretations are tolerated, generally with a “believe as you will but don’t
teach it as doctrine” attitude.
There is little doubt that The Blood of the Covenant contains
controversy. However, controversy in pioneer writings does not begin nor end
with Bro. Andrew. The household has been equally consumed by controversy from
“respected” pioneer writers on such topics as: identification of the sheep and
goats; postmillennial rebellion, and, the 2nd resurrection. How has the
Unamended household reacted to Dr. Thomas’s interpretation of the “angels that
sinned” in Elpis Israel or his 3rd class resurrection in Anastasis?
Is our community upset with Bro. Robert’s stand in Christendom Astray that
light determines resurrectional responsibility? Despite these controversies,
the Unamended community has not discouraged the reading of these works nor have
we distanced ourselves from their authors!
Our literature does not
reflect any significant use of the word error in regard to any of the topics
above, including those topics covered in The
Blood of the Covenant. Some do use the word “extreme” in regard to Bro.
Andrew’s late life stand on resurrectional responsibility, i.e., that God
cannot raise... However, the Amended community consciously and consistently has
used the word error not only in regard to resurrectional responsibility, but
also to Unamended beliefs regarding hereditary alienation, baptism for the
remission of sins Adamic and individual, the nature of man, the nature of
Christ and the atonement. The Amended community has purposely associated the
name of Bro. Andrew with what they term “Unamended Error” and have referred to
Bro. Andrew as the father of the Unamended community. Thus the implication is
made that Bro. Andrew’s writings on these topics in The Blood of the Covenant constituted new teachings introduced at
that time.
One of the problems
contributing to this confusion for Unamended brethren is a lack of familiarity with
the writings of Bro. Andrew. With such a reputation for controversy and
extremes, one is bound to proceed cautiously. Is it possible this reputation
exceeds the tone of the author, who on the subject of resurrectional
responsibility states?
The dead in Adam have
not been brought under “the law of the spirit of life” and therefore they are
not amenable to its retribution. They have never been freed from the law of sin
and death, and therefore the death on which they have entered is endless. To
bring them out of the grave for further punishment would be to terminate one
endless death for the purpose of inflicting upon them another.
Cannot God raise
anyone, and for any purpose? No; because to do so would stultify His own word.
God has chosen to regulate His action in regard to death and resurrection by
law. He has decreed that death must follow sin, and that such death can only be
terminated or averted by justification from the sin which caused it. The
endless subjection to death of unjustified sinners is essential to the
fulfillment of “the law of sin and death”;
and, on the other hand, the deliverance
from the grave of those who have died after being justified whether faithful or
unfaithful is equally necessary to the fulfillment of “the law of the spirit of
life.” To stop the operation of “the law of sin and death” without
justification from sin for the purpose of applying a feature confined to “the
law of the spirit of life,” would
introduce confusion, and be a violation of justice; it would also destroy the
distinction between two laws of an antagonistic character.
God has shown, both by
word and deed, that strict adherence to His own laws is a supreme feature of
His character.
J.J. Andrew
The
Blood of the Covenant
#
32. Objections p. 42
The question that we must individually
ask ourselves is, ... are we personally offended by Bro. Andrew’s
interpretation? Is he limiting the power of God or merely recognizing God’s
laws? Do these beliefs in any way affect those who seek to serve God, those in
covenant relationship, those who must appear before the judgment seat of Christ
to be judged according to what they have done? In other words, does this
brother’s interpretation of what God, through His independent power, may or may
not do to those outside the covenants of promise, stir us to action? The
Amended fellowship felt this interpretation warranted amending the statement of
faith and excluding from fellowship all who would not confess that
resurrectional responsibility was related to light and not covenant making. But
traditionally, the Unamended fellowship has been content to consider
resurrectional responsibility of enlightened aliens an open question that
should not affect fellowship.
Returning to The Blood of the Covenant, was it
indeed, as is the prevailing belief among many brethren, the cause of the
Amendment? None can deny that it was at the least a catalyst as it set in
motion, or brought to the forefront, this controversy between brethren already
holding divergent views. Bro. Andrew indicated he was aware of a wide
divergence of belief, and his forceful contention that God would not raise any
outside of covenant relationship was a challenge to those who believed
otherwise. But, was this brother’s written interpretation of such profound
significance to bring about a step as drastic as separate fellowships?
The Blood of the Covenant was published in February 1894. Bro. Roberts immediately
responded with a pamphlet entitled Resurrection
to Condemnation in which he states:
It
is with no pleasure that I write an answer to the pamphlet that has just been
published by brother J.J. Andrew, of London, entitled, “Blood of the Covenant.”
