The Fellowship Debate Material

This is round two of this discussion with bro. Genusa.  Bro. Genusa has now had a week to respond to my last set of responses, and there have been no responses fourth coming.  I feel it is safe to presume he has no more questions that he wishes me to respond to on that matter and so I will now proceed to the next round.  Therefore, this round will begin on Oct. 22nd, 2007.  The completed first round can be found Here.    As in the first round, all the black print on this page will have been taken directly from bro. Genusa's web site.  All the blue print will be my responses to his questions and comments.

The Ecclesia and The Body of Christ vs. The Berean Society

That Berean fellowship standards have changed over the years will be proved later in the debate material. I want to now focus on a subject which may be difficult for some to grasp, if they judge merely by what exists today.

When Christadelphian ecclesias first came into existence they were totally independent, totally autonomous. They maintained complete independence in regards to their Statement of Faith and Constitution. This was after the apostolic pattern. Christadelphian ecclesias did not join into unions or societies of ecclesias. This apostasy of forming unions of ecclesias was itself the result of divisions. It seemed natural for ecclesias of the same doctrinal basis to join together into unions, and while this might seem justifiable and natural, it was against everything that Christadelphians stood for to begin with. This is not to say that ecclesias did not recognize and associate with other ecclesias of the same mind -- indeed they did. But they never created paper based unions or societies. They simply recognized those ecclesias who were faithful, and refused fellowship with those who they judged were not.

Because local issues did not require international involvement, local issues remained local problems to be solved. Now, the reader might think that unions of ecclesias make inter-ecclesial fellowship easier. It does. But it also created "systems", "societies", "Fellowships" which, not only were unscriptural, not only were anti-pioneer, but were also doomed to create endless schisms as decisions moved from purely local decisions to, of necessity, being national or international decisions. In a society of ecclesias, one problem in what otherwise would be an isolated ecclesia, might turn into an international division as the Bereans have proved time and time again. They splinter into ever smaller groups, isolated from other brethren who as a matter of fact, do hold the "First Principles" of Truth. But the paper legislation, their "basis of fellowship" and common constitutions, demand action be taken when a "violation" has occurred.

The 1997 Berean division is a classic case. What was a local problem became an international question for all Berean ecclesias to individually decide where they stood when some brethren decided that the Texas "no fault" divorce laws constituted going to law. Instead of allowing the local ecclesia to solve the problem, because of the common societal laws Bereans held, some ecclesias decided it was "a matter of fellowship" and a division occurred.

And as these paper-based societies develop more and more paperwork to stave off error, these brethren who end up in small isolated ecclesias tend to cling onto their traditions under the misguided notion that they are upholding first principles of fellowship : the paper-based demonstrations of how zealous they are for "the purity of the truth".

Worse, as societies of ecclesias formed, so a new delusion began to take hold. This delusion was to confuse the mortal Society of Ecclesias with "The True Body of Christ". The Society of Ecclesias, in opposition to all those with whom it would not break bread, now began to consider themself as the only faithful brethern and therefore body of Christ, "The One True Body of Christ" and so forth. In fact, that term applies to that minority who are the true brethren of Christ, but not to any union or Society of Ecclesias!

"We profess and aspire to be that One True Body of Christ on earth, that rarest of jewels in the huge flesh-heap of mankind." (Our Basis of Fellowship, The Berean 1980, p. 12; 1986, p. 12; 1996, p. 12)

I do not have questions for all the following items. The quotes speak for themselves and any Berean "answer", predicted or otherwise is not relevant to the historical testimony these quotes provide.

ANS:  Your historical conclusions are either revisionist, or strictly limited to the earliest of times, when the truth was first coming to light.  In those earliest and most formative years, you can say that the Christadelphians (though they were not then known by that name) were completely autonomous and didn't develop constitutions etc.  Bro. Roberts points out, in defending bro. Thomas against similar charges such as you make against us,  that in the formative years of the Truth, there was simply no need for much organization.  When there are but a handful of believers on an entire continent, of what necessity was a paper constitution?  The things you use as examples, and now complain about as changes to the position of all faithful Christadelphians before 1923) are not changes in beliefs, but simply things that developed to accommodate a new set of circumstances.  Bro. Roberts wrote :

"The situation must be taken into account. There were no ecclesias in existence. There were Campbellite meetings disposed (some of them) to receive the truth. Dr. Thomas was operating in connection with them in the public exhibition of the truth. David King found fault with the Doctor for doing this, and said he ought to have nothing to do with them after practically dis-fellowshipping them by his re-immersion on receiving the hope of Israel. The letter from which the quotation is made is the Doctor’s answer to this. Its essence lies in the remark, that the position was one of "bearing and forbearing with one another in hope that all will come to see the real truth, on which side soever it may be."

It can't be emphasized enough how fictitious your arguments are.  What will really be obvious to everyone in all this discussion, is the total lack of support, both Scripturally and throughout the pioneers writings, for the notions you will present.  If our current behavior is against "against everything that Christadelphians stood for to begin with" where is the testimony to that effect?  Where is the testimony that we should not associate together with brethren of like faith?  Where is the testimony that we should associate with brethren and ecclesias who we know to be in error?  We stand aside from errorists and those who associate with errorists.  Where is the condemnation of this in the Scriptures, and in the pioneer writings?  You can't produce a single quote, scriptural or historical, to support your point.

