006 Aug 13^th 2006 My Complete response to Stephen

Dear bro. Genusa,

Greetings in Christ our Lord,

I have now had the time to check out some of the things I discussed in the last email.

I did not forward any of our correspondence to anyone, and I can’t find where I quoted from it to anyone in private email. The discussion I had with bro. Freddie Higham at that time, (which was in my mind,) centered on the article you wrote about "Understanding Self etc."

I agree with you on your numbers A and B. Those are the conditions under which the full context of articles, may not truly exhibit the writers thoughts. I believe that is what I was trying to say when I wrote to you: "I could see you saying that those quotes in their context must be understood in harmony with other quotes. That would seem to be reasonable. I could see you going and establishing a more full context. That would also seem reasonable."

I see that as the challenge for the article you will write. You will have to provide additional context, either from their direct writings or from historical sources, which will prove that they did not mean or practice the things they are quoted as saying in the articles I have assembled on fellowship.

The early Christadelphians consistently taught that you cannot walk in light, and fellowship with darkness. I think you and I agree on that, but please correct me if I am wrong. Where we disagree, I think, is whether or not they teach that you are in fellowship with an ecclesia, even though you do not receive a visit from them as bro. Roberts writes in the Christadelphian, 1887, pg 328. And, whether or not you can receive into your fellowship the brother who is personally sound, but receives into fellowship those who are not as bro. Roberts writes in the Christadelphian, 1885, pg 387. Your challenge in defending Central will to do one of these, or the other:

1). You might prove you can follow these teachings while in Central

2). You might be able to supply the context (actual or historical) that explains how they can say all these things I have quoted, while refusing to separate themselves from such a fellowship where this routinely happens.

Your last three points, C, D, and E would seem to me to not be the function of the compiler, but rather the reader. If the works are quoted in their complete context, and they are misinterpreted by the reader, how is that the fault of the compiler? If the works are quoted in their complete context, how can they be said to be misrepresented, particularly, when the compiler offers no comments to represent things (beyond isolating small portions for emphasis)? I suppose I could allow that the works could be colored by other factors not included in the work itself, but again the reader has to permit that to happen. And in a collection such as I presented, where the coloring is exclusively by the writings of early Christadelphians, it is hard to see how that happened.

* * * * *

Concerning your suggestion in "C" that nothing in the book suggests that the Berean view is correct: this really falls into two areas. First, what is the Berean position? If the things you wrote about the Berean position were the correct and actual representation of the Berean position, then no, the Berean position would not be correct. Secondly, I believe that there are principles elucidated in these writings which make the point quite clearly that we cannot fellowship error, neither can we fellowship those brethren who will fellowship error. The two quotes that I referenced earlier, should suffice. That is the true Berean position on fellowship. This is a position that I see as impossible to maintain in Central.

You make the argument in "C" that the Berean position is different than the examples we have in the first century ecclesias, known by Paul’s writings to the first century ecclesias. Clearly those ecclesias had error in them, and clearly Paul fellowshiped them. For whatever reason, you think the Bereans find this an impossible situation. I don’t think it is, and this is why.

We do not believe that a man is walking in darkness when fellowshiping error, when

(1) the error is being identified as such,

(2) the error is being combated,

(3) and when the withdrawal from that error, if not repented of, is inevitable.

In 1885, pg. 38 of the Chdn. in dealing with the "Partial Inspiration" error, the meeting in Birmingham records this exchange. A brother wanted to call a meeting very early on in the controversy, to "avert division." Bro. Roberts warned them that calling this sort of meeting was just the thing that would guarantee division. Time was needed so that emotions could subside, quiet reason take over, and then every man can be called on to be responsible for his own behavior. "How much time," bro. Roberts was asked? "Three or four months, at least" answered bro. Roberts. The brother who wanted the special meeting asked bro. Roberts, "What then?" Bro. Roberts answered, "Speaking for myself, I shall refuse to remain associated with any assembly that tolerates the doctrine in their midst that any part of the Bible is not divine."

Can you show me that this was not the identical situation for the first century ecclesias? Paul told them, "you have problems, and you need to have them resolved." He was relying on the star presbyter to know how long to allow this condition to exist, just as bro. Roberts left these kinds of decisions to the local ecclesias. This would be measured in months and maybe in that age of slow communication, years. But certainly not decades. And the one thing that was sure, was that it could not go on indefinitely. Hence the Spirit’s warning to the ecclesias, "repent."