The personal respect in which I hold him; the number of good things that the
pamphlet contains; the advantage given to the enemies of the truth by conflict
among its friends; and the discouragement and distress that must necessarily be
caused to many who are waiting for Christ by the flood of mystifying
technicalities let loose upon them from quarters where edification ought to be
looked for...
Robert Roberts
The Resurrection to Condemnation
p.5
Although it is clear that
Bro. Roberts is writing to counter Bro. Andrew’s views on resurrectional
responsibility, he gives us indication that the dispute was not of fellowship
proportions, i.e., he speaks of his personal respect for Bro. Andrew, he notes
that The Blood of the Covenant contains
a “number of good things”, and, he characterizes the disputed interpretations
as “mystifying technicalities.”
Bro. Williams also takes note
of the issue and enters the debate in a article published in the June, 1894 Advocate:
What
is the matter with you over there? Who is this man that you are venting your
cruelty on?… Is
all this fuss because he does not believe in the resurrection of some out of
Christ? No, that cannot be, for some in nearly every ecclesia have not believed
that ever since the revival of truth in this nineteenth century and no such
fuss as this has been raised. No; it is not because he did not believe in the
resurrection of some out of Christ; but it is because he had made that belief
offensive by continually forcing it upon the attention of the ecclesia and has
sent out a pamphlet giving vent to his beliefs. Well, since the difference
between him and yourselves was not considered an essential one it would have
been wiser on his part not to make it offensive;...
Thomas Williams
Advocate June 1894
p.277
Bro. Williams takes exception
to the treatment of Bro. Andrew by brethren in England. Noting that divergent
viewpoints on resurrectional responsibility had always been present and
tolerated, he characterizes the issue as “not essential”. He further comments
that as the subject was not essential it would have been more prudent on Bro.
Andrew’s part to not force it.
If these statements of Bro.
Roberts and Bro. Williams are to be taken as representative of the fellowships
they wrote and spoke for, we could assume that the controversy might well have
run its course and faded. After all, if the issue was truly a “technicality”
and an “unessential” belief, should not cool heads have prevailed? It is clear
from his writings in the Christadelphian that
Bro. Roberts never swayed from his belief in the resurrection of enlightened
rejecters, but neither did he suggest making it a fellowship issue. There has
been speculation that Bro. Roberts acted as an impediment to extreme factions
within the household who were insisting upon elevating this issue to a test of
fellowship. Although the Amendment to the Statement of Faith in 1898 addressed
only the proposition on resurrectional responsibility, by that time there were
other related areas of disagreement which divided the two fellowships and which
were later to be labeled “J.J. Andrew errors” by the Amended.
Note: The
Blood of the Covenant was first published in 1894 and a second edition was
issued in 1913. Since that time 3 editions have been issued, John W. Teas -
Conway, Arkansas 1927, The Dorchester Massachusetts Christadelphian Ecclesia
1967, and Christadelphian Publications - Richmond, Virginia 1985
BRO.
ANDREW’S CHANGE IN BELIEF
The fact that Bro. Andrew had
himself undergone a change in belief on the subject of resurrectional responsibility
is a critical factor in this assessment. Not only does this change contribute
to our understanding of the development and maturing of Bro. Andrew’s teachings
on this subject, it also aids in our understanding of the fierceness of the
reaction against him. Bro. Andrew was considered one of their own. He was a
respected writer and contributor to The
Christadelphian with strong ties to Bro. Roberts. For Bro. Andrew to
forcefully put forth a viewpoint on a controversial topic in opposition to Bro.
Roberts was a serous challenge. However, though he was taking Bro. Roberts to
task for having drifted from earlier positions to erroneous positions, many
were aware that Bro. Andrew had earlier been on record as believing in
resurrectional responsibility of enlightened rejecters. In 1870, 24 years prior
to his writing The Blood of the Covenant,
Bro. Andrew published Jesus Christ and Him Crucified (later
reprinted as The Real Christ). In this work Bro. Andrew states:
All
men, however will not then be raised from the dead; for “Where no law is there
is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15); and “As many as have sinned without law’
shall also PERISH without law” (Rom 2:12).
Daniel is, therefore, quite in harmony with the other prophets when he
predicts that only some, or “many of them that sleep, “...shall awake.
The “many” will
comprise all those who, by a knowledge of God’s revealed truth, have been
brought into a state of responsibility, from the time of Abel to the second
appearing of Jesus Christ.
The
Real Christ
Bro. Roberts takes note of
Bro. Andrew’s change in belief and challenges him in the debate held between
these brothers in April 1894:
We have, in past
times, dwelt together in unity as regards the particular issue raised tonight,
if there is any change, it rests you know where with brother Andrew, who thinks
he has discovered that some things he used to think were true are not true...