Your concerns over Paul's expression of "the body of Christ" is most unusual.  The things you allege we believe, we deny that we believe at all.  There never has been any Christadelphian group that I am aware of, that has confused a fellowship with the true Body of Christ, as you suggest.  Christadelphians from our outset used this term, but always with the understanding that this is something entirely prospective.  It is such a common term in our history, that "the One Body" was suggested by bro. Shuttleworth, to have been the original denomination of the Apostolic Ecclesias.

Your explanation of our 1997 difficulties are not correctly understood by you, or properly stated.  It is about as clumsy as if I tried to explain some of Central's difficulties.

QUESTIONS

1.  Bro. Bob Widding, a Berean, made the following comment in a pre-debate discussion: “How one can forever defend being a member of a system that he thinks is synthetic and not Scriptural is an answer I look forward to reading.” My question for the Bereans then is, Is it accurate to describe the Central Fellowship as a “system”?

A.  Perhaps I do not know what is meant by the term "system."  I would not tend to think of any Christadelphian fellowship as a system.  A system indicates that there is some set of rules, mechanisms or procedures by which a uniform result is obtained.  I recognize the Central ecclesias are not at all unified.  Therefore, their results are not uniform.   I would rather use the word "association" for that is really what all Christadelphian fellowships appears to me to be.  Some Central ecclesias are faithful, and some heretical.  But you are all associated under the general heading of Central. 

I understood bro. Bob's question to you to mean how can you feel comfortable defending what is essentially an apostate association of ecclesias.  His concern was not your defending of the organization, but your defending of your own remaining in an organization you recognize associates with apostates.  I should point out that you have not yet defended your remaining in an apostate association.  Perhaps that will come later.

 

2.  Would it be accurate to describe the apostolic ecclesias as a "system"?

A.  I think it would be closer to being true.  The apostolic ecclesias followed divine procedures which we would call the "law of Christ," which, so long as they were carefully and faithfully observed, yielded a uniform result, called "walking in the light."  But I think "association" would still be a better term.  Bro. Thomas used the term "institution" to describe the various fellowships of the first century.  That would also seem to me to be an adequate term.    

 

3.  What constitutes a "system" of ecclesias?

A.  As I said, I don't know.  An association of ecclesias would be constituted by a mutual belief, enforced in fellowship, and shared between several ecclesias.

[ Personal Note: the only thing that we recognize today as such are that ecclesias have common Statements of Faith, other documents like the DTBR and CoC. Apostolic ecclesias had none of this. The argument might be that they had the holy spirit inspired apostles. Yes, and were not the ecclesias filled with troubles; did not all Asia turn against Paul? The holy spirit inspired apostles were not a substitute for SOFs, DTBRs, CoCs or other documents which form ecclesias into unions. There is no hint whatsoever that early ecclesias formed themselves into unions

A.  This is not true.  Those who had departed from obeying divine principles, but still claimed to be "Jews" or Christadelphians were already forming themselves into separate and distinct religious associations or organizations in the first century before the apostle John died.  One name they took to themselves was "Gnostics." The Scriptures identify the general formation of these associations as "the synagogue of the Satan."  The synagogue of the Satan was made of various denominations which Scripturally are called Nicolaitans, Balaamites, Jezebelites etc.  At their root, these fellowships were people who had been members of the Apostolic Fellowship, but who went out, unable to endure sound doctrine.  Others were withdrawn from by the Apostolic ecclesias because of disobedience.  They associated together and formed apostate ecclesias distinct from, and adversarial to to the Apostle's Fellowship.

Bro. Thomas said of these institutions (and note that he calls the ecclesia an institution): 

"Eureka I:  270   "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." [My emphasis]

 

4. The lack of emphasis which brother Roberts placed on the "organization" or Institution of the local ecclesia, much less a larger society is found in this writing, “The statement that the Christadelphians claim to be ‘the ecclesia’ (‘church’ is no less Greek, though of longer standing in English usage, and ecclesia is more convenient in consequence of the prostitution of the word ‘church,’) may be allowed to pass, if understood in the right way. As individuals, or as a human organisation, they make no pretence whatever to a divine appointment or standing. Their contention is that the truth of the gospel calls the believers of it from out of the world to be the servants of Christ, and that all who yield to the call become the called by virtue of their belief and obedience, and candidates for the favour of Christ at his coming. They claim to know and believe this truth. They do not claim ‘authority;’ they do not attach any virtue to their organisation, except the advantages of edification to come from peace and order to its members. They do not set themselves up as an official body. They are merely an aggregation of men and women believing the truth of God, and striving to walk in the obedience of His commandments, hoping in the mercy of God for that eternal life which He has predicated on such a course. They have no ecclesiastical pretensions or desire for ecclesiastical recognition. If others believe in the same truth and walk in the same obedience, they are glad of and claim their company under the law of Christ. If any demur to the truth, or decline from that obedience, they withdraw from their company under the same law, not as a judicial act towards the withdrawn from, but as a washing of their own hands of complicity with evil. Thus, they rest everything on the truth, and nothing on their individual or corporate prerogative. The departure of the truth will be the departure of the ecclesia, even if the individuals remain in company one with another. The truth with them makes or unmakes: the organisation is an accident of the truth merely, and not its governor or even official medium. Understood thus, the Christadelphians admit that they claim to be the ecclesia, a claim, however, in which they admit all to participate who can prove that they are walking in the belief and obedience of the truth.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1878, p. 227)

