001 First email to bro. Genusa, Aug 9, 2006

Dear bro. Genusa,

I was reading on your website and came across a new article called Questions on Fellowship. I thought I would take the time to answer them for you.

I also saw your Christadelphian Time Line, and it is quite helpful. Thank you for your effort. I was interested that I was included in it in the errorist colors, when that little booklet was is simply a collection of the writings of the early Christadelphians, all of them with context included I believe. Even the excerpts all have the full context somewhere in the booklet. At least that is the way I remember it.

I understand that you do not like our fellowship position, and I accept that. We will both go to the judgment seat, satisfied with the correctness of our individual position, and soon I hope. Then we will let Christ judge. But I am at least a little surprised that the irony of the situation seems to be lost on you, that your fellowship position has just branded 100 plus pages of writings by the pioneer brethren, in full context, as error.

Anyway, my response to your 12 questions is in the attachment.

Sincerely,

Jim Phillips

The Attachment was as follows:

12 Questions by bro. Genusa, Answered

1) If there is only One Faith, One Hope and One Baptism wouldn't, logically, there be only One real Fellowship?

A. The Bible does speak of one faith, hope and baptism, and there is only one fellowship, though that one fellowship is not determined by men. The verses which concern us about fellowship, are usually when the Bible treats fellowship as if it were a verb, such as "to do good and to communicate (fellowship) forget not. The emphasis is not on preserving an earthly fellowship, but rather, the doctrine consists of commands concerning who you are to fellowship, and how, so that we might be in that one fellowship. Without doubt, there was such a thing as the "Apostle's Fellowship" and this was an institution distinct from the other "fellowships" which are mentioned in the Scriptures and styled the Gnostics, the Nicolaitans, the Synagogue of the Satan, the Baalamites, and the Jezebelites. There will be one fellowship, when God establishes it, but not now. Now we have many "fellowships" where men walk together according to their conscience.

These "fellowships" are the consequence of a man's understanding of two divine commands. "Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (precepts) he received of us" and "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together." The instant that men disagree as to what these commands mean, and how they are to be practiced, we have two "fellowships."

"The name Christians comprehended all the adherents of Balaam and Jezebel, whether Ebionites, Gnostics or by whatever name or denomination of heresy, they might be known. The 'real christians' had NO FELLOWSHIP WITH SUCH; though among them, as in Pergamos, the poison of the serpent might be detected. The ecclesia and the synagogue of the Satan were institutions as distinct as they are now; for in the nineteenth century a true believer of the gospel of the kingdom is against all who have not obeyed the same, yet a congregation of 'real christians' may have in it some who are not true, as at Pergamos; these WILL SOONER OR LATER SHOW THEMSELVES, for their sympathies are fleshly, and they become impatient of principles which they regard as harsh, uncharitable, and severe." --John Thomas, Eureka Vol. 1 page 270

* * * * *

2) Is that One Fellowship man-made or the creation of God?

A. God will establish the One Fellowship on earth at a time yet future. The "fellowships" we have now, are not established by God, but by men perceiving their responsibility to God's teachings and commands differently; then acting obediently. I think we get a good example of this in the life of bro. George Booker, which he has chosen to share with us.

In his paper entitled "Confessions of an Ex-Berean," he makes it clear that early on in his life, he agreed with the teachings of bre. Thomas and Roberts on all the verses relevant to the divine practice of fellowship. When he held those positions, he stood aside from Central "fellowship" and walked with the Berean "fellowship." But over time, he came to disagree with all of the foundation teachings. Firstly, he came to believe that the pioneer brethren were wrong in their views concerning how to deal with marriage/divorce issues. The Bereans did not agree with him, and so in obedience to his new understanding, he withdrew from the Berean "fellowship." In withdrawing, he created a new "fellowship." (One, incidentally, that exists to this day.)