He was not always of
this mind. His change of mind might not have necessitated the present meeting,
but he has taken steps which involve an attempt to coerce us into the reception
of his views,
“Resurrectional
Responsibility Debate”
Robert Roberts
- First Night
Bro. Andrew responds:
Reference has been made
to my change of attitude. Yes, a change from a position which I never deemed
strong to one which I do deem strong.
Ibid.
Brother Andrew
- First Night
Even though Bro. Andrew
describes his original belief as “never deemed strong”, it was nevertheless
known and again thrown back at him as late as 1905 by Bro. Williams. By 1904,
Bro. Andrew had, as a result of 10 years of conflict and debate, hardened his
position to declare that God could not raise anyone to life not in covenant
relationship. He then followed the example of the Amended community by making
this issue a test of fellowship. At that point he had refused to fellowship
Bro. Williams and submitted his reasons for doing so for publication in the Advocate:
…evidence that has been advanced in pro of that
there is no resurrection outside the Abrahamic covenant.
When in London you
partially recognized this truth, but you also taught that God may, or will,
raise some Gentiles for punishment, or for testimony ...
(Bro. Andrew)
Answer
If
you mean by “this truth” that resurrection which is a subject matter of the
gospel is “through Jesus” only, and that only those in covenant relation are
the subjects thereof I not only “recognized this when in London,” but long
before you did, and when you were opposed to it. Indeed, I recognized it at my
immersion, and as I told Bro. Roberts, learned it through reading “Twelve
Lectures.” When I first heard that you were discussing the question in London,
I concluded, from my knowledge of your position previously that you were
contending for your old position still, and it was under this impression I
commence reading “The Blood of the Covenant” by which, to my surprise, I
learned of your change (Bro. Williams)
“An
Exchange of Views”
Reprinted in Life
and Works of Thomas Williams
Pp. 155 &
157
We note that Bro. Williams
quite forcefully responds that he was a proponent of resurrectional
responsibility through covenant relationship “long before” Bro. Andrew was,
explaining that he was aware of Bro. Andrew’s previous position. Bro. Williams
then says something very significant and revealing about the status of
resurrectional responsibility belief prior to 1894. He says he “learned it
through reading Twelve Lectures” written by Bro. Roberts! This testimony
of Bro. Williams points out not only the “open” nature and toleration of
beliefs on this subject, but also the contradictory understanding held by
pioneer brethren as they struggled with this doctrine. In such an era it is
easy to understand Bro. Andrew’s explanation that he had accepted what he
believed to be a common understanding on a non essential subject in 1870, while
maturing to a more studied position in 1894. Bro. Andrew offers further
explanation on his change in belief in the March, 1895 The Sanctuary- Keeper:
It
was this and similar unsound arguments which satisfied me that the belief in
resurrection out of Christ was untenable. First, it was said that any in Adam
could be raised through the blood of Christ, and then it was contended that even
Christ was not raised through his own blood. When such contradictory and
unscriptural reasoning is required to bolster up any tenet it is obviously
based on an unsound foundation. It was to me quite a revelation to find that a
fundamental truth concerning Christ’s death and resurrection could be so
perverted by those professing his name; and, perceiving the danger involved,
duty compelled me to oppose it and to use every opportunity for setting forth
the teaching of the Scriptures.
J.J. Andrew The Sanctuary
- Keeper
Volume 1
(March, 1895) p. 125
In summary, Bro. Andrew’s
forceful contention in The Blood of the
Covenant for his changed beliefs regarding resurrectional responsibility
became the focus of attention and criticism. However, The Blood of the Covenant was written to defend scriptural
principles of the atonement and addressed a host of subjects critical to that
doctrine. Bro. Andrew explained that he had observed a change in beliefs
appearing in The Christadelphian, which
he believed resulted from an effort to maintain belief in resurrection out of
Christ. Thus, his advocacy for atonement principles came at a time when the
popular trend was going in an opposite direction and this put him in conflict
with Bro. Roberts. Christadelphians in America managed for several years to
avoid the severity of the conflict and open discord evident in England. As
events unfolded, Bro. Andrew and Bro. Williams shared for the most part a
common understanding of doctrine. In the following section we will examine the
relationship between these two pioneer brethren.
Understanding the relationship between
these two defenders of Unamended doctrine is a critical element in an assessment
of Bro. Andrew. The Amended community has painted both of these brothers with
the same brush in that they identify the “Advocate” community with “J.J. Andrew
errors”. The Unamended community respects the work and efforts of Bro. Williams
but is historically uncertain as to Bro. Andrew and his relationship with Bro.
Williams. It is generally believed by many that Bro. Williams did not approve
of Bro. Andrew due to Bro. Williams having labeled him as extreme, and perhaps
an assumption is made that Bro. Williams disapproved of The Blood of the Covenant as well.
What we actually see is initial approval and support for Bro.