[ Personal note: Compare the above, "they make no pretence whatever to a divine appointment or standing" with what is written below. It is more than making a "pretence" at "divine standing". ]

Ans.  My first point goes to the nature of your proof.  As I pointed out in the introduction, you have none.  Note that you cannot find the pioneers condemning brethren associating together into faithful ecclesias, and then those faithful ecclesias associating together in fellowship; and so you are trying to infer some bazaar argument relevant to this from these comments.

Secondly, I cannot see any difference between the two statements you quote in number 4 and 5.  Neither bro. Roberts or bro. Growcott viewed the expression "the body of Christ" or "the ecclesia" to be anything more than a tentative or prospective title.  Both recognize, correctly I believe, that there is an "if" running through the entire process.  "Ye are my friends "if" ye do whatsoever I command you." 

Bro. Roberts says that the departure from the truth is a departure from "the ecclesia."  This is true.   Bro. Growcott says that if a body does not hold the first principles of truth, they cannot reasonably be called by those of us who know the truth, "the body of Christ."  This also is true.  Bro. Roberts says that we admit to the ecclesia those who can prove they are walking in the belief and obedience of the truth.  This is true, and must we not judge the proof that is brought forward?  And if we judge the proof brought forward to be in error, we must stand aside from It.  And if we stand aside from it, it would be quite unwise to label the error (in belief or conduct) we stand aside from as "the body of Christ."  So there is no difference between these two writings.

 

5.   "The 'Body of Christ' is, in the ultimate sence, the approved-the redeemed-the glorified. Who will ultimately constitute this Body obviously we cannot say. That is the great purpose of the judgment-seat of Christ. 'Judge nothing before the time.' As to the present application of this expression (Body of Christ), that at best can be but a tentative consideration. Paul says (Heb. 3:6,14)-'Whose House (Body) are we IF we hold fast... we are made partakers of Christ (his Body) IF we hold stedfast.' At any particular time, therefore, the present constitution of the Body is but tentative and potential. So we cannot apply the term to any at present in an absolute sense. I certainly believe it would be unwise and questionable to apply this term "Body of Christ" to any with whom we [the Berean Society] can not in faithfulness break bread, for the Scriptures obviously restrict the term in its true sense to the faithful, and if we consider a man to be faithful in the scriptural sense, we have no right to stand aside from him in fellowship... We have judged to the extent of standing aside from those who do not fully accept and apply what we believe to be the first principles of fellowship. To this extent we have judged and must judge." (G.V. Growcott, Scriptural Fellowship)

[ Personal Note: Either the Berean Society of Ecclesias is "The Body of Christ" as they judge themselves to be, or it is a misguided notion. And who chooses if a man or woman is allowed into "The Body of Christ" but the judgments of fallible mortal dust! ]

Ans.  The Berean's claim to be the body of Christ is tentative only, as adequately explained by bro. Growcott.  It is a claim made by Christadelphians from the beginning, and a title bestowed upon the ecclesia by Paul.  The tentative body of Christ is that ecclesia striving to follow Christ's teaching.   No one should consider it unusual that we consider ourselves this prospective "body of Christ."  Christadelphians have done this from the beginning of our movement.  Bro. Thomas wrote of the ecclesia thus:

"The ecclesia is an association of individuals, who having received an invitation to God’s kingdom and glory, have accepted it, in being immersed 'into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' Being thus called out from among the Gentiles, it is Scripturally styled ecclesia—the body of Christ’s Brethren, joint heirs with him of God’s kingdom and glory." [My emphasis--jp]

And bro. Roberts similarly wrote:

"In view of this, let the fact be noted that at the resurrection, the saints in the aggregate are to be united to him in physical assimilation. This union is called a 'marriage' because the parties to it are to become one. The saints are now 'the body of Christ,' but only in the legal sense. The present connection is limited, and derives its entire significance from the consummated union to which it is prospectively related." [My emphasas--jp]

This is what we believe.  We are the body of Christ, but this term has limitations.  As bro. Growcott wrote in your unemboldened portion of your quote, there is an "if" running through all the considerations.  The church, or the synagogue of Satan was once "the body of Christ" but they became disobedient and left the body, and when they went out, they were no longer the tentative "body of Christ."  This is the point bro. Growcott is making, which you find so objectionable.  But it is the same point once made by bro. Thomas.  Bro. Thomas once made this observation about an ecclesia he was familiar with:

"It has come to my ears that the ecclesia I knew is no longer in being; that is, that instead of one, there are in Chicago two societies, each claiming to be the Chicago Ecclesia! I could understand both of these being the 'One Body' of Christ in Chicago, if both were of the 'One Faith,' and of the 'One Lord;' but this, I am informed, is not the fact—the one believing one thing about the Lord and Saviour, and the other something entirely different. If this be so, I cannot admit that the two ecclesias are the One Body: neither of them may be; but two societies, holding antagonistic and mutually destructive theories cannot. It would be Christ divided against himself." John Thomas Chdn. 1870 pg. 237 [My emphasis--jp]

So bro. Thomas applies these terms specifically to an ecclesia, just as bro. Growcott did.  Again, we fully recognize the limitations in such a claim.  As to who knows who is to be admitted to this tentative institution, an individual is admitted to this tentative body as bro. Roberts says, if they can prove they are walking in the belief and obedience of the truth.