In harmony with his new understanding of divine principle, he separated himself with likeminded brethren who believed in their hearts that the marriage bond was indissoluable, even by adultery. He believed that a person who remarried while their first spouse was still alive, was in a constant state of adultery. As such, he did not want to fellowship adulterers, and he withdrew from the Berean "fellowship". The Berean "fellowship" did not believe that the marriage bond was indissolveable, and they did not believe that a remarried brother or sister was in a constant state of adultery. Therefore they extended fellowship to remarried individuals as they did not believe that they could withhold fellowship, where they believed Christ had permitted it. The end result was that two groups of sincere brethren, with honest differences concerning Christ's teaching, could no longer fellowship with each other in good conscience.

As bro. Booker moved through his life, he later discovered that he could no longer agree with the pioneer teaching on other verses pertaining to the divine practice of fellowship. He came to disagree with the pioneer teaching on the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, and offered a different explanation. He came to disagree with the pioneer teaching on the parable of the Good Shepherd, (specifically what defined a "hireling") and he offered a different explanation. He came to disagree with the pioneers teaching on the principles of what we may judge and what we may not judge, and offered a different explanation. In fact, he came to disagree with the pioneer teaching on every verse relevant to the divine practice of fellowship. Having reached his new conviction, he aligned himself with a body (Central "fellowship") where his new views would be tolerated, if not celebrated. He then published his disagreements and new explanations in a booklet he called "Biblical Fellowship."

Bro. George Booker is now walking according to his current conviction, as he should. On the other hand, I have never changed my convictions of what the principles of fellowship require, which incidentally, I learned in Central "fellowship". I believe that bre. Thomas and Roberts correctly explained the parable of the Wheat and Tares, and the parable of the Good Shepherd, and Christ's teaching on judging. I believe the verses pertaining to the practice of fellowship, exactly as they are explained by the pioneer brethren. Consequently, I cannot, in all good conscience and obedience to God and Christ, walk after the manner of bro. Booker. We live in the same city, Austin, Texas. Therefore, it is inevitable that two "fellowships" exist in this city, if we both are to walk in all good conscience before God.

This should not be regarded as strange or unusual. It is merely the fulfillment of Jesus' prophesy. "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

* * * * *

3-A) If "Our fellowship is with the Father, and with His son Jesus Christ" and "if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another" then fellowship, according to the Bible, begins with the relationship between an individual, God and His Christ. Responsibilities then start with the individual and radiate outward. The focus is not on a Church Institution, but on a relationship between individuals, God and His Son. Our position towards others then is not centrally controlled but rather, exercised locally radiating outward to the extent that responsibility, opportunity and any authority allow.

Answer: I have divided this third paragraph into two sections to make responding simpler. The section quoted above, I believe to be a completely scriptural and accurate explanation of the doctrine of fellowship. I agree with everything written here, and the manner in which it is explained. The focus is never on the institution, but rather on an individual's obedience. Our obedience at times requires separation. Those of us who have separated from outward and unrepentant disobedience, then meet together in obedience to the divine command of not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. But bro. Genusa continues...

3-B) The sectarian fellowship position starts by defining the boundaries of the community and working inward. It attempts to centrally control all perimeters of the community, centrally authenticates all claims as to who is in and who is out. By its practices it claims that once the perimeters are "defended" then the individual is in fellowship with God.

Answer: This is a conclusion bro. Genusa has personally reached, but it is generally wrong. All Christadelphian groups, including the Central "fellowship" start out by defining their boundaries. Generally speaking, all meet on the BASF, except for some Unamended communities who use the BSF. Still others have their own Statements of Faith, and some "fellowships" have expanded the BASF, but the point is the same. All Christadelphian communities begin by defining their boundaries. The difference between Central "fellowship" and the protestant "fellowship" is not in the defining of "boundaries" but rather, how individuals, and ultimately ecclesias deal with a matter, when those boundaries are torn down.

None of the Christadelphian groups he refers to as "sectarian" (I usually use the term "protestant," as in protesting the lose standards of Central) have any central control, nor are they focused inward. Probably, it appears so to bro. Genusa, because as a group, the protestant "fellowships" will by nature of their walk and conduct, be more uniform in belief than Central "fellowship" where divergent opinions on the first principles of truth are accepted. In observing this uniformity of belief, bro. Genusa may conclude it to be only possible through some sort of central control and over zealous policing, but the fact is that each of our ecclesias operate independently, and make all decisions related to fellowship to themselves. Because we all start from a common point that we are willing, ecclesially and individually, to enforce in fellowship, it may appear from the outside that this is an all consuming work.

