007  Third response from bro. Genusa

Brother Phillips,

I've read your latest response and, consistent with our exchanges in the past, you are not addressing the important arguments I set before you. You are talking around them. You say you want to have productive communications with me, but how can they be productive when you avoid arguments I am making against your position? I would have thought that if my arguments were not valid that you would directly show them to be wrong.

> I did not forward any of our correspondence to anyone

When other Bereans (that would be more than one) are aware of our personal email conversations, going so far as to make points to me associated with discussion between the two of us, I naturally conclude that you've forwarded, in whole or in part, our email. Again, I do not have a problem with it, if you aren't being selective in what you send.

> I agree with you on your numbers A and B.

Following my last email to you I found that the quotes in your book not only have been cut, but that in one case (only one of two I've looked at so far) in a decisive way as to brother Roberts behavior on fellowship. I have also found some quotes from brother Thomas on fellowship that were not included in your book -- very important quotes that are contrary to Berean practice and portrayal. I will post those as well.

> I see that as the challenge for the article you will write.

I would like to do a full examination of the quotes to see what else has been cut and plan to do this and document what I find. As I find it, it will be posted to the Web, God willing.

> The early Christadelphians consistently taught that you cannot walk in light, and fellowship with darkness.

This point is not disputed. You will find that exact point on my Web page on fellowship.

> 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

No, Jim. This is typical of how all our conversations work and why, frankly, I do not like corresponding with you. I plainly put before you a principle and you ignore it. In this case, in place of the principle I stated, you substitute an argument of your own liking, a pioneer quote you can portray yourself as upholding and portray me as violating. The principle I stated was "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."

Let me restate the principle in even more explicit terms:

You assume that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered, also known as a Fellowship (institution) is 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.

> Your last three points, C, D, and E would seem to me to not be the function of the compiler, but rather the reader

I acknowledge you'd like to claim you have no responsibility in how they are represented or interpreted, or colored, but your role, and the role the Bereans play cannot be dismissed. Anyone fair minded will understand the color an advocate gives when he portrays to others, either by direct or indirect means, that a stated position is equivalent to what he himself does. When the Bereans hand the book out to potential converts they aren't saying "this is not our position" but rather the message they want to convey is "Read this. This is the Berean position. This is what we practice". There are implied assumptions not only in the act but implied assumptions placed in the mind of the reader for which the compiler and those who distribute it are responsible. If they do not want these assumptions being made then Berean's should plainly state that the book does not represent Berean practices — which would then be contrary to the whole purpose of the book and raise the question as to why it was published in the first place and why it is now used as a tool to convert non-Berean Christadelphians in the second.

> But now I learn from you that our booklet was being discussed and debated by Central brethren, but without including me in the discussion

Where did I say your booklet was being "discussed and debated by Central brethren"?

> Central brethren yielded the point

Perhaps someone spoke on behalf of Central I am not aware of. Can you cite for me the document where "Central brethren yielded the point"? If not, then you will have to assume that Central brethren did not take you to task because they knew you were not practicing John Thomas or Robert Roberts principles of fellowship; or perhaps they were not aware of the fact that the quotes were not complete.

> 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 do not see how you can say these things.

1) Those who "perceived" themselves as leaders were not challenged by you in any meaningful way while they were alive (a picnic table discussion just doesn't pass the standard for something so important as this)

2) How does allowing them to die off equate to "work[ing] through that"?

3) It's easy to say now that you've had another division and the former leaders are now dead or no longer in your fellowship! I just do not see how you can claim to have worked through the problems on that basis.

> As Berean Christadelphians, we meet on the BASF. We have resisted all efforts to add to the BASF.

Well, that's one way to portray it but as you know, since 1960 the Bereans have frequently printed the Berean "restatement", amonst other documents, as the "basis of fellowship". When I met with the Bereans I was given one of these restatements as PART of your basis of fellowship. Your 1960 restatement included topics diverse as evolution and conferences. So you haven't "resisted all efforts to add to the BASF" unless by that you mean the BASF itself has not been changed but you've added your other positions on fellowship outside of it in "restatements".

 

Fraternally,

stephen