Andrew by Bro. Williams. This approval and support is evident over the period
1894 to 1904. In 1904, there was a change in their relationship brought about
by Bro. Andrew. It was at that point that he refused to fellowship Bro.
Williams resulting in Bro. Williams’ characterization of Bro. Andrew’s changed
position as an ‘‘extreme claim and fellowship attitude.’’
In 1894 when The Blood of the Covenant was published, we find that Bro. Williams
rushed to the support of Bro. Andrew and sharply criticized his English
brethren for their “cruel” treatment. In the June, 1894 Advocate, under the title of “What Is The Matter With You Over There?”,
he defends both Bro. Andrew and The Blood
of the Covenant:
Wait
a little bit, brethren; ... Give that man you have at your feet, whom
you are kicking, bruising and stabbing, a chance to breathe.
…What
is the matter with you over there? Who is this man that you are venting your
cruelty on? ... The
J.J. Andrew who has been a faithful and able and loving brother lo, these many
years?
…Now let me beg of you to consider if all
these false and ridiculous charges have not increased one wrong into a legion?
...for here you come running and rushing and stumbling over each other to
charge this brother with “limiting the power of the Holy one of Israel;” with
denying “the supremacy of God;” with “sitting in judgment” and “assuming God’s
prerogative;” with “insulting God, “ etc. Is it that one “limits the power of the
God of Israel” because he thinks God’s own arrangement according to His
revealed plan is so and so?…
Are we at baptism
delivered from anything we received from Adam? Your answers show that the
complaint of the circular was not without foundation; for you ridicule the very
thought of Adam’s sin being imputed to us,…
...In
this excited assault upon Bro. Andrew you have been cutting and slashing till
your own positions you occupied when in a normal state have been abandoned and
the most reckless statements made.
...I
received his book, read it carefully; agreed with many things it contained,
differed from many other things. One thing, however impressed me, and that was that a becoming spirit, which all his
writings show to be characteristic of the man, pervades the book throughout.
As it is, your duty is to recall the false things you have
imputed to him and escape the dangerous results of bearing false witness
against your neighbor. …
Thomas Williams
“What
Is The Matter...?”
Advocate June 1894
Pp.
277, 278, 280, 281, 282
It is clear that Bro.
Williams does not consider Bro. Andrew or his writings to be dangerous, although
he did feel that Bro. Andrew had made his position on a non-essential belief
offensive by forcing it.
What followed over the next
few years would change the relationship between these two brothers. Bro.
Williams’ advice to the English brethren was not heeded and the Amendment was
introduced four years later in 1898. The Christadelphian body in England was
divided into defensive camps. It was a period of bitterness and open strife. In
October 1900, Bro. Williams comments upon the state of the household in England
in an Advocate article entitled, “A
Rallying Point”:
In
view of the divided state of the brethren of the British Isles it has become
difficult for one to go from place to place without offence on one side or
another. This deplorable state of things has arisen largely of late from
disputes and differences on Adamic condemnation and justification in Christ,
and the “third class resurrection” theory. The result is the existence here of
not less than seven different bodies “Partial inspirationists,”
“Renunciationists,” extremists on third class resurrection, those who agree
with the latter partly but who allow “doubters,”
those who do not make the third class
matter a test of fellowship, and those called “The Andrew Party.” What a
wilderness to travel in!
The brethren in America have succeeded in keeping these
troubles from their shores…
At
present most of them stand firmly on the old foundation occupied for forty
years, ... “The
Old Birmingham Statement of Faith and Basis of Fellowship.”…
Thomas
Williams
Advocate Oct. 1900
Reprinted in Selected
Works of Thomas Williams
Pp. 487-488
The charged atmosphere in
England changed the brotherhood and it changed Bro. Andrew. In 1905 Bro. Williams
published “An Exchange of Views” in which he revealed that Bro. Andrew had
refused to fellowship him the previous year. He further labeled Bro. Andrew as
“extreme” in his new contention that God could not raise the uncovenanted and
his decision to elevate that belief to a test of fellowship. This exchange is
reprinted in the Life and Works of Thomas Williams published by the
Advocate Publishing Committee in 1974. As a preface to this article, the
editors wrote:
The following article,
“An Exchange of’ Views Between Brother J. J. Andrew and Brother Thomas
Williams” is reproduced here in part in order to correct the impression or
belief long held by many, that these two brethren held and taught the same
ideas relating to resurrectional responsibility. As this article demonstrates,
this was not so; they did not agree, and they were not in fellowship one with
another.
Life
and Works of Thomas Williams
Editors’
note p. 152
This preface makes claims
which require scrutiny. It indicates that the “Exchange” will “correct the
impression or belief long held by many” and states, “they (Bro. Andrew and Bro.