This simply isn't the case. We all agree on the first principles of truth, or we wouldn't have bothered to stand aside from groups who accept varied opinions in the first place. We are all pretty much on the same page. Maintaining this is quite simple, because brethren who reach contrary opinions on the BASF, already know the conclusion of the matter, before it goes too far. Most leave us for the more error-tolerant Central "fellowship" way before we are done trying to reason with them.

I'm sure that the statement bro. Genusa makes that "by its practice it claims" is simply made up by him to cause us to appear in an absurdly unscriptural position. We don't claim, "by our practice" or any other way that once certain perimeters are defended, then we are in fellowship with God. We believe what the Scriptures say: "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:6-7.) We view this as an individual responsibility, not something that can be granted by a "fellowship." If an individual is walking in light, then he has fellowship with God. We can "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5:11). These are the divine conditions for fellowship. We have determined, as pertaining to our own individual obedience, that a person who contradicts the truth as defined in the BASF is in darkness, and we have no fellowship with such a person, or with those who (while perhaps personally sound) believe they can disobey apostolic commands in fellowshiping such a person. This is what we show "by our practice."

"They were zealous. They "zealously affected" the brethren, "but not well." Their zeal was not for the honour and promotion of the truth as taught by the apostles; but for the development of a theology that should be more acceptable to flesh and blood, and profitable to themselves. "The truth as it is in Jesus" was too exclusive and uncharitable for their piety and liberality of soul. It was too " sectarian ;" and they were terribly afraid of being made responsible for those characteristics deemed odious by the fashionable religionists of their day, which were inseparable from "the sect everywhere spoken against." The way of salvation taught by this sect was too narrow for them. They wanted a broader way, whereby some good, pious souls might be saved, who did not belong to the apostolic sect or party. The apostles were too sectarian for their benevolence and universal philanthropy. Their large hearts could not be bounded by so sectarian a dogma as, that only those could obtain eternal life who affectionately believed the gospel of the kingdom, were immersed, and continued in the teaching of the apostles. This made no provision for babes and sucklings, and pious Jews who assented to the truth, but did not approve of so sectarian an institution as baptism. Were all these to be damned because they didn’t see things as Paul did; and because they had not been dipped? He that believeth the gospel and is baptised shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be condemned. This is the oracle of the Founder of the Sect. It is eminently "sectarian;" and whoever is faithful to it must, and can only be sectarian; and so sectarian were the apostles, that they turned all over to cursing, when the Lord comes, who did not believe and do according to the principles of the sect. "They lost their lives in labouring to establish, in all its alleged exclusiveness, illiberality and sectarianism." --John Thomas. Vol. 3: The Christadelphian : Volume 3. 2001, c1866. The Christadelphian, volume 3. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System (Vol. 3, Page 204-205). Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association.

* * * * *

4) Does anyone really believe that the man-made name you have written on your "fellowship card" (figuratively speaking) determines if you are in or out of fellowship with God? Does anyone so believing have a single Scripture reference to support this position?

A. No! We believe that fellowship with God is determined by walking in the light, a thing that appears to me to be impossible, if disobediently fellowshiping with darkness.

* * * * *

5) Did Paul advise brethren who remained loyal to the truth to "start a new fellowship" when "all Asia" turned against him? According to the position of sectarians, Paul must have "fellowshipped errorists and wicked persons" by not behaving as they say we should behave today.

A. I would think the obvious answer to this, based on what we have already shown is, yes! Paul commanded withdrawal from those in error. He didn't say, withdraw if you have enough folks in the ecclesia to support you, otherwise, leave the error in. He didn't say withdraw from brethren in your meeting, but ignore your brethren's problem in the meeting across town. He said withdraw from "EVERY BROTHER that walketh disorderly...". The minute Paul or anyone else obeyed this principle, he established another "fellowship." I see no evidence that Paul did not practice this message which he preached.

* * * * *

6) Did the Lord Jesus Christ advise the faithful brethren of any of the seven ecclesias of the Apocalypse — a minority in most of those ecclesias — to "start a new Fellowship"?

