004 Aug 10th, 2006 Response from bro. Genusa
Dear brother Jim,
You have a pattern of contacting me with some criticism, getting one response from me, and then -every time- afterward responding with something about you "not meaning to upset" me. This has proved to be habitual behavior on your part which I do find troubling. This last email expresses your incorrect assertion no less than three times. If you had seen me this morning when I replied "upset", or any word variation thereof, would not have been accurate. I believe I raised this issue with you last time but you've done it again.
Perhaps you are unable to discern between forthright comments and anger? Based on your past behavior, I cannot help but wonder if you are not just writing for me, but you are posturing and characterizing for your Berean friends who you share your email with? If you have shared, or currently plan to share, any of my emails on this current topic, I ask you to send them my responses in full, not just the convenient parts where you are the disinterested and rueful inquirer.
> Now, that is a tough idea for me to accept.
It shouldn't be so let me explain:
You can quote a man (or men) in context and yet you may not accurately represent that man's position. There are a number of reasons why that might be. This is not a comprehensive list but one factor alone, listed below, can account for the disagreement between the works of the man and some people's perception of his position:
A) The man's works may not comprehensively deal with a specific topic.
B) The man's works may have been selectively quoted from.
C) The man's works may be misinterpreted.
D) The man's works may be misrepresented.
E) The man's works are colored by other factors associated with the reproduction of them.
I would rule out A based on knowledge I have from reading the Pioneer works -- and surely you agree. I have not researched your selections of the Pioneer works vs the totality of their writings on fellowship to be able to comment on B. You are guilty of C, D and E. But before I elaborate on those items let me add two other factors into the discussion of your book:
1) One of the biggest problems your position has is that there is an obvious disconnect in what =you claim= is the Pioneer position and what we know they actually did both in their local ecclesial settings and worldwide travel. All you have to do is read the writings of JT and RR, read their own historical accounts -- where they went, who they broke bread with, under varied circumstances, how they handled heresies etc. The Berean slant (C, D & E) you put on their doctrinal expositions does not match what they actually did. There is no inconsistency with their words and works but rather with your interpretation of their words vs. their works.
For example, take any example of error you like from brother Robert Roberts' days. Brother Roberts never dictated to the community what position to take, though he could have tried to assert his "authority" (and brother John Thomas declined to dictate as well). He did exercise his influence as far he thought appropriate but not as Berean leaders do today. Brother Roberts knew it was not his, or even a select group (eg. the Berean "Trinity") of brothers' place to dictate to worldwide ecclesias what position to take. Not so with the Bereans -- they demand effective authority over any ecclesia claiming to be "Berean". Brother Roberts would only exercise responsibility within his own ecclesia to influence it, and through his magazine and labors, to try to influence others as to the right position to take. But there was no worldwide dictate, not on Dowie, not on clean-flesh, not even on the responsibility matter. Birmingham amended their SOF and others who agreed followed. This is clearly not how Bereans operate. You've got a disconnect in Christadelphian history and Berean practice that you can't talk yourself out of. What you need to do is show how Berean practice is even remotely similar to John Thomas' or Robert Roberts' practices in the matters raised.
What a reading of their own histories shows is that they never had the kind of control over the Christadelphian community as the Bereans assert over their's. By the Pioneer's =own words= you will find they viewed real Christadelphians as a minority in the Christadelphian community of their own day, though they were under no delusions, even in the midst of serious heresies, about starting new "fellowships" or a worldwide pure fellowship table. You will not find them practicing the fellowship position the Bereans/Old Paths/&c/&c have taken. Period. You cannot get around that disconnect.
2) You produced the book with Julio Scaramastro. Now some time after you two had laid out the "Pioneer" -- in reality what you saw as the Berean -- position on fellowship, he came to the conclusion that the Bereans WERE NOT PRACTICING THE PIONEER FELLOWSHIP POSITION. This was part of =his own argument= in leaving the Bereans. So he left the Bereans and went to another sect. So here is evidence, evidence of the very highest quality, from your own co-compiler no less, that the problem is not with the Pioneer quotations but with the INTERPRETATION of the quotations. You MUST AGREE WITH ME that the brother who co-compiled the book with you misinterpreted the quotes (quotes he had co-compiled with you), or else you admit he was right to leave the Bereans (and I wonder why you haven't left yourself!). Perhaps he didn't nuance the right passage on some page of the book but whatever the case, he left the Bereans and went to, according to his action, a (more) pure fellowship. So the quotes don't just speak for themselves as you would like to pretend they do.
