Week 5: Conscientious Objection Part 2

Oh well. Since the last one was such a long, rambling affair, I intend to make this one slightly more succinct.

As far as I can remember, I sort of volunteered to do the blog again (not really) but I never actually got around to writing anything down. So, this week, we had a look through all the examples of tribunal questions in the back of the book we were given copies of at an Intercity ages ago. It was at Glasgow South, can't remember when. Anyway, the book is called 'The Captive Conscience' if you want to have a read for yourself. It's very well written and extremely handy for getting your head round the topic and finding out a bit about the history of Christadelphians who conscientiously objected.

So, since I didn't write anything down, I can't remember any of our answers well enough to post them up here. If anyone can, feel free to put up a great big long comment...

Happy Tuesday. Next blog will be on the subject of False Doctrines: Heaven Going and the Immortal Soul. I think. At least, that's what it's supposed to be. Provisional date of Sunday the 11th May.

Week 4: Conscientious Objection Part 1

Right. This week's topic was Conscientious Objection, but since we tend to get fairly involved in our discussions and rarely finish what we started, it's next week's topic too.

To start with, we listed the three main questions we needed to look at, but for the sake of headings, I'm going to mash two of them together and add another one. So, the resulting questions are:

• What is conscientious objection?
• Why do we, as Christadelphians, conscientiously object, and how do we explain this?
• How far should we take this objection?

The first question is relatively simple, but the second question is a bit more in depth, and number three can cause serious brain-pain. Let's start at the start. Get comfy.

-Question One: What is Conscientious Objection?-

In this context, or at least in the context we started off talking about, conscientious objection refers to refusing to join the Armed Forces. The phrase literally means objecting to something because your conscience tells you it is not right, for whatever reason, and could really apply to a huge range of issues and situations. But more of that later.

The 'problem' of people objecting to military service really stems from the First and Second World Wars, when the British Government introduced conscription - they were short of cannon fodder, so they pressured the public to enlist and fight. Those who objected on religious, moral or ethical grounds were usually sent to a tribunal, where they would be given the chance to put forward their reasons for objection to a panel who would decide what to do with them.

According to Debbie's Standard Grade History jotter, most conscientious objectors were sent to the front on non-combat duties, such as driving ambulances or providing medical care. Those who refused outright to have anything to do with the military were usually sent to work on the land, and weren't very popular - they were despised by everybody around them and were treated very harshly by those they lived and worked with. Others were sent to prison, where some died from the poor treatment they received. Apparently, though, many soldiers returning from the Front both during and after the war, having seen the atrocities committed and the horrific things that humans can do to one another, admired their courage in refusing to take part, and respected them for what they did.

-Short Interval-

• 8:21pm - Eilidh discovers a Used Tissue invading her Personal Space.
• 8:22pm - Used Tissue forcefully apprehended and safely deactivated.

-Question Two: Why do Christadelphians conscientiously object?-

There are two main lines of reasoning to look at when asking this question, and both are equally valid. The first is that we are told quite clearly in the bible that killing (and any sort of violence) is wrong.

The obvious passage that springs to mind is in the Ten Commandments - "Thou shall not kill." This sets it down in black and white, and is a good place to start, but we have to be careful not to rely too heavily on this verse. A critic will quickly jump in and ask about all the killing that happened throughout the Old Testament, much of it at God's command, so we have to be able to demonstrate this principle elsewhere in the Bible.

Since Christ lived without sin and fulfilled the law, we aren't under the Law of Moses, although the principles still stand. We follow Christ's examples and Christ's teachings from the New Testament, and it is even clearer here that it is wrong to kill. We looked at quite a few relevant passages:

• Matt 5:38 - "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
• 1 John 3:15 - "No murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
• 1 Pet 2:23 - Jesus did not retaliate.
• 1 Thess 5:15 - "See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone."
• Matt 19:19 - "Love your neighbour as yourself."

So, God makes it pretty obvious that killing is wrong, and that we are to treat others as we would want to be treated. But it is also very important to note that we are NOT pacifists. A pacifist disagrees with violence, which is fair enough, but as followers of Christ we have to be prepared to fight for Jesus when He returns.

• Rev 19:11-19 - "And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army."