A: Same answer as number five. Of course he did.

Rev 2:14-16 "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."

Here Jesus is telling the ecclesia at Pergamos that they have in their midst those who teach the error of Balaam. They also have in their midst those that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Jesus tells them that because these false believers were in their midst, that he had somewhat against them. The Nicolaitans were a Christian "fellowship" which was kept distinct from the believers in their "fellowship" in Ephesus, but included in their "fellowship" in Pergamos. Those in Pergamos were told this was wrong. They couldn't walk in darkness, and have fellowship with Christ Therefore they were commanded to "repent" which means go back and change! If they didn't change, Jesus warned them that their lampstand was going to be removed. It is hard to see how this could be any plainer.

Those ecclesias who refused the Nicolaitan "fellowship" and the Synagogue of the Satan "fellowship" such as Ephesus and Smyrna were commended. Those who welcomed the Nicolaitan "fellowship," the Synagogue of the Satan "fellowship, " the Balaam "fellowship," and the Jezebel "fellowship" were condemned.

* * * * *

7) Is there a single verse in the Bible that ever advises someone to "start a new Fellowship". If the truth is already established, as is admitted by Christadelphians of all fellowships to have occurred circa 1847, is there a valid Scriptural premise on which to "start a new Fellowship"?

A: How many verses do you want? I would think the two we have used so far (2 Thess. 3:6; Eph 5:11) should suffice, but there are many more. These verses require the believer to separate from error. Believers who separate from the error, then join together with others who have separated from the error, form a new "fellowship" (which isn't really a new, but a continuation of the old in place of the corrupted one that had supplanted it.) If the brethren were commanded to withdraw from the error, and if they obediently did so, what, bro. Genusa, do you think they were to do? Were those who were obedient not to continue to assemble themselves together, and if they did so, did they not form another "fellowship?"

* * * * *

8) Does the Spirit of God ever advise men to "go where they feel the most comfortable"?

A: No. The spirit gives very clear and expressed commands about how the principles of fellowship work. We are commanded to separate from darkness through a procedure outlined in Matt. 18. This procedure is a safety net for the accused and the accuser, if properly carried out. It allows all the caution necessary to be sure that no one is falsely accused, and a protection of the truth from those who would corrupt it. The process is decidedly uncomfortable, if the issues are real. But if it be found that an individual is in darkness, then following this procedure, no more walking together in fellowship, truth with error, can be tolerated.

While the Spirit expressly forbids walking with darkness, it also commands walking with those of like precious faith. So, being comfortable or uncomfortable does not enter Scripturally, into the equation. It is simply a matter of individuals conforming to divine command. But, of course when individuals of like precious faith, whose interests and very being are focused on the same things, it is only natural that they would feel more comfortable with each other.

* * * * *

9) Does the Spirit of God ever counsel men to make decisions on fellowship based on avoiding problems, or persons, which they do not want to face?

A: This really is the same question as number 8, just asked differently. There is a procedure which is not hard to follow, uncomfortable though it may be, which we have been commanded to observe. We first go to the individual who we fear is walking in darkness personally, then with one or two more, and finally, we tell it to the ecclesia. If he refuses to hear the ecclesia, then withdrawal is the necessary, divinely commanded conclusion.

* * * * *

10) Did Paul advise the faithful Corinthians to "start a new Fellowship"? Isn't there an obvious difference between "having no fellowship" and starting or joining a new Fellowship?

A: This is really the third time the same question is raised. Yes, Paul commanded withdrawal from the errorist, which will result in "joining" or "forming" a new fellowship, even to the Corinthians--though we have no idea why special weight would be put on Corinth over, say, Galatia. Paul says to the Corinthians who were reluctant to withdraw from the fornication in their midst, that even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7.) Is Paul's point not that sin is such an evil, such a terrible thing that even the sin that Christ bore needed to be destroyed as a condition of salvation? And if sin was required to be put away in the most perfect man, why would an ecclesia continue to allow the toleration of sin in this individual?

No, there is no difference between withdrawal from the errorist, and joining or forming a new "fellowship." If you withdraw from the error, you are out of his fellowship. If there are faithful brethren around, you are obligated by divine command to associate with them. Paul's command was to "come out from among them and be ye separate." It was not, "Come out from among them, but identify with them."