Williams) did not agree” and “they were not in fellowship one with another.” As
no time periods are specified relative to this characterization of their
relationship, one might be left with the impression that these two brethren had
never agreed, or, that Bro. Williams was distant from Bro. Andrew. Such
conclusions would be in error. Fortunately, the article contains the necessary
clarity to define their relationship as well as their standings on doctrinal
issues and fellowship. Bro. Williams begins the article with an overview of
events and then prints Bro. Andrew’s letter with his own responses after each
paragraph. Bro. Andrew begins:
My reasons for declining to fellowship you, when in London
the early part of last year were given you in writing;
J.J. Andrew Advocate July
1905
“An
Exchange of Views”
Reprinted in Life
and Works of Thomas Williams p.153
As this article originally appeared
in the July 1905 Advocate, it appears
Bro. Andrew declined to fellowship Bro. Williams the previous year, 1904. This
action, occurring in 1904 is what Bro. Williams refers to as Bro. Andrew’s
extreme:
We are sorry, however, that he still strives to justify
his extreme claim and fellowship attitude on the question of resurrection,
namely, that God has so circumscribed His power by the law of the resurrection
that it is impossible for Him, in the future, to raise any one to life again,
for any purpose, who is not in the “everlasting covenant,” and, moreover that
an acceptation of this claim must be made a basis of fellowship.
Thomas Williams
Ibid.
p. 152
Thus it appears that it is Bro.
Andrew’s hardening of position in 1904 that Bro. Williams objects to, and, it
is at this point that “they did not agree” and “they were not in fellowship one
with another.” Later, in the “Exchange”, Bro. Williams says:
...From the beginning of the controversy you had appeared
publicly in agreement with me, you heard my address and answers to questions in
Barnsbury, and you afterwards voted to invite a return visit ...Then suddenly
you became a busy opponent.
…In this you have gone to the extreme,
impaired your usefulness and humiliated those who defended you before you
changed from the “happy medium” to the presumptuous extreme.
Thomas Williams
Ibid.
Pp. 155,160-161
Bro. Williams reminds Bro.
Andrew that “from the beginning of the controversy” there was apparent
agreement between them. That beginning was ten years earlier, 1894! Another
clarification that is made by Bro. Williams in the “Exchange” is that the
“extreme” position of Bro. Andrew in 1904 was a change from what he had taught
and been associated with for the previous ten years:
You
admit, then, that the change in your fellowship attitude was the result of a
change in your belief and thus you admit that it was through no fault of mine.
You need not date your former attitude as for back as the writing of “The Blood
of the Covenant;” for it was in the year 1900 that you wrote me that if one
believed that God, “by His independent power” outside the law of resurrection,
might “raise some others” you would not consider it a barrier to fellowship. It
was not long before our last visit to London that you helped to quiet a
disturbance in Camberwell by showing the brethren there that they were gong too
far in making a test of fellowship upon the basis of limiting the “independent
power” of God to the resurrection of those only who are in covenant
relationship. Your change was a very sudden one;…
Thomas Williams
Ibid.
p. 153
Bro. Williams says, “You admit
then that the change in your fellowship attitude was the result of a change in
your belief, and thus you admit that it was through not fault of mine.” Bro.
Andrew’s change is characterized as coming late and sudden. Bro. Williams did
not withdraw fellowship with Bro. Andrew, the withdrawal was Bro. Andrew’s!
Bro. Williams ends his “Exchange” with the following:
Affectionately
your brother, in the Lord, awaiting the day when all our misunderstanding shall
end.
Thomas
Williams
Ibid. p. 161
Though the preface to the “Exchange”
states “they did not agree” and “they were not in fellowship one with another”,
it is apparent that from 1894 to 1904 they were in agreement and in fellowship.
Bro. Andrew died in 1907 and for the last 4 years of his life refused to
fellowship Bro. Williams or anyone who would not support his position. There is
no indication that Bro. Williams would have failed to fellowship Bro. Andrew
had he been given the opportunity. Perhaps the extent of Bro. Williams’s
affection and support of Bro. Andrew is best documented in the notice of Bro.
Andrew’s death, written by Bro. Williams and published in the August 1907 Advocate:
BRO.
J.J. ANDREW DEAD. Death has at last claimed a devoted, faithful and able
brother. Our beloved and highly esteemed brother, J. J. Andrew died early in
the month of June. Perhaps of him it can be said as Paul did of himself “For
him to die was gain, “ since for five or six years he had been sadly afflicted with paralysis,
affecting him physically, mentally and vocally. This affliction, almost at its
first attack, brought to a close a long life of usefulness in the Truth, and as
we believe, almost terminated that probation which will receive approval of the
Lord when the time of dispensation of rewards comes. It was up to that time it
could be said of our dear brother that he had fought a good fight, he had kept
the faith, he had finished his course. The lingering days that followed till
death came may not be counted.