So, why are we prepared to fight for Jesus but not for the Government? This is closely related to our second line of reasoning. From Jesus' teachings, and from the various epistles in the NT, we know that as believers in Christ we can become heirs of the Promises to Abraham, and that this makes us as 'strangers and pilgrims' - we look to a citizenship in God's Kingdom on Earth, and so our allegiance is to God and Jesus, not to the Government.

• Heb 13:14 - "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come."
• Heb 11:10 - "He looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."
• 1 Pet 2:11 - "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims..."

And Jesus sums it up quite nicely:

• John 18:36 - "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, then would my servants fight."

So, Christadelphians object to military service based on the commands given in God's Word and the teachings of Jesus Christ - it is wrong in God's eyes to kill or inflict harm on another human, and besides, our allegiance should be to God rather than 'our' country. This isn't to say we should disregard the laws of the place we live in - Paul is quite clear about that:

• Romans 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, the the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God."

However, it is also made perfectly clear that God's will comes before Man's will, and when the two conflict, God's will takes ultimate priority.

• Acts 5:29 - "We ought to obey God rather than men."
• Acts 4:19 - "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge."

Rodge also had a handy analogy - the Bible teaches us that we should be as foreigners, as citizens of another kingdom. If, for example, Britain went to war with Poland, would all the Polish people living in the UK be allowed to enlist in the British Army? So, why would we, as 'strangers and pilgrims,' sign up?

-Question Three: Where is the line?-

This question is the one that really had us talking for ages, I think partly because it has so much to do with our lives today. Up to this point the discussion was mainly to do with military service, but this is where the subject of 'conscientious objection' opens right up.

As we said at the start, conscientious objection is when our conscience tells us that something is wrong, hopefully, in our cases, guided by the principles in the Scriptures, and our conscience can object to an awful lot of things.

If we go back to the Christadelphians in the two World Wars, they all applied for complete exemption from any form of military service, including non-combatant roles which pacifists would be happy with, such as ambulance driving. Again, the reasons for this are that these jobs were still part of the 'war effort' and came under military control. At any point, the military could hand you a gun and tell you to use it to defend a patient or something, and you would have no choice.

One thing is pretty clear-cut, though. If (by baptism) you have vowed to serve God, you can't then take an oath of allegiance to the Queen or your country. Common sense, really. Jesus tells us this unequivocally (!):

• Luke 16:13 - "No servant can serve two masters.... you cannot serve God and mammon."

As such, we should not be involved in things which require an oath of allegiance, such as the military or police, as we should always put God first. But this doesn't solve every conscience-related problem - the boundaries between right and wrong become a bit blurred when you look a bit closer. During the war, although a large number of Christadelphians were granted exemption from military service, they were sent to work on the land, providing food for everybody... including soldiers. Was this right or wrong?

I don't think we reached any definite conclusions, but I think it's one of these things that comes down to individual consciences. Rodge was saying that since farming is an ordinary peacetime job, providing food for people to eat, not like making munitions or anything, he personally wouldn't see a problem with working on the land during a war. Yet some Christadelphians were sent to prison for refusing to help the war effort in any way. It really comes down to how far each person feels it is right to take it.

One thing we discussed, but again didn't really reach any conclusions, was what soldiers who are converted should do. Paul tells us in Corinthians:

• Cor 7:17 - Let each one remain in the same calling as he was called."

What about soldiers? Jesus gives an answer in Luke:

• Luke 3:14 - "The soldiers asked him, saying, 'What shall we do?' He answered them, 'Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.'"

But could you still take part in warfare, and be under oath to the Queen? Anyone any thoughts? Again, I suppose it would come down to individual consciences, but it'd be extremely interesting to see what folk think.

Right. Moving away from just military service, we had a talk about some other issues we might 'conscientiously object' to. We mentioned things like euthanasia, and other 'moral dilemmas' we hear about today, but the one we really spent some time thinking about was abortion. We've all heard the pros and cons, the for and againsts, but where should we stand as Christadelphians?

For the majority of situations, it isn't difficult to see the right choice. Using abortions as a means of getting out of 'inconvenient' pregnancies is obviously completely wrong. But what about situations where the health of the mother is at risk? What is 'right?' Again, thoughts please. As far as we could see, the best thing is to pray and have faith that God will not put us in the position of having to make such a decision.