In Central "fellowship" today, there are individuals who believe that they can be in Central "fellowship" without actually fellowshiping the errorists of Central "fellowship." I've never had the position actually Scripturally explained to me, though I have asked. In any discussion I've had with these brethren, we never seem to be able to get past the supporting reasons, and into the actual commands which these brethren think justify their position.

For instance, I'm told that I shouldn't leave Central "fellowship" because that would make me a hireling. Well, that may or may not be true. If there is a command which councils staying in the "Synagogue of Satan," but not fellowshiping any of its members, then this would be right, and bro. Booker's explanation (which would make me a hireling,) would be correct. But if there is no such command to continue to identify with an apostate organization, (even though you don't fellowship with its members) then bro. Roberts' explanation of the parable of the Good Shepherd is correct, and I'm not a hireling, but rather am "walking in the light" in making it clear that I am separate, having come out from among them. But in any case, this is a supporting reason which will be claimed by which ever side has the true command on their side.

Another supporting reason given to us is "Paul fellowshiped error therefore we should follow his example." First, if this position is true, why do you separate from error at all? Why do you form a separate fellowship within the main body of the Central "fellowship"? Secondly, and more to the point, did Paul ever give us a command to fellowship error? Paul fellowshiped the error while he waited for the ecclesia to handle the matter. We do the same thing, after Paul's example.

But Paul made it clear that this was not to be a perpetual state. He asked the Corinthians, "What will ye, shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?"

* * * * *

11A) There are some who contend that an (essentially) pure worldwide community is necessary so as to not "fellowship errorists and wicked persons."

A: No one believes they are in a pure fellowship. What we believe is that we must walk in the light, and that walking in the light includes keeping the darkness out of our ecclesias by following the commands of Jesus and Paul.

11B) If the premise of this position is true, then it must be true that they fellowship adultery when the adulterer keeps his sins hidden from the community. If it be claimed that other men are not responsible — and not in fellowship — when sin or errors are hidden or unknown then the worldwide-pure fellowship position is conveniently selective as to when worldwide-pure fellowship occurs. By what means does fellowship in such a case occur or not occur?

A: This entire premise of a pure fellowship is not correct. The wisdom from above is first pure. "Fellowships" such as we have now are men and women, doing the best we can in sin laden bodies which can never be pure. That makes responding to this difficult. But regardless, bro. Genusa is offering some of the most unusual logic that we have ever read pertaining to fellowship. God does not hold individuals personally responsible for what they do not know, only what they know. Bro. Genusa appears to recognize this in number three, above, where he writes "Our position towards others then is not centrally controlled but rather, exercised locally radiating outward to the extent that responsibility, opportunity and any authority allow." This is simple. If we know of a problem, then we have responsibility towards that problem, and the authority, after following divine procedure, to withdraw ourselves. If we don't know of a problem, then we have no responsibility, and we have no authority to withdraw ourselves.

Did not Jesus explain this principle to the Pharisees: "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin..."? And Paul makes the same point: "For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law." This is the same responsibility that was exhibited in the sin offering, under the law. This was an offering for sins of ignorance. But the offering is not required when you are still ignorant of the sins, but afterwards, when they came to light, when the sins committed in ignorance were exposed. This argument by bro. Genusa attacks the simple Christadelphian principle that light brings responsibility.

A fellowship is not responsible for fellowshiping error when it discovers it has error in its midst. We were Scripturally promised we would have error come into our midst, both from outside, and from within. We are given specific commands on how to deal with this. It is only after a fellowship accepts the error, and bids it "Godspeed" that that "fellowship" ceases to be walking in the light.

11C) And does the breaking of bread need to be repeated when fellowship is interrupted by sin?

A: Bro. Genusa appears to be looking at fellowship as a very mechanical device. He thinks we should be concerned by our fellowship being corrupted in some way. Our fellowship will always be corrupted in some way, because we are all still sinful flesh and incapable of perfection. The purpose of withdrawing from error is not to maintain a pure fellowship, but to individually walk in the light. The purpose of withdrawing from error is not to maintain some imagined purity, but rather in individual obedience to God.