 

6.  Brother Frank G. Jannaway  wrote, “This division of the original body has led me to take a wider view than I did in 1875, for I am convinced it is more than possible that those on the ‘right hand’ in the Day of Judgment will include some from each of the said divisions, notwithstanding their present separation” (Christadelphians Then and Now, p. 5). He makes an almost identical claim in The Berean for 1927: “These divisions have led us to take a wider view than we did in 1875, for we are convinced it is more than possible that those on the ‘right-hand’in the Day of Judgment will include some from each of the said communities, notwithstanding their present separation.” (Frank G. Jannaway, The Berean, 1927, p. 350) “Possible” indicates potential or likelihood. Brother Jannaway says he was “convinced it is more than possible”. “More than possible” is an expression meaning he was convinced that “those on the ‘right-hand’ in the Day of Judgment would nclude some from each of the said communities…”. Do you believe this is an accurate assessment of brother Jannaway’s words?

Ans:  Yes, this is correct.  There are certain things we are called upon to judge, such as doctrine and openly unscriptural walk and conduct.  But there are things we are forbidden to judge.  These are things we have no ability to judge, and judgments which God has reserved for Himself through Jesus.  These things include the motives and and personal feelings of the heart, but most of all we are forbidden to judge who will or will not be accepted at the judgment.  But this is nothing new to Christadelphians, as you allege.  Bro. Jannaway had written the same thing in the lifetime of bro. Roberts, when bro. Roberts was still editor, as regards those separated over 'partial inspiration."  Bro. Jannaway wrote that he hoped to see brethren accepted at the last, who he could not in good conscience fellowship now.

"In many cases we have to refuse fellowship to those we hope to see accepted by-and-by through the mercy of God. But it would not be scriptural to allow this hope to be the ground of fellowship."  Chdn 1892

Any other attitude or behavior would set the ecclesia up as the spiritual judiciary, which would be completely unscriptural.

Personal Note: Either the Berean Society of Ecclesias is "The Body of Christ" as they judge themselves to be, or it is a misguided notion. And who chooses if a man or woman is allowed into "The Body of Christ" but the judgments of fallible mortal dust! What brother Growcott states as a general principle is fine. The problem comes when you take the principle and apply it, as he is doing, to a union of ecclesias. The Berean union locks out any brethren who do not assent to their long paper trail and then has the audacity to deny that brethren outside the union are part of 'the body of Christ'.

Ans:  As I have already pointed out, you are putting words in bro. Growcott's mouth.  He had no confusion on the matter.  He recognized the body of Christ to be a conditional matter altogether, and he clearly explained to you that ""The 'Body of Christ' is, in the ultimate sense, the approved-the redeemed-the glorified. Who will ultimately constitute this Body, obviously, we cannot say."   

The Bereans do not have any "long paper trail" that brethren need to accept.  Such a statement can only be considered as calculated to distort our true position.  We meet on the BASF with the Doctrines to be Rejected, and the Commandments of Christ.  Our Berean Restatement defines how we view some of the clauses in these documents which have been points of controversy in the past.  If this "long paper trail" is too difficult for you, you won't be happy with us.  If you wish to add more, you won't be happy with us. 

Your are also drawing a false conclusion on bro. Growcott's statement about not referring to certain Christadelphian associations as "the Body of Christ."  As bro. Thomas points out in my quote to you above, we cannot refer to Christadelphian bodies whose doctrine directly contradicts ours, especially on teachings such as the sacrifice of Christ, as "the Body of Christ."  That is a comment directed specifically at those whose doctrines oppose us.  But this is not a statement that only Bereans are "the Body of Christ" or that brethren in other groups will not ultimately be included in the Body of Christ.  None of us believe that. 

Personal note: GVG's judgment was not shared by FGJ as shown above. FGJ had not taken the ill-fated step of confusing the mortal ecclesia with The Body of Christ which Bereans had done by circa 1960. FGJ's judgment, by the way, has been shared by some of the current Berean brethren who came from the Unamended community. Perhaps their ideas changed once they joined the Bereans and became, without reimmersion, part of 'The Body of Christ'.

Ans:  As regards bro. Growcott's comments, I have nothing to add that was not included in my response to your first note in this question #6.  I have no idea what you are in reference to regarding those, from the Unamended, who have joined us, rather than join an association tolerant of the "Partial Atonement" heresy."  