For
nearly forty years Bro. J. J. Andrew has been a power of good in the work of
the Truth, both by pen and by tongue, amid especially by example as seen in a
life that adorned the doctrines he was so well able to forcefully yet calmly,
and logically set forth. In the battles which the Christadelphian fought for
years for the purity of the Truth, who did more able and valiant work than Bro.
J. J. Andrew? While others rushed in amid, perhaps, vehemently met the first
onslaughts, it was Bro. Andrew’s calm, logical work of clearing up all
difficulties amid removing all obstacles that helped more than anything else to
fortify and establish the strongholds of the Truth. He was so constituted that
whatever he took in hand to do, it must be done thoroughly. He was a veritable
embodiment of precision, and so long as he was spared affliction he was able to
largely counteract the tendency of this characteristic to run to extremes.
Toward the latter part of his life the Christadelphian world had the sad
opportunity of witnessing how suddenly friends could become bitter foes. But
aggravating as were some of the tongues that “set on fire of Gehenna,” our dear
brother, who is now at rest from it all, never retaliated, but made manifest
that he had well learned the lesson of the Master who, “when he was reviled, reviled
not again.” Take your rest, dear Bro. Andrew, in death’s silent and undisturbed
repose. Our turn may come ere long; but our prayer is that when the trumpet
shall sound to wake the Lord’s sleeping ones we shall be worthy as we believe
you are to receive the longed-for words from the lips of our absent Lord, “Well
done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.”
Thomas Williams
Advocate August
1907
Pp.
248-249
As a point of clarification it might be helpful
to review Bro. Andrew’s position regarding the resurrection of enlightened
rejecters during the period of 1894 to 1904 as referenced by Bro. Williams in
the “Exchange”. Although Bro. Andrew stated in The Blood of the Covenant that God would not raise enlightened
rejecters for judgment, he nevertheless allowed for belief in others being
raised by God’s independent power:
The
question of making resurrection of Gentiles out of Christ a test of fellowship
depends upon the way it is held.
If
it be recognized that Adam brought death upon the entire race by his sin, that
baptism into Christ frees men from the permanent power of death, and that such
of the baptized as die will rise through their relationship to Christ, but that
it is possible God may by His independent power, raise some others, I should
not consider it a barrier to fellowship.
But
if it be contended that some Gentiles out of Christ will be raised on the same
basis as those in Christ, this contention would be a barrier to fellowship.
J.J.
Andrew
Advocate October
1900
Reprinted in Selected
Works of Thomas Williams
p.489
The distinction drawn here by Bro. Andrew between the possible
resurrection of those out of Christ and the certain resurrection on a sure
basis of those in Christ was in fact a considered and accepted position within
the household. Bro. Roberts had earlier been on record in support of this
position, noting the “inappropriateness” of bringing forth enlightened rejecters
upon the same basis and at the same time with the household of faith:
Rejecters of the Word, who do not come under the law of
Christ by belief and obedience may be reserved till the close of the thousand
years. It does not seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel of God
from themselves should be passed over without judgment, and yet, since they do
not become constituents of the household of faith, their resurrection at the
time when account is taken of that household would seem inappropriate. May they
not be dealt with at the end?
Robert Roberts
Reprinted in Selected
Works of Thomas Williams
p.491
Bro. Andrew’s last years (1904-1907) are
the most difficult to understand or explain. He separated himself from those with
whom he agreed on essential doctrine, the “old foundation” as Bro. Williams
termed it. Why did such a staunch brother, having recognized and defended
against the error and excesses evident around him separate himself from
brethren who supported him? In hardening his position and elevating that belief
to a test of fellowship he in effect followed the extreme example of the
Amended community. We may never fully understand the forces that brought him to
this point, but considering the hostility of the Christadelphian community in
England at that time, perhaps his action was predictable! Where such animosity
and conflict exist there is typically a hardening of positions and a withdrawal
into camps with resulting loss of perspective. This is referenced in Principles
and Proverbs and seems most applicable to the experience and decisions of
the brotherhood during this period:
The Weightier Matters
When
there is failure to maintain the principle of balance, the greatest danger is
that the very first principles of right conduct may be neglected, while all
attention is bestowed upon matters of little importance which for the moment
chance to loom large. This indifference to essentials and scrupulous whitening
of exteriors is such a common failing of humanity that we can gather lessons
from almost all part of history
The mind grows along the line of its activities. That is why
men always tend to exaggerate the importance of matters to which they have
given much attention or which have been the subject of their discussion. …
In the most natural manner they would
exaggerate the importance of these subjects while the essential principles on
which they agreed received no attention.