In the Bereans, we have problems come up from time to time. Each ecclesia handles its own problems, as best as it sees fit, and then we move on. We sometimes get pressure in the form of criticism from Central which makes some members desirous of moving faster than is wise, remembering that the goal is always the securing of all members of the body. "What will Central say?" we often hear. "Same things they always say!" is my consistent response. What we have to do is act in the best interests of all our members. And if that means we take some more abuse from Central brethren mocking us for not being "pure" enough, so be it.

You made contact with the Bereans at a time when we were suffering from brethren who perceived themselves as "leaders." We had to work through that, and we did. The brethren you refer to as "the Berean ‘trinity’" are no longer with us, as they tied to lead, but found very few willing to follow. I had quite a public impromptu discussion at the Hye gathering of 1988, with one of them, which is still referred to as "the picnic table debate," where I exhibited to them from the "Ecclesial Guide" exactly how our ecclesias work, under their very heavy cross examination.

God has promised that we will have problems arise in our ecclesias, both from without and from within. The difference between Central and Berean fellowships is that the ultimate conclusion of the matter in the Bereans has always been settled on the side of the Truth as defined in the BASF; while in Central, even if the matter is correctly settled by one ecclesia, the errorist will simply move to the next door ecclesia, so that the channel for erroneous principles to influence the body for ill, is continued.

* * * * *

D&E: I stand by my earlier statement that if you have allowed yourself to have your understanding "colored" by those making the presentation, the responsibility is on the reader, not the writer/compiler. When writing, or assembling a document, the writer has full responsibility to understand that he will be scrutinized quite closely, particularly in those areas where disagreement is apt to exist. He cannot generally presume the luxury you had granted me. I certainly compiled it with this in mind.

I presumed the lack of discussion on this from Central brethren relevant to our booklet indicated that we had done a fairly decent job in the area of establishing the early Christadelphian teaching, and Central brethren yielded the point. I figured, apparently incorrectly, that Central went away from the early Christadelphian’s teachings, in favor of bro. George Booker’s treatment of the doctrine of fellowship. In fact, I thought his recent appointment to editor of the Tidings magazine was his reward for "educating" Central brethren away from the teachings of the early Christadelphians. But now I learn from you that our booklet was being discussed and debated by Central brethren, but without including me in the discussion.

But under any circumstances, whether or not the format I used "colored" the discussion away from their true teachings will be decided by our discussion pertaining to A&B. If there is a fuller way to explain these things in their context, surely you will be able to show us what the brother you referenced showed you. Then we can all benefit by a fuller and more complete understanding.

* * * * *

1) Now on the two points you raise concerning the Berean position, I find nothing in your number one that I disagree with, except for your applying it to the Bereans. We have no central authority. We have no "trinity" of brethren who demand world wide control.

We agree that each ecclesia is responsible for handling its own problems. If an ecclesia entered into a position of error, it would be the responsibility of the next closest ecclesia to resolve the matter, and so on. We agree with the teachings of bro. Roberts you referenced, that within our ecclesias, it is probably but a small group who are truly walking faithfully, a point we exhort each other about constantly.

So again, I have no problems with the points of criticism pertaining to fellowship you bring up. I just deny your application of those principles to the Bereans. If we had a central power base (clergy) that interfered with the workings of ecclesias, that would be wrong. If we believed we had to be "pure" in the sense you mean, then that would be wrong. But we don’t believe or practice any of those things, so it is beside the point.

2) The separation between myself and bro. Julio was not over the doctrine of fellowship itself, but rather over his desire to expand the basis of fellowship which would have had the result of withdrawal from bre. Thomas and Roberts. Bro. Julio even posted on his website, evidence that in his opinion, bro. Roberts was wrong, concerning one of the things he separated from us over.

As Berean Christadelphians, we meet on the BASF. We have resisted all efforts to add to the BASF. We resisted bro. Julio’s efforts to add to the BASF. He ultimately decided that the things in question were so important–though outside the BASF-- that they couldn’t be left to individual conscience, so he withdrew from us.

Bro. Julio acted in harmony with his and my views of the doctrine of fellowship, itself. He withdrew from what he supposed to be error, and those who were refusing to withdraw from what he supposed to be error. He just decided to expand the Statement of Faith to include things, historically Christadelphians had not done.

Sincerely,

Jim Phillips

8/13/06