 

7. "The Editor of the Christadelphian has never interfered in the affairs of the Birkenhead ecclesia, or any other ecclesia. He has several times attended ecclesial meetings in various parts of the country, by request, to take part with them in the disentanglement of ecclesial difficulties: but this could not justly be characterised as “interference.” It was co-operation in a perfectly brotherly spirit, with brotherly results, and with the reverse of gratification to us in every case, except in so far as good was achieved. If it refer to the conducting of the Christadelphian, the complaint is still more destitute of reasonable ground. The Editor in all cases has only exercised the lawful prerogative of an editor. He has “edited” the contents of the magazine from the point of view of the objects at which it aims. This cannot be held to be an interference in any ecclesia’s affairs. Each ecclesia does its own untrammelled part; and the Editor of the Christadelphian does his." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1885, p. 167) ]

Ans:  Lets consider what has taken place here, in the matter you are quoting.  Temperance Hall (bro. Roberts' ecclesia) has withdrawn from those who teach "partial inspiration" and from those who are sound themselves, but who refuse to separate from those who teach partial inspiration.  Many ecclesias have followed the example of Temperance Hall, and those ecclesias have associated together in fellowship.  The end result is that ecclesias like Birkenhead are not welcome at Birmingham Temperance Hall, or at the halls of the ecclesias which have associated with Temperance Hall.  In other words, Temperance Hall has acted exactly as would the Berean ecclesias of today.

Birkenhead now finds themselves among the ecclesias who are no longer welcome among the association of faithful ecclesias.  You see, bro. Steve, Birkenhead's position <b>and strategy </b>is identical to yours.  They and you are not welcomed among the faithful ecclesias, because, though personally sound, you cannot bring yourself to separate from the unfaithful, to the true.  If we were to transpose this to our current scenario, you are Birkenhead and we are Temperance Hall.  And what do you do?  The same thing that Birkenhead does.  You claim we have set up an hierarchy and a clerical like institution, and claim we dictate to others, just like the Birkenhead ecclesia accused bro. Roberts.  And you both are wrong!  Faithful ecclesias are faithful, because they desire to be, and discipline themselves to be.  They make their own decisions.  Their decision is to separate from error.  And after they separate from the error, it is unreasonable, and unscriptural to condemn them for forming an association with other like minded ecclesias who also separated from error.

 

8.  "The principle of ecclesial independence has been clearly recognised and sacredly upheld among us hitherto as a principle vital to the objects of the truth in the development of brethren and sisters in the simple ways of faith, in preparation for the coming of Christ. The abandonment of this principle—the surrender of self-government into the hands of a “conference,”—would be a long further stride towards that apostacy from apostolic principles which many fear is already begun in our midst. To consent to such a machinery would be to create an abstraction which would work mischief in a variety of ways. It would divert the minds of the brethren from the simple regulation of their own affairs: and introduce an outside source of debate and appeal. The “conference” would be before their minds in all their dealings, giving scope to unruly spirits to gratify their love of contention in the complicating of affairs that ought to be simple. And, worse still, it would put into the hands of those who are at home in the carnal arts of factious organisation, and manipulating of votes, a machinery which would inevitably work for the corruption and destruction of the truth in its faith and practice. It would organise a tyranny over ecclesial and individual life. It, at the same time, would open out a sphere at present closed to ecclesiastical ambitions. “Presidents” and “secretaries” would acquire a factitious importance that would soon ripen into the pretensions of clericalism; and the simple ways of the truth, which afford scope only for pure-minded, self-denying service, would soon be overwhelmed and destroyed by the flesh-glorifying and unapostolic officialism which prevails with such fatal effects in all branches of the ecclesiastical world from which we have been delivered. Faithful men will refuse to be compromised in such a plausible device." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1885, p. 167)

[[ Personal note: Here is 1885, the year of the so-called "case study" of sacred Berean fellowship principles. What is sacred to Christadelphians, according to brother Roberts?: "Ecclesial independence has been sacredly upheld" says brother Roberts. But the Berean SOCIETY or UNION of ecclesias is anything but a sacred upholding of this principle. The Berean union of ecclesias is a kind of Conference. The 'Conference' spoken of is not a one time meeting but an organized ecclesiastical organization which conducts the business of the ecclesiastical Society or union of churches. This is called, "inter-ecclesial unity of action" in the Berean Society ]

ANS:  For any who do not understand bro. Genusa's reference to the 1885 "case study", you can find it here, called "An Anatomy of a Division."  It is a month by month examination of the Partial Inspiration Division, and completely disproves bro. Genusa's allegations.

As I have shown, the Bereans adhere exactly to this principle of Ecclesial independence.  It is somewhat of a condescending position on the part of our Central brethren, that they believe we poor sheep in the Bereans, would have no ability to decide for ourselves, act for ourselves, and form associations for ourselves apart from some wise clerical type organization telling us what to do.  But as in the days of bro. Roberts, we somehow manage to push forward.  The article that your two quotes come from, bro. Steve, ends this way, and it is exactly to our point.