11D) To claim that fellowship with errorists occurs when faithful brethren break bread thousands, hundreds, tens or fractions of a mile from errorists is to believe that Christ and Belial, despite the words of Scripture, can be joined when the worldwide perimeters are not kept "pure".

A: Again, bro. Genusa is attributing some magical characteristic to the ecclesia that somehow "fellowships" have the power to join Christ and Belial. No such magical characteristic exists. The question Paul asks is rhetorical. What fellowship can Christ have with Belial? The answer is obviously none. So Paul's question to us is, why would you, who should be walking in the light, dare to fellowship those who are not? Its the same question I have for bro. Genusa.

11E) Likewise to admit that Christ and Belial cannot be joined is to admit that the worldwide "pure" fellowship position is false.

A: Again, we don't believe our fellowship is pure. We believe our ecclesias individually are trying to maintain the truth and walk in the light, recognizing the problems we have experienced in the past, and will experience in the future. The Berean Christadelphians maintain the BASF without reservation in all our ecclesias. We can't join Christ to Belial, and neither can anyone else. But we could join ourselves to Belial, by knowledgably bidding "Godspeed" to errorists, or those who disobediently maintain a "Godspeed" position with the errorist. This is the problem as it exists for our Central brethren, and its the problem bro. Genusa is trying to excuse in himself, because they refuse the divine command to withdraw from the errorists. The problem seems to them insurmountable, and in fact it is, as it applies to Central. But it really is no problem for the rest of us.

* * * * *

12) Fellowship practices tend to one of two extremes and are the result, not of Scriptural design, apostolic practice, or the practice of early Christadelphians*, but the inheritance on the one hand from Churchy liberalism and on the other Churchy sectarianism.

I don't know very much about the Church's views on fellowship and such. But from what I do know, I don't know a single church that takes the views of the protestant Christadelphian "fellowships." If there is one, I'm willing to have it pointed out to me. But if there isn't one, then isn't this linkage of the protestant Christadelphian "fellowships" to the Church just a disingenuous effort? What Church has a statement of faith that they insist must be accepted without reservation, as a condition of fellowship? I can tell from news reports, that this would not be the case in any of the big Churches.

* * * * *

* Despite claims to the contrary. Early Christadelphian fellowship was not sectarian or ever focused on enforcing a worldwide "purity" and was never under a delusion that such a thing was possible. Local responsibility extending its influence as far as was possible was always the documented practice.

A: I have many times asked brethren like bro. Genusa to define what all these words they use mean, especially in regards to the early Christadelphian position. They can't, or won't. What do we mean by "early Christadelphians?" Are we talking about from 1847 through 1854? In that case I would agree, and point out that bro. Roberts documents the change in bro. Thomas personally, and the Christadelphian movement in general. During that non sectarian period, Christadelphians were not a separate "fellowship, " but were found in all the Churches of Christ, Baptists, Seven Day Adventist churches, and no doubt others. The Church of Christ had to disfellowship bro. Thomas to get him to quit attending. Does bro. Genusa want us to go back to this period, and begin attending the nearest Church of any kind till I'm disfellowshiped? And then what? Dare I then form a "fellowship" of believers, or should I just quit altogether?

Commenting on this part of bro. Thomas' life, bro. Roberts writes:

"At the interview, he was asked ‘whether, when in the States, he refused to fellowship those Christians who had not been baptised while possessing the opinions which he held?’ To this the Doctor answered in the negative, which was the fact, for he had not, at that time, arrived at the conviction he afterwards reached, that duty required separation at the breaking of bread from all who had not been immersed upon a faith in the hope of Israel."

This interview in question took place in 1848, and was conducted by a Campbellite in Britain. Bro. Thomas continued to defend his policy on non sectarian fellowship at least up to 1851. So there was clearly a time when the Christadelphian movement was not sectarian. That period probably didn't last much past 1854.

