008 Fourth e-mail to bro. Genusa
Dear bro. Genusa,
Greetings in Christ our Lord.
It is not my intent at all to be evasive. I am trying, as best I can, to answer your questions. Part of the problem for me, so far, has been that some of your questions are based on implications about the Berean position which are not true. So often I find I have to address the implication, before I can get to your question, and sometimes addressing the implication makes the question go away. What you are seeing as evasion, is really me trying to explain that the things you say we practice, are not what we actually practice at all.
But I do appreciate your identifying the questions you wish me to answer, in the plain and simple manner you have in this last e-mail
You wrote to me:
"The principle I stated "You assume that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered, also known as a Fellowship (institution) is Christ's table of fellowship without exception. ."
We do believe the table is the Lord’s. If it was our table, then we could, and should receive all who desired to be received in the spirit of brotherly love. But it is Christ’s table, and therefore we can only receive those who Christ has permitted us to receive, that is, those who are walking in light. All the ecclesias which constitute the Berean Fellowship believe this, and consequently, we are collectively gathered to Christ’s table, without exception.
I want to be sure that I cover all you intend in the expression "without exception." We do believe that all Berean Christadelphians are in fellowship with each other, without exception. If you mean that we believe that these are the only people in fellowship with Christ, without exception; then no, this is not what we believe. We leave that question to Christ at his coming.
To be clear, we do not believe that we "fellowship the table," as the expression in the past was so used. This expression was used in the past to indicate that fellowship was with God and Christ, and not necessarily with the brothers and sisters. We do believe we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems.
Can you explain to me in a little more detail what you mean by: "a Fellowship (institution)." We are a community, not really an institution. We are a community of brethren who, in obedience to Christ, have separated from the darkness of error. Following our separation from error, and also in obedience to Christ, we have joined together as a community of believers.
You continue in the same paragraph:
"That's how the Berean's treat it by practice."
Yes, our practice is to only fellowship those who are walking in light. We define walking in light as believing the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, as defined in the BASF; and refusing to fellowship with those who walk in darkness, whether by belief or unrepentant behavior.
You conclude that paragraph:
"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."
The notion that we control, or even could control each other’s ecclesia, or even our own ecclesia is wrong. We can only control ourselves. We each make judgements for ourselves. We have each made the judgment to separate from error. Having separated from the error, we join together in harmonious fellowship, one with the other. But we all operate individually first, and collectively second, as we will all stand at the judgment individually, and not collectively.
And our standing aside is not a condemnation of those who do not agree with us. We do not judge whether or not you are in fellowship with Christ, or what Christ shall decide for you at his coming. It is simply exercising our individual responsibility to walk worthy before Christ, according to our own understanding of divine command.
Bro. Roberts co-wrote these words about what you seem to be calling our "control," and this is what we believe in that regard:
"You may believe Paul’s statement [Paul’s statement on the inspiration of the Scriptures–JP] equally with ourselves, but if you make yourselves one with those who nullify it by the doctrines they hold, you erect the same barrier between us and you that exists between us and them.
We do not say by this that you are not brethren, or that Christ will refuse you at His coming. We leave that. We do not judge you; we judge ourselves. We say we cannot be implicated in the position which you feel at liberty to hold towards the new doctrine that has been introduced.1
You see, it is not a matter of controlling each other. Our control is simply a matter of individually acting in an obedient manner with brethren of like faith.
Again to this point, in my last email to you, I quoted from bro Roberts first meeting on the Inspiration Question, with his meeting at Temperance Hall, where he promised that he would not continue in fellowship with those who questioned the complete inspiration of the Scriptures. Picking up from that spot, it shows exactly how we view our responsibilities in fellowship:
"Brother Roberts: 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." The brother said it ought not to be in the power of any one brother to divide the ecclesia. Brother Roberts replied it was not a question of power; it was a question of the individual prerogative of withdrawal. Every brother had this prerogative: it was a passive act. It was not cutting off others: it was stepping aside from evil. 2
This is the control we exercise. We exercise our own control over our individual prerogatives not to fellowship with error.