Islip
Collyer
Principles
and Proverbs
Chapter
3, p.16
Bro. Williams, however, publicly offered his insight into Bro. Andrew’s change. He attributed the change to the influence of others, and in the “Exchange” states:
...It
was just before my arrival, when a few excitable sisters were using their
influence in favor of the extreme attitude, that you suddenly changed.
...I
was not blind to the fanaticism of excited sisters. I saw your weak condition,
and I told the truth and gave the facts when, to shield you, I offered the real
explanation. Feminine fanaticism” was my explanation, though you, the unconscious victim, could not be
expected to see it.
Thomas Williams
Advocate July
1905”
An
Exchange of Views”
Reprinted in Life
and Works of Thomas Williams
p.161
Bro. Williams had kept his readership
informed of Bro. Andrew’s poor health and here he attributes the hardened
position to the manipulations of others. In the notice of Bro. Andrew’s death
printed two years later, Bro. Williams again references Bro. Andrew’s
afflictions “toward the latter part of his life.”
Bro. Ken McPhee’s Christadelphian History also comments upon Bro.
Andrew’s poor health as a possible factor contributing to his situation during
his last years:
Brother
Andrew had been an excellent student of Scripture and had been a tower of
strength to Robert Roberts as his assistant in the work of publishing The
Christadelphian.” As we read his writings produced in his early years, the
1870’s and 1880’s, we find his reasoning crisp and clear. In his last years (he
died at age 67 in 1907) it is evident that his thinking was not as consistent
as it had been formerly. He had had a stroke which seriously undermined his
strength. It was in these last years that he assumed and defended the position
that Thomas Williams referred to as “Bro. J.J. Andrew’s Extremes.”
We
have believed for many years that the continuing effort by the Amended
brotherhood to blame the division of 1898 on Bro. J.J. Andrew is a gross
miscarriage of justice. The charitable thing would be to appreciate the constructive
work done by Bro. Andrew in his good years and, with forbearance, extend
compassion to him for the difficulties he suffered in his last years.
K.G.
McPhee
Christadelphian
History - A Story of Division
Pp. 3-4
As we consider this history many will
inevitably ask if it would not have been best if Bro. Andrew had left the issue
of resurrectional responsibility alone. After all, it was generally considered
a non-essential belief and even Bro. Andrew’s most vocal supporter suggested
that he had made it offensive by forcing it. Or, recognizing Bro. Andrew’s
perspective, couldn’t he have presented his viewpoint less forceful and tried
persuasion rather than assertion? Such questions are legitimate particularly
when we view the chain of events that flowed after publication of The Blood of the Covenant. However, if
we consider as a starting point events that led up to Bro. Andrew’s
determination to restate the principles of atonement to counteract a growing
number of divergent views, we get a different perspective. In the opening
article of The Sanctuary-Keeper, Volume
1, Bro. Andrew explains:
The
effort represented by No. 1 of The Sanctuary-Keeper is not a matter of choice,
but of necessity using the word in the sense of duty. I should much have
preferred to remain, as hitherto, an occasional contributor to the literature
of the Truth. But existing circumstances indicate the need for something more.
The controversy on resurrection to judgment has made manifest a wide divergence
of belief in the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice and the benefits now derivable
from it. These are not subordinate, but vital, parts of the Truth.
The Sanctuary-Keeper
Vol. 1 July
1894
p.1
Earlier that year Bro. Williams had likewise taken Bro. Andrew’s critics to task on doctrinal grounds:
The question really is, does baptism have anything to do
with Adamic sin? In other words, are we at baptism delivered from anything that
we received from Adam? Your answers show that the complaint of the circular was
not without foundation; ..., since you deny that Adamic sin is imputed to
his children? Read “Revealed Mystery, “pages 24 and 27, and you will see how
your phraseology has of late been changed ... you have been cutting and slashing till your own positions you occupied
when in a normal state have been abandoned and the most reckless statements
made.
Thomas Williams
“What
Is The Matter...?”
Advocate June 1894
Pp.
280, 281
It appears that a showdown was
inevitable! If Bro. Andrew hadn’t assumed the task; it would have fallen to
someone else, possibly Bro. Williams.
Still, should we not assess the style chosen by Bro. Andrew to
defend the atonement? Does this not impact our consideration of his offender/defender
status? Could he not have presented his beliefs in a less forceful manner and
perhaps been more persuasive, particularly in addressing resurrectional
responsibility? Hindsight may be an important factor in our determination. And
yet, friendly persuasion wasn’t the style of that day nor has it ever been a
preferred feature of the truth. We find that the truth has always been
presented and defended with uncompromising passion! We know this to be true of
the prophets and the apostles. When considering pioneer brethren in the 19th
century, we note that Robert Roberts described Dr. Thomas as “a person of self
reliance with an independence almost to the point of eccentricity”. Dr. Thomas
was known to be “intolerant of ignorance” and “uncommonly frank.” Robert
Roberts and Thomas Williams were not known to mince words! Political
correctness was not a consideration for these brethren who were passionate and
jealous for the truth. Would we have expected Bro. Andrew’s approach to be any
less?