"Various have been the occasions for resisting the encroachments of errors. Well-meaning persons have had to be antagonised—and the loss of their friendship submitted to—rather than give place to principles destructive of the truth. The persons oftentimes did not hold the error themselves, but were willing to tolerate just a little of it in our fellowship. It was first the immortality of the soul: the rejection of this was not to be too stringently insisted on: even a man’s belief in eternal torments was not to be made a ground of disqualification in fellowship. Then it was a personal devil: there was really so much countenance to this in the Scriptures that it was going too far to insist on its rejection. Then it was the doctrine of the judgment; numbers thought it not essential, and every one should please himself whether he was to believe or not that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive . . . . good or bad. Then it was the nature of Christ; it was to be an open question whether Christ possessed our mortal flesh and blood or not: whether his sacrifice was substitution or the actual offering of the sin-nature. Then it was God-manifestation in Christ that was to be denied. Christ was either to be a mere man or no Christ-man at all, but God incarnate—as you please. And now it is the Scriptures of truth—they are to be inspired or not, just as you incline to take it. And you are to have a “conference of delegates” to make it more easy to get the leaven established. There is but one course for faithful men. They will not compromise the truth; and they will have nothing to do with schemes which are scarcely disguised attempts to establish the very thing so virtuously condemned by their promoters."

Our position is the same.  We hate that we antagonize and upset well meaning and otherwise sound brethren by refusing to meet with them, but as bro. Roberts points out, there is but one course for faithful men.

I'm really at a loss to see how this can in anyway be considered a "conference."  A conference is where delegates are chosen to speak for an ecclesia.  Our ecclesias are all independent, we never ask for delegates, and we never give any credence to anything a conference or group of brethren may decide.  Our associations are based upon whole ecclesias unitedly accepting the BASF, DtbR, and CoC.  

 

9.  In speaking of The Birmingham Constitution, the Birmingham Statement of Faith and The Ecclesial Guide, G. V. Growcott wrote, "Besides long and deep scriptural study, these pamphlets arose out of actual experience and practice. They [these pamphlets] were the result of testing and refinement over a perod of 30 years, from 1853 when bro. Roberts accepted the Truth to 1883 when they were published in this completed form, and have been changed very little since." (The Berean, 1965, p. 307). How old was brother Roberts when he was baptized?

[ He was 14 years old. Personal note: So at 14 years of age, according to GVG, brother Roberts has developed a Statement of Faith. The truth is, the the BSOF would not appear until 15 years later. So 30-15 = 15 years, not 30 -- though granted, 30 years sounds better than 15 years, it isn't accurate ]

Ans.  The point bro. Growcott is making is that faithful brethren, of which bro. Roberts was one, worked hard at coming up with our basis of fellowship.  It was not done haphazardly, but rather accomplished over many years.  The Ecclesial Guide, which is the written conclusion of this great effort has been changed very little since it was published.  We, as Bereans appreciate and respect the work of these pioneer brethren, agree with their conclusions, and order our ecclesias accordingly.

  

10.  G. V. Growcott wrote, "The 'Constitution and Statement of Faith' has an inseparable companion work, the 'Ecclesial Guide,' which was jointly developed with it." (The Berean, 1965, p. 307). What year was the Birmingham Statement of Faith first published?

Ans. 1868

 

11.  What year was The Ecclesial Guide first published?

Ans. 1883

Personal note: The Ecclesial Guide would not appear till 15 years later, again a 15 year difference from what GVG claimed was "jointly developed" ]

Ans:  I do not understand your complaint in any of this.  Your attempt to discredit bro. Growcott is just ill advised.  Bro. Roberts publish the following heading in the original "Ecclesial Guide".

THE LESSONS OF THIRTY YEARS’ EXPERIENCE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF A GUIDE TO THE FORMATION AND CONDUCT OF

CHRISTADELPHIAN ECCLESIAS

IN

THE CHARACTERISTIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN AGE WHEN THE TRUTH AS APOSTOLICALLY DELIVERED HAS BEEN

REVIVED

IN THE WAYS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE, WITHOUT THE CO-OPERATION AND LIVING GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AS ENJOYED IN

THE APOSTOLIC AGE

 

The emboldening in that first sentence is mine.  Since bro. Roberts claimed that the Ecclesial Guide was the result of the lessons of 30 years experience, then all of bro. Growcott's comments will be seen as referring to this fact.  Bro. Growcott is merely quoting what bro. Roberts said he did.  Your complaints, therefore, are with bro. Roberts, not bro. Growcott.  But your complaints in any case are simply petty.

 

12.  "The Ecclesial Guide is a suggestion: not a mandate—which is not within the function of any (by Christ) unauthorised brother. It only becomes a rule when made such by an ecclesia adopting it: and even then it remains outside the structure of an ecclesia’s constitution. The ecclesia takes so much of it as pleases them, and makes it theirs." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1884, p. 426; One year after The Guide is first published)

[ Personal note: Like the SOF and every other document brother Roberts or the Birmingham ecclesia held, other ecclesias were totally free to decide what they adopted ]

The Ecclesial Guide, p. 35
Notice it does not say, "That we recognise as brethren, and welcome to our fellowship,
all who have been immersed after their acceptance of
our Birmingham Statement of Faith, Doctrines to Be Rejected and Commandments of Christ." ANS:  I'm not sure why we are having this discussion about the Ecclesial Guide.  It does not make up a part of our basis.  The accuracy of your overall statement depends on what you mean by "totally free to decide what they adopted."   In the first round of our discussion, you agreed that the ecclesias were not "totally free" but had to conform to the principles Christadelphians all believed.  They were free to express those exact principles in what ever manner appealed to them.  But ecclesias had to organize themselves on the principles of the truth alone.  They were by no means "totally free" to accept whatever they wished.  Any ecclesia endorsing a false position, would not have been recognized by the faithful ecclesias, and there were such ecclesias in the early days of the truth.  The Crain's Grove ecclesia in the US, and the Baptized Believers in the Kingdom of God  in Scotland are such examples.  It is true that there was not the Birmingham basis from the start of our movement.  But no basis which would have contradicted what evolved into the Birmingham basis would have been accepted (at least past the time that the error was known.)