Now concerning your statements that we wish to keep the Lord’s table free from "pollutants," again this depends on what you mean by "pollution." We do not wish to knowingly bid "Greetings" ("God speed" in the KJV) to the channel for false doctrine and the leavening of the ecclesia. We believe this is an apostolic command which we individually strive to obey. If this is what you mean by pollutants, then yes, this is what we do. If you mean by "Pollution," sin of any kind, particularly hidden sin, then I wish to assure you we suffer no such illusions. Nor should we. This, from the Christadelphian Magazine of early Christadelphians precisely addresses this very issue. This is the fellowship position of the Berean Christadelphians:
"One of the associates of Judas informs us that he (Judas) had part with them (the disciples) in their ministry, and only fell therefrom when he transgressed (Acts 1:17, 25.) This of itself shows that it can only be open sin which can cause rupture in regard to ‘fellowship one with another.’ As regards shortcomings merely, this is quite a different matter, calling for assistance and forbearing in love. This non-fellowshipping-the-brethren theory cannot fail to interfere materially with a condition which is absolutely necessary to salvation; namely, love toward the brethren. ‘He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.’"3
(This "non-fellowshiping-the-brethren theory" the brother is describing is the idea that we are in fellowship with God and Christ, but not necessarily those we break bread with. In advancing this idea, some brethren argued that because of secret or hidden sins, and because of the human frailties that beset everyone, we cannot be pure in fellowship anyway, and to try and do so would be hypocrisy. Therefore, we should feel free to fellowship with errorists.)
We know that the apostle’s words are true, that some men’s sin go before them to judgment, some follow afterwards. We cannot do anything about the sin we know nothing about, and it does not affect fellowship, one with another. God will deal with that at the judgment as He sees fit.
I hope that is a more complete answer to the question you have about our fellowship practice. It is not a question of some group of brethren deciding to start a church. It is the case of individual brethren deciding that they cannot with good conscience fellowship with those who will not accept the teachings of the BASF, or with those who while individually sound, are willing to identify themselves in a community with those who are not. And upon individually deciding to come out from those, we organize ourselves in fellowship one with another, with those of like faith.
* * * * *
The second most important item I felt was your suggestion that we have added to the BASF in the form of the Berean Re-statement. We do not really believe this to be true. The Re-statement was intended to be exactly what the name suggests, a re-statement of the teachings and doctrines of the BASF.
I may have created some confusion by not keeping the fact clear that when we use the term "BASF" we do intend that to include the Common Constitution, the Commandments of Christ, and the Doctrines to be Rejected. In other words, all the same things the early brethren used to order their ecclesias, are the things we use to order ours.
The purpose of the Re-statement was to be able to receive those brethren from Central who were leaving that community in 1956 and 1957, because of the merging of two erroneous communities into Central. But as we had been separated for 30 years, we wished to make sure that some of the questions concerning the BASF which had plagued Central, were not coming to join us. So we made ourselves clear on several positions which the brethren then believed to be under attack in Central.
Evolution is a direct attack on "The Foundation" of the BASF. There really can’t be any question that this is an addition to the BASF, can there? The BASF states that the Bible is true and infallible in all its parts. Evolution says that Genesis 1 is false.
"Conferences" established to be legislative forums are an attack on the ecclesial autonomy set out in the Constitution. Bro. Roberts wrote extensively about the dangers of conferences, and bro. Thomas made some disparaging remarks towards them, in some of his last writings. This quick note by bro. Roberts sets the matter pretty clearly:
W. G. B.—You may rely on the editor of the Christadelphian (for one) holding out against all schemes of the nature of a conference of delegates. Brethren, uninvested with authority, may advise one another—sometimes with advantage and at all times without danger; but as soon as the element of "appointment," carrying authority is introduced, we are on the inclined plane that ends in spiritual corruption and death. If we could have divine authority, it would be another matter. In the absence of this, we must jealously and strictly limit the basis of our operations to the principle of voluntary and independent concurrence. 4
It must be clear from this, though much more can be added should you wish, that these things are not new additions to the BASF as held by the early Christadelphians. These are simply areas where Central had compromised or redefined the BASF, so that these sorts of things could be tolerated. The Berean Re-statement is an effort to clarify our understanding of those clauses which had been called into question.
Your make reference to "other documents." There are no other documents. Individual ecclesias may have rules to assist them in maintaining their own decency and order, but we have no other documents.
* * * * *
I will deal with the balance of your response in the order you made it, as it all is of a less important nature than the above.
On the question of whether or not I provided your emails to other Berean brethren, if you could provide me the names of those you reference, I would be happy to review any emails I sent them, and then I could deal with the matter with more accuracy. I think it far more likely that they are quoting from personal discussions I might of had with them, than anything I may have written or emailed.
* * * * *
On the question of A&B from your last email, I very much look forward to this information of how I cut the material up, to alter the intended meaning. I also look forward to the writings of bro. Thomas you have found. This, as I said, is where the matter will hinge for me personally. I’m sure that would be true for most of the brethren.
If you can demonstrate from their writings, that we have been misled into believing that the things we practice are the teachings and practice of the early Christadelphians-- well!-- that will send shockwaves through all the protestant fellowships. If you can show us how the articles we have been using have been altered somehow, that will seriously give question to our entire foundation.