The next place we went in our collective train of thought was right back to that citizenship thing again, and how we should behave as 'strangers and pilgrims.' If we put this forward as a reason for objecting to military service, we can expect, as Christadelphians in the World Wars found, to have people accusing us of hypocrisy, of being perfectly happy to take the benefits of living in Britain but using this as an excuse to get out of fighting. The only way to answer this is to show that we don't try to get involved in the running of the country and so on, and although, yes, we benefit from the NHS and road network and so on, it isn't free - we pay taxes just like anyone else. Actually, this raised another of those interesting questions - a sizeable chunk of tax money goes towards funding the Armed Forces. Does this mean we should withhold however much percent of the tax we pay? Personally, I reckon that's a bit daft, and liable to get you locked up, and I think most of us agreed on that, but again, any comments are welcome...

This naturally led us on to voting, and whether or not it is the right thing to do. Most, if not all, Christadelphians do not vote, because, as we have said, we don't want to get involved in politics, and also because we could be voting against what God wants to happen. Yes, you could say, but God is guiding the votes anyway, so it doesn't matter what we vote. But it does. If you ask all the Christians you know who they voted for in the last election, you can be fairly sure they weren't all rooting for the SNP, which means that some of them voted against what God wanted to happen, and we can't put ourselves in that position.

However, this refusal to be involved in politics might well come under fire as well. What about Daniel and Joseph? They were second-in-command in their respective governments. The answer to this is that neither of them were elected, nor did they get there out of ambition and a desire to be powerful. They were put in those positions by God, to do God's will, which shows how strong both of these characters were - I doubt many of us could be the second most powerful person in the known world and still serve God as well as they did.

So, finally, that's pretty much all of what we talked about (it took quite a while). Since this is a bit of a whopper of a post, it would be nice to end it with a couple of interesting and relevant rhetorical questions, one courtesy of Rodge and the other courtesy of Wikipedia.

Going back to military service, and with our religious reasons for objecting to joining up being closely cross-examined, it's useful to think of this: during WWI and WWII, there were Christadelphians in both Britain and Germany. If they had enlisted, they would have been fighting on opposite sides of the battlefield, and killing their own brothers in Christ. Is there really any question about what God wants us to do?

Finally, slightly tongue-in-cheek but with a totally serious message, one Christian was summoned before a tribunal in WWII to explain his reasons for requesting exemption from military service. Once he had put his case to them, and explained his beliefs, he asked the panel whether any of them were Christians. They all said yes. 'Tell me,' said the man, 'can any of you picture Christ in khaki running out into no-man's land?' He was granted full exemption.

So, conscientious objection. Provided we read the Bible regularly and do our best to understand and seek guidance from it, we can usually (not always) rely on our conscience to tell us, deep down, what is the right course of action to take. The real difficulty lies in being able to act accordingly, and apply the principles that we know to be right to what we do every day.

I'm afraid that turned into a bit of an epic blog post, but I think it's (mostly) relevant, and hopefully I haven't missed anything much out. If I have, post it as a comment. I'm not going to make this post any longer.

PS. Coming soon: Part Two! The GRG Crew are faced with a few tricky tribunal questions... will they survive to see Monday? Stay tuned!

The History of the Christadelphians

Session 3



This week we were looking at the history of Christadelphians.

The founder of the Christadelphians, John Thomas, had to come up with a name when the American Civil War broke out in 1861. They had to make a stand to what they believed in as conscientious objectors. So to avoid military service, it was required that believers had to belong to a recognised religious group that didn't agree with participation in war. So Thomas came up with 'Christadelphian' which means bretheren in Christ.
So it came from making a stand for our beliefs, to obey God rather than man.

We came up with a few passages that were relevent to this
Hebrews 11v13-16
Hebrews 13v14
1 Peter 2v11

Another influential figure we discussed for a short while was Robert Roberts. He was the man
generally considered to have continued the work of organising and establishing the Christadelphian movement. Mainly Britain, especially Aberdeen!
So that was the first thing we discussed in the evening.

We then went onto talking about Unamended Christadelphians. They believe the same things as Amended Christadelphians but the Unamended group believe that only the deceased who are "in Christ" will be raised from the dead and have eternal life; the rest will simply remain dead, without conscious existence. The Amended group believe that all who are responsible will be raised from the dead at the time of the Final Judgment. The "responsible" are those that have heard of the Gospel. The righteous among the responsible ones will be judged according to their works and given everlasting life. The wicked will be destroyed and cease to exist. Those who are not responsible, since they had never heard the Gospel, will not be raised.