But as the Christadelphian movement matured, it separated from the Churches, and became an independent sect. At that time, that is, during the editorship of bro. Roberts from 1864 through 1898, the Christadelphian position was settled and established. That is the position that we as Berean Christadelphians practice, and I believe what all the protestant Christadelphian "fellowships" practice. It is "local responsibility extending its influence as far as was possible." Does local responsibility have more ability to make its case known in 2006 than it did in 1847? Of course. And so our responsibility increases. Knowledge brings responsibility.

There is no question about whether or not Central permits errorists in their midst. I can't imagine that anyone would argue otherwise. If that wasn't the case, bro. Booker's book "Biblical Fellowship" and bro. Genusa's apologies to justify fellowshiping error, would be quite unnecessary. These things exist to excuse or explain the existence of error in Central "fellowship." I know bro. Genusa documents the error in Central very well on his web sites, . So when we come to the question of whether or not we can fellowship Central, the question is, does the Scriptures permit the fellowshiping of errorists? If we determine the answer is no, then we must withdraw from Central. If we determine the answer is yes, then we must remain in Central.

So lets go back to bro. Genusa's assertion, and consider what the "early Christadelphians" believed, pertaining to the points he had raised in these 12 Questions. I will quote from bro. Roberts' magazine, excerpts which bear directly on the 12 Questions advanced by bro. Genusa.

Point One: Did the early Christadelphians believe they could be in fellowship with error, even if they themselves were sound?

From "The Nature and Condition of Fellowship in the Truth" SECOND SERIES Christadelphian, 1885, pg 387 by bro. Roberts

5. That the first condition of association is the belief of the Truth, apart from the perception and reception of which, there is no basis of fellowship.

6. That the Truth forming this basis is made up of a number of items or elements that are each essential to its integrity as a whole.

7. That it is a matter of duty to require the recognition of these at the hands of those claiming association with us in the Truth.

8. That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them, because the receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of leavening the whole community. The elements of the Truth are so mutually related that the displacement of one undermines the foundation of the whole.

9. A man himself believing the Truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole.

Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the Truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship- "He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 11).

10. That it is the duty of the friends of the Truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.

11. Paul commands withdrawal from "any man" who "obeys not his word...delivered by epistle"

(2 Thess. 3:14). He commands the brethren to hold fast the traditions taught by him "whether by word or epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Please observe several points here. First, and ecclesial must first believe the Truth, which is made up of a number of items or elemenets that are essential to its integrity as a whole. This is the establishing of the barriers bro. Genusa objected to. Next, we must withdraw from any in our fellowship who denies any of these fundamental principles. Third, if a man is sound himself, but is unwilling to separate from those who are not, he himself must be withdrawn from. That is the simple fellowship teaching of the early Christadelphians.

Point Two: Are we in fellowship with those in our fellowship, if we never receive a visit from them?

From The Christadelphian, 1887, pg 328 by bro. Roberts

Some inaccurate ideas appear to be entertained by some on the subject of fellowship. The think they are not in fellowship with a meeting or ecclesia if they do not pay or receive a visit from it, and that they are only in fellowship with those actually in their midst. If this were correct, there would be no "fellowship one with another" in personal absence, whereas John declares this to have been the case with those from whom he was personally absent (1 John 1:7).

Fellowship is that recognized mutual relation of harmony that only waits the opportunity of personal intercourse for its fullest enjoyment. This harmony exists, or does not exist, quite irrespective of the opportunity of its practical illustration. Suppose, when an ecclesia is asked, "Are you in fellowship with the Mormons?" it should answer that they cannot settle the question as to the Mormons as a body, but must wait for individual Mormons to apply for each individual case to be decided on its own merits.

SUCH AN ANSWER IS AN EVASION OF THE QUESTION. And what holds true concerning the Mormons, is true of the Church of England, or of those who will not avow their faith in the infallibility of the Scriptures. An ecclesia that is not able to say whether they are in fellowship with such, but must wait for individual applications, is evidently in such a doubtful relation to the question as to prevent confidence on the part of men of straight purpose.

Observe that here is the answer to bro. Genusa's question, as to whether he can be in Central "fellowship" without fellowshiping the errorists in Central "fellowship."

Point Three: Do Paul's writings to the Corinthians justify the toleration of error?