They were free to decide upon their basis, providing their basis was consistent with the belief of Christadelphians.  Even today we have at least one old Berean ecclesia whose organization is on their own statement of Faith, and not the BASF.  But their basis includes all points of the BASF, and does not contradict any of them. 

 

13.  "That we recommend the Temperance Hall ecclesia to consent to the formation of an ecclesia at Acock’s Green, in accordance with the letter now read from brother J. J. Powell on behalf of the brethren of that district. But we deem it important to place on record our conviction that no new ecclesia should be formed of members of an already existing ecclesia without the consent of the said existing ecclesia being first asked and obtained. And that a new ecclesia so formed becomes a separate self-governing body, whose members cannot at the same time be the members (except in a spiritual sense), of the ecclesia from which they separate. We think it essential to affirm the principle of ecclesial independence as regards all matters of local organisation and discipline." (The Christadelphian, 1890, p. 431)

[ Personal note: But not the Bereans. They have "inter-ecclesial unity of action" and have admitted they have a hard time telling when that begins and ecclesial independence ends ]

Our disagreements with Central do not pertain to matters of local organization and discipline.  Our ecclesias are, and always have been free to maintain themselves in such matters.  Our differences are related to brethren accepted into fellowship who are errorists.  This becomes a matter of inter-ecclesial unity of action, because our ecclesias will not fellowship with ecclesias who in any way tolerate deviations from our basis. 

Our local ecclesias all are free to establish matters pertaining to their own decency and order.  Not having ecclesial shepherds trying to interfere into other ecclesia's affairs, nor encouraging the creation of such; this is simply not a concern.  The question pertaining to inter-ecclesial unity of action, has to do with matters that arise when an ecclesia refuses to honor a test of fellowship, such as took place in 1923 when so many ecclesias refused to withdraw from the teachings of A. D. Strickler; or if an ecclesia or group of ecclesias try to force a new and previously not recognize condition on our body, such as during the Dawn division of 1940. 

 

14.  “J. C.—Nothing can be done collectively to heal existing differences. The evil must be cured at its source—individual shortcoming; and this can only be done by every man setting his own mind and behaviour right in the sight of God. Some will do this; all will not: and therefore discord will always exist. We must not be discouraged at it. “The church” is at present a mixture of “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and stubble;” and these elements must continue mixed, until the Judge of all the earth returns to separate them. We are neither able nor at liberty to judge at present as to who among those confessing the truth are the pearls, and who are the rubbish; but pearls there are, and rubbish there is, and therefore a lack of perfect harmony. We must use charity in the matter; this is the province of charity, to put the best face on things where nothing certain is known, and await the result in patience Differences ought not to disconcert us; they ought not even to surprise us; they are the inevitable offspring of the present organisation of “the church.” Divisions—doctrinal and personal—will always occur so long as righteousness and unrighteousness, truth and error, co-exist. True, “these things ought not so to be,” and they will not be when the church is perfected by the rejection of all its spurious members, and the glorification of all those that are true. At present, such things will be, and all we can do is to do the best we can, steer a single minded course in the sight of God, and not let our hearts down at any result that may follow.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 17)

[ Personal note: Discord, as a rule, does not exist in the Berean society. Remember, they have mistaken the mortal ecclesias for The One True Body ]

Ans:  Generally speaking, when division and discord occur, there is nothing collectively (that is in regards to forming committees etc. to look into things) that can ever be done.  The individual straying from the truth, which is the source of the discord, has to change or he can no longer be accommodated.  Divisions have occurred, and will continue to occur till Christ returns.  We must not allow this to be a source of discouragement, because division is actually a fulfillment of Jesus' and Paul's prophesies.  But of course, being human, and becoming so attached to brethren as we do, it is always such a tragedy when discord arises.

I'm glad that through your research you have reached the conclusion that we have very little discord in the Bereans.  To us, what discord we have seems overwhelming when it occurs and entirely heart breaking.  But I guess from your perspective, and the condition of the Central meetings generally; our discord appears quite mild and all but non existent. 

Finally, as I said before, we have no more confusion pertaining to our tentative relationship to the "One True Body" Christ will establish at his return, than do any of the other brethren of old who have used the same expressions to mean the same things we mean.  I'm not sure why you continue to state this in the face of my outright denials, Eand your complete absence of any proof to the contrary. 