* * * * *
On your comments concerning C D & E, again, I would suggest than you are more trusting than I. Maybe that is a good thing. If I was presented with an argument which went directly against the things I believed and practiced, I would be going over those things with a fine toothed comb. I would be very sure that I checked for accuracy (misrepresentation) and context before I granted any benefit of doubt on the matter.
There is no doubt that when I assembled that booklet, it was to say, as you say "read this, it is the Berean position. This is what we practice." Certainly that is not denied. In fact, it is still affirmed, at least till you give me reason to change.
* * * * *
My comments about Central brethren debating the matter, was drawn from your statements that you tried to show another brother that the position represented in my booklet was correct, and he demonstrated to you that it was not. Maybe I presumed improperly that you were Central at that time. In any case, the way he showed you it was wrong has my attention, should you wish to share it. I presume that will be forth coming in A&B above.
No Central brother ever told me that the point made in the book was granted by Central. I put the book out. No one bothered to respond to it, or to me about it. Therefore I personally feel I was quite justified in believing that Central wanted no part of this discussion, and Central yielded the point. Perhaps, after 20 + years you will prove my presumption to have been in error.
I take note of the notable position/authority granted bro. George Booker in being placed in charge of the most prominent North American Christadelphian publication. Bro. Booker, as you know, produced a booklet which reached exactly the opposite conclusions that my booklet established. I presume this was his reward for successfully altering the foundation Christadelphian position on the doctrine of fellowship.
* * * * *
Concerning my relationship with the brethren you met with one year, I don’t think you have a good perspective on what went on between us. I don’t know how you could, so I also don’t expect you to. I would be quick to point out that I do dearly love those brethren, and learned so much from them, though I can’t approve of the way they have handled certain issues. All three left fellowship in 1998. One has since ended his probation, after he left us.
I don’t know what more could have been done in this matter, than was done. We had certain issues of concern, but all of those pale in comparison to the stipulations I’ve heard they tried to place on you and your ecclesia. Nothing like that was ever dictated to any other Berean ecclesia. No ecclesia would have put up with those sorts of things. Had I had knowledge of your situation at that time, certainly our ecclesia (Lampasas) would have intervened to clarify our position. But since we knew nothing of these particular issues, there was nothing we could have done. Had you approached an ecclesia, instead of certain brethren at a gathering, perhaps the matter would have been handled more in harmony with the true Berean position.
As you may or may not know, I was not at the gathering you attended. I can tell you that after you had met with them, I enquired as to how that interview went. I was given a very vague answer, mostly surrounding their representation that you and bro. Carroll objected to the fact that "some Bereans" (by which they meant me) used some dates pertaining to the prophecies, that bro. Thomas did not use, in some public lectures. I was led to believe that you were insisting that only bro. Thomas’ dates could be used, and this was a barrier to fellowship. Since bro. Thomas argued for the Millennial reign of Christ to start in 1914, I thought that position absurd, and I ignored the matter. Looking back now, I wonder if the answer I was given was specifically designed to discourage me from looking any further into the matter, and also designed to suggest to the brotherhood that my prophetic expositions, which that particular group of brethren disliked, was a stumbling block to Central brethren who wished association with us.
I heard no more of the matter until bro. Bob Widdig applied to be included in our fellowship. The Lampasas brethren who examined him returned with what at first seemed impossible stories about your interview with those brethren. I still don’t discount the possibility that the stories have been embellished somewhat, as they have come to me fourth hand. I would be interested in your first hand account, should you wish to provide it. But since those brethren were already out of fellowship, there was nothing that could be done.
You ask how we worked through this. The way we worked through this problem was to defend the principles of ecclesial autonomy in our own ecclesia, and to be sure as we could that the brethren in our sister ecclesias had a clear understanding of this principle. Those of us who felt this was a problem spoke about it to others, and took steps legislatively within our individual ecclesias, to make sure interference from outside could not happen, or at least was harder to happen. For instance, in Lampasas we modified our ecclesial rules so that no business meeting could take place without a two weeks notice, and no item could be discussed that was not on the agenda. This then stopped any surprise visitor from calling a meeting.
We did not solve this problem through a division. We had a division, because we solved this problem.
* * * * *
Now, you have spent a large amount of time to this point, explaining what fellowship is not. And, as must be clear, for the most part I agree with you. Our differences have not yet been over the question of fellowship, but rather whether or not certain practices (which we both agree are wrong,) are being practiced by the Bereans. But I’m curious as to at what point will you explain to me what fellowship is, and how it should be practiced. When are you going to explain how you can be in Central, and individuals like John Martin can be in Central, and whether you are or are not in fellowship with them. And I’m very interested in what material from the pioneer brethren you have indicating that this was the practice of the early Christadelphians.
Sincerely,
Jim Phillips
08-15-06