SUMMARY
AND IMPACT
After reviewing Bro. Andrew’s
reputations, writings, relationships and last years, most will probably still
rely heavily upon their personal reaction to his belief regarding
resurrectional responsibility in their final assessment. Are we offended when
he says, “Cannot God raise again anyone, and for any purpose? No; because to do
so would stultify His own word. God has chosen to regulate His action in regard
to death and resurrection by law.” If one believes that God will surely raise
some for reasons other than judgment, one will probably be offended even if
they themselves believe that indeed there are some dead who “shall not rise”
according to God’s law. But, is this interpretation of scripture something that
strikes at the foundation of our faith, or limits the power of God? Most will
agree that God cannot lie, cannot break His promise to Abraham and cannot
dispense with His plan for a millennial reign on this earth. In these beliefs
we do not see ourselves as limiting the power of God nor are we saying that God
is powerless to perform these breaches. What we are attesting to is the
attributes and arrangements by which God has declared Himself to us. We believe
these to be true, and not only true, but sure!
Even if our personal reaction is to declare
Bro. Andrew an offender in this subject matter, is this belief a barrier to
fellowship? We recall further that Bro. Andrew, up until the last 4 years of
his life, did not consider this issue a barrier to fellowship if some should
believe “…that it is possible God may, by His independent power, raise same
others . . .” Thus for all but the last four years of Bro. Andrew’s life, (10
years after writing The Blood of
the Covenant and 6 years after the Amendment), he supported the “open
question” stand which has been the position of the Unamended community since
the days of Dr. Thomas.
Bro. Andrew unfortunately left that position in 1904 when he hardened his stand and made that belief a test of fellowship. In so doing, he followed the extreme example of the Amended community. In 1898 the Birmingham ecclesia issued a dictum that disfellowshipped thousands who could not agree that light brought responsibility. They declared that to be and remain in fellowship with them one must reject former brothers and sisters. Surprisingly, though they declared resurrectional responsibility an essential belief determining fellowship, no re-baptism was necessary!
Still today many Unamended appear less
concerned with the extreme positions of the Amended community than they are
with Bro. Andrew, and, with what result? Have labored attempts to disassociate
the Unamended community from Bro. Andrew had an unanticipated negative
consequence? How have our youth, and our community at large interpreted such
distancing? Could repeated concern or disapproval of Bro. Andrew give
unintentional support and/or credibility to the Amended community’s campaign of
associating him with erroneous beliefs? Are our expressions of concern or
disapproval balanced by recognition of his role as defender of pre-amendment
faith? We must keep in mind that the Amended community labels as “J.J Andrew
error” those Unamended beliefs regarding hereditary alienation, baptism for
remission of sins- Adamic and individual, the nature of man and the nature of
Christ. Disassociation and condemnation of Bro. Andrew by the Amended community
seems a logical if not tactical response. However, do we not risk creating
confusion and harm to our household if we are perceived as distancing ourselves
from the elements of faith which Bro. Andrew persistently defended? They were
his beliefs as well as the beliefs of Bro. Williams and they are our beliefs.
The error regarding these issues is on the part of the Amended, having begun as
a “drift” recognized by Bro. Andrew in the early 1890’s and characterized by
Bro. Williams as slashed and abandoned positions.
Has 100 years of controversy or
disassociation with Bro. Andrew contributed to a de-emphasis on the differences
that separate the Unamended community from the Amended community? We certainly
recognize that some within the Unamended fellowship openly question the
significance of these beliefs. Are our lectures and class lessons restricted by
attempts toward “political correctness” in order to avoid divisiveness or
offense?
The purpose of this review was to provide
relevant documentation whereby we might evaluate the person of John James
Andrew. In response to his standing reputations, the challenge was issued to
determine if Bro. Andrew should be considered an offender or defender. Many
will probably conclude that both characterizations apply. Is he not due credit
or praise for his defense of the Truth as well as compassion for his late life
extreme? A second obvious conclusion is that the Unamended community owes its
existence to the tireless efforts of Bro. Andrew and Bro. Williams in defending
Unamended tenants of faith. Bro. Andrew was an effective writer who presented
his ideas clearly and succinctly. The
Sanctuary-Keepers are considered by many Unamended as valuable additions to
their libraries while they are unknown in other circles. Should brethren be
discouraged from reading Bro. Andrew’s work? We readily read Amended authors,
confident that we can recognize and separate truth from error. Do we not as
readily owe to Bro. Andrew understanding and fairness, if not recognition?
James Washeck
St. Louis, Missouri
February, 2002