From The Christadelphian, 1890, pg. 173 by Robert Roberts

Paul recognized the original character of the Corinthian ecclesia as "God's building," and argued against the various corruptions in doctrine and practice that prevailed at the time of his writing. But he did not mean that these corruptions were to be disregarded in fellowship. On the contrary, in the case of fornication referred to, he said-- "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (1 Cor. 5:18).

He found fault with them at their indifference, and that they had not-- "Rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from you" (v. 2). His argument goes powerfully against retaining such--"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? PURGE OUT THEREFORE THE OLD LEAVEN" (v. 6).

When he says-- "Judge nothing before the time" (1 Cor. 4:5), --he is speaking of the brethren's personal judgment of himself--a thing forbidden concerning all brethren, and a thing that cannot accurately be done. He is not speaking of ecclesial attitude to wrong doing. He does not mean that we are to shut our eyes to manifest disobedience or denial of the Truth in our own midst. On the contrary, he makes the enquiry as if to something well understood and notorious-- "Do ye not judge them that are within?" (1 Cor. 5:12), --that is, in the cognizance of manifest evil-doing, to the extent of refusing to eat with any called a brother who is a fornicator, etc. (v. 11).

So, though he argues with some who denied the resurrection, we are not to conclude that he regarded such a denial as compatible with a continuance in fellowship if persisted in. We must judge on this point by expressions directed expressly to the question of how error persisted in is to be dealt with. Ched 1890, pg 173

Point Four: Bro. Genusa has criticized the Bereans for refusing to take stands on matters which are not part of the BASF, and which demonstrably can be shown not to have been considered matters of fellowship by the early Christadelphians. In this, he reasons, we are not keeping ourselves pure. Is this the position of the early Christadelphians?

From The Christadelphian,

F: We constantly see brethren and sisters do things of which we disapprove, and would not do ourselves. We constantly hear of some item of belief that we consider out of harmony with Scripture teaching. But do you think for a moment that we become responsible for those actions and beliefs because we partake of the emblems with those that practice them?

T: God has allowed liberty in many matters in which conscience must guide us. Hence, what is sin to one may not be to another. You yourself have introduced the word "essentials." By that, we presume you mean "first principles." Only errors which involve those "essentials" or "first principles" should bar our fellowship.

Point Five: Do these views on fellowship, as established by the early Christadelphians, mean that if a member sins, that Christ and Belial are in fellowship with each other?

F: John wrote: "Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" (I John 1:3). Now we read in the same chapter (v. 8) that "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us," for "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3.23). But, although we are all sinners, yet "we have fellowship with the Father and the Son." Does our fellowship of them involve them in our wickedness?

T: If we are "walking in the Light" [required for fellowship: v. 7], then the "sin" which we have is not imputed to us, but we are covered by the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:6-8; Rev. 7:14). Clothed with this garment, we have the fellowship of the Father and the Son. Without this garment, they will not permit us to have their fellowship. While we have fellowship with them, we are "clean every whit" (John 13:10), and thus there is no wickedness for them to be "involved" in.

F: If responsibility for evil is incurred in the case of our brethren, it is also incurred in the cases of the Father and the Son.

T: Are you not reducing God and Christ to your own level? Have you never read that the One forgives through the mediumship of the other? Have you omitted to read the next verse to the one you quote: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" (1 John 1:9). Bearing this in mind, can you not see that we have fellowship with the Father and Son not as sinners but as children "cleansed from ALL unrighteousness" (same verse), and that therefore there is no sin for the Father and Son to be "involved" in. WITHOUT THIS FORGIVENESS, THERE IS NO FELLOWSHIP. That man is not forgiven who unrepentantly continues in sin, and whose fellowship therefore we cannot knowingly entertain without separating ourselves from the fellowship of the Father and Son.

F: If the Father and Son are not involved in our wrong-doings by the fellowship we are permitted to have with them, then our brethren are not made responsible for our sins by means of that same fellowship they have with us.

T: Firstly, we have shown that there is no wrong-doing for the Father and Son to be involved in. Secondly, we do not believe or teach responsibility for other men's sins; but that it is for our OWN sins in knowingly partaking with unrepentant wrong doers that we are held responsible.