 

15. "Beware of sacrificing the principle of ecclesial independence. Any number of brethren may profitably come together to hold intercourse on a spiritual basis; but if they begin legislating, they will begin mischief. This is the lesson of all experience. Dr. Thomas was dead against it. Each ecclesia must legislate for itself. A conference of delegates may easily become an incubus on ecclesial life.—Editor." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1892, p. 158)

[ Personal note: Notice that the issue is sacrificing the principle of ecclesial independence. Whether there is a conference of delegates or not, the real problem is when ecclesias come together to begin legislating. "Each ecclesia must legislate for itself." This is Bereanism, a society or union of exclusive ecclesias. ]

Ans:  Your quote from 1892 is talking about ecclesias having conferences with delegates to settle matters of faith.  Those who continued with us, never do this.  You say that the real problem is when ecclesias come together to begin legislating.  In the entire history of the Bereans, through times when we have had wonderful guides and when we have had some less capable ones; we have never had ecclesias come together to legislate anything to another ecclesia.

Each ecclesia must decide all matters for themselves.   This is what we do.  From the time of our separation from Temperance Hall, the Bereans association of ecclesias, or fellowship, all agreed independently that we would only fellowship other ecclesias who meet on the BASF, DtbR, and CoC.  We required no conference, no legislation, no delegations to make this decision.  No ecclesia told another ecclesia what they had to do.  Each ecclesia independently reached their decision, and when that decision was reached, ecclesias which reached the same conclusions banded together and refrained from associations with ecclesias who chose to accept some other basis, or compromises to the existing basis.

 

16. "A.E.F.—According to constitution of the Birmingham ecclesia, we “recognise as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who have been immersed (by whomsoever) after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precept.” But we have no power to deal with disputes in a far country. The principle of ecclesial independence of action is a thing to be strenuously guarded. The blunders that are frequently made are nothing in their evil to what the establishment of a fictitious central power would be. There is nothing to be done but wait for Christ from heaven." (C.C. Walker, The Christadelphian, 1900, p. 526)

Ans:  Berean Christadelphians fully agree with the sentiments of bro. Walker.  We oppose any establishment of a central power for any reason.  We also agree that there is, in fact, nothing that can be done to settle these things ecclesial wide, but to wait upon the return of Christ. 

The point you are missing in ecclesial independence, is that ecclesial independence means that each ecclesia has the authority to decide for themselves who they are willing to fellowship and who they will not fellowship.  This is what Berean Ecclesias did, and still do.  Temperance Hall, in 1923, made the decision to continue to fellowship the errorists in Buffalo, and the ecclesia of my great grand parents in Akron, Ohio elected not to.  This meant that Temperance Hall Birmingham, and Akron Ohio were out of fellowship with each other.  Both ecclesias made their own independent decision, and did not ask for any involvement from committees or delegates.  Both ecclesias made their various pleas, laid down their arguments, and then accepted each other's decisions. 

The same rules hold true for today.  You ecclesia in Tyler Texas, made an independent decision to have some association with Central (though I admit to being unclear as to what it really is.)  Our ecclesia in Austin Texas, made a completely independent decision to have nothing to do with the ecclesias claiming any association with Central due to the error in Central which you have documented on your web site.  Some of the ecclesias in Texas have independently agreed to associate with Central, like Leander, and others have decided not to, like Lampasas.  In all cases, all ecclesias are upholding the autonomy to make completely independent decisions for themselves, and to fellowship with ecclesias of like mind.  We couldn't be any more independent. 

 

17. "There is such a thing as ecclesial autonomy, and such a thing as interecclesial unity of action. It is not always easy to say where one should end and the other begin" (Our Basis of Fellowship, The Berean, 1980, p. 11; 1986, p. 11; 1996, p. 11)

[ Personal note: Notice that Berean ecclesias are so closely tied together that G.V. Growcott himself could not tell where ecclesial independence ended (!) and group action, as mandated by their Society's documents, began! What a remarkable contrast to apostolic and pioneer practices ]

Ans:  This is the same question as already addressed in #13 above.  The same answer applies.

 

18. "Any additional fellowship requirements or restrictions added unilaterally by individual ecclesias are to be discouraged and avoided. This way so easily lies the potentiality of secondary to, this basic body of fellowship-defining material we ALL have, and subscribe to, in common." (Our Basis of Fellowship, The Berean, 1980, p. 11; 1986, p. 11; 1996, p. 11)

[ Personal note: Notice, that with Bereans the exercising of ecclesial independence is a thing to be strenuously guarded against for it might create schism! ]

Ans:  Unnecessary schism is a terrible thing.  Unilaterally adding to our basis of fellowship will create discord and confusion.  In almost every case in the past, it has caused division.  If, in the previous 100 years of the history of the truth, faithful brethren have not seen fit to institute a rule, what are the chances such a rule is real and valid?  Is there not a greater chance that such a new rule is just a crotchet, advanced, usually, by a well meaning, but unwise brother?   This being the case, why would not anyone discourage the addition of unilateral rules?

Would an additional rule ever be possible?  Sure.  No one can foresee all the difficulties of the future.  But such additions should only be made under an almost irresistible force of circumstances.  That is the point bro. Growcott was trying to make.

 

19. "The ideal is that all ecclesias have exactly the same Constitution, as far as concerns matters of fellowship. There seems to be no reason for sacrificing this ideal