We ended the evening drawing up a list of passages where it talks about brothers and sisters being "in Christ." We did this to show exactly what "in Christ" means.
Acts 24v24 - involves having faith in him
Rom 8v38 -39 - we have the love of God
Rom 12v4-5 - being in Christ is being in one
1 Cor 1v2 - sanctification, being made seperate
1 Cor 15v22 - made alive in Christ
2 Cor 5v17 - born again
Gal 2v4 - freedom from the law, set free from sin
Gal 3v26-28 - all one in Christ
Eph 2v12-16 - brings us near to God
Eph 3v6 - in Christ, the promise
Phi 3v3 - rejoice in Christ Jesus
Phi 3v14 - the reward in heaven
1 Thes 4 v16 - those dead in Christ shall rise
2 Tim 2v1 - grace in Christ Jesus
2 Tim 2v10 - salvation and glory
1 Pet 3v16 - in Christ has a direct effect on the way we live

So that was this weeks one, next post will be done by Big Hairy Daniel!

Week 2: Actually, there's this book I'm reading called the Bible...

This time round, we tried to work out why we base our faith on the Bible, and whether or not it can really support our beliefs. The beans made a welcome return, and Jamie ate all the grapes. We came up with loads and loads of stuff, which I will now proceed to mangle.



Surprisingly enough, the fact that there are boring bits in the Bible (genealogies, lists of numbers, bits we don't immediately understand, and bits that might not seem all that relevant to our salvation) ranked high on our list of reasons for why we trust its authority. The main message of the Bible is clear - God's way is the way of life, and any other way leads to pointless death - but the detail is what ultimately convinces. We thought about the little bits of information that tie up in books that were written years apart and by different writers; two people might notice different things about the same event, and their comments might explain each other, for example. Matthew (27:37), Mark (15:26) and John (19:19) give three different accounts of the notice above Jesus' head on the cross, but we are told that it was written in three different languages. Coincidence? Nah. Rodge backed this up with some examples from J.J. Blunt's Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, which can be found online here: http://dandenongbec.org.au/blunt/index.html



But I'll start at the start. First, we thought of all the people who were witness to Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul lists them in 1 Cor 15:3-8, urging the Corinthians to remain faithful awaiting the resurrection of the dead because some of them were saying it would never happen. This is an example of a typical device used in scripture - solid evidence for belief is given, and then we are asked to base our faith on it and believe in something we can't see (Heb 11:1).



Here are a few of the peices of evidence we came up with:

• There is a tremendous amount of historical data in the Bible. Archaeology has never contradicted what the Bible says, and miny finds have backed it up. In contrast, the Book of Mormon has been shattered by New World findings.


• Evolution just doesn't work, whichever way you look at it. It is scientifically unverifiable, and that leaves intelligent design. The resposibilities of created beings to their creator are for the individual to decide, but the Bible gives the most comprehensive answer on this subject.


• Prophecy continues to be fulfilled. The Jews have been back in Israel since 1948, as prophecied in Isaiah 1:24-8, but Jerusalem has not yet been 'redeemed with judgement' (v.27) so we know we have something else to wait for.
• Many other religious writings concentrate on the actions of their gods, whereas the Bible is wholly concerned with the separation and reconciliation of God and Mankind. We should respect other people, but we do not have to respect their beliefs. By the way, that is a statement that can be misunderstood very easily, so don't for a moment imagine that you can go about ridiculing other religions and denominations. It's just that we shouldn't view them as holding sacred beliefs, because they are man-made, and for the gratification of man.
• The Bible has many authors, but only one message. It's as simple as that. And the authors quote each other so we know who wrote God's word - Jesus alone quotes almost every book in the Old Testament.
• There is no doctrinal inconsistency in the Bible - if it teaches a particular lesson, it will never contradict itself. God's principles have remained the same since the creation of the world.
• And lastly, the subject of Biblical transmission, or how the Bible reached us. We spent a bit of time on this, and reached the conclusion that the Bible couldn't have survived for us as it did had it been a book written by men. God was in control the whole time.

Right, so that was last week, March 30. I'd better phone Jamie, who had finished his blog for April 5 before I was halfway through this one...