Now, point #2 seals the case against your representation of the quotes -- as self-explaining inconvertible positions on fellowship -- but let me now speak to C, D and E, which are important issues to raise as well: C) There is nothing written in the book that requires the reader come to the conclusion that the Berean or other sectarian fellowship view is correct. There are two basic ways to view the quotes. The difference in how the quotes are interpreted is due to this: If you START with the assumption of fellowship working, as say the Berean or Old Paths see it, a worldwide fellowship table that must be controlled, the quotes logically lead to worldwide controlled sectarian fellowship. The quotes never have a chance for a fair understanding since the way to interpret them is =predetermined=.
Berean control is maintained worldwide. Local control is the result of the worldwide control. For Bereans it is the strong leadership of a few over the many. Central has no "Trinity" as some Bereans have labeled their own leadership in the recent past! You =assume= that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered are Christ's table of fellowship =without exception=. That's how the Berean's treat it by practice. And you treat fellowship as such to control it so that "the Lord's table" as you see it is not polluted... based on that assumption. Once again this leads back to the fact that the Berean practices are not the pioneer practices and not the Scripture's practices.
Your's is an unscriptural position as Epistles to early brethren demonstrate, by their practices and problems and Paul's treatment of them shows. I compare your practices with what I see in the Scriptures and like others must conclude that the early ecclesias of Scripture would not have been welcome in the Berean community. Protest this as you like. It can only be Berean hopes of how they are perceived vs. the reality of your heavy-handed practices.
If on the other hand you apply the Scriptural principles and precedents (such as Paul with the Corinthians) which are consistent with the Pioneer practices, then the quotations do not support the Berean/sectarian fellowship position. They lead to strong local ecclesias who try and let the light of the truth shine as far and wide as possible.
It is true that errorists can use ecclesial autonomy to hide behind. But the other extreme is that ecclesial autonomy is a shadow, or an empty phrase, under Berean practices. D & E) You claim that you have merely assembled a book of quotes and the quotes speak for themselves but they don't. What colors the quotations is that the book has been produced by individuals and is now used by (ironically) multiple sectarian communities (all claiming to be the "ONE true fellowship"!) who use the book to support their unique fellowship position. That colors the quotes and leads readers in a direction that the quotes themselves do not naturally lead. I know this because when I first read the book I interpreted the quotes in a sectarian manner. I did this because I knew where the book came from (like the majority of its owners) and ASSUMED they led to your position. But later, I sat down to convince another brother he was wrong on fellowship -- using your book -- and he answered my arguments quote by quote, showing me that the (sectarian) interpretation I was giving it was not what the quote was saying -- that I was reading into them assumptions -- I could not argue with him because the text did not say what I interpreted it to say -- it said what I assumed it said -- undoubtedly the same or similar assumptions to those you had when you assembled the book!
What's worse for your position is that if you were held to your own standards your "fellowship" would come up more polluted than those you criticize. (do you really know all you should know to argue against this point?)
And while this does not prove which way the quotes are to be interpreted, it is no surprise they were compiled by two people who had =already decided= how the quotes were to be understood.
I thank you for raising this issue. I will be posting, God willing, this matter in a new article on my web site. If I need to refine my arguments further I welcome any added criticisms you have. I do not have a problem with posting our full exchanges to the web for public view if you want to share them with others. I had an email exchange with your co-compiler, Julio S., on fellowship, some years back. It was enlightening (in a certain way). He resorted to hiding behind denunciations of "apostate" when my arguments were set before him. Your exchange, with his, would be useful.
Thank you for asking me to write about something I've wanted to write about for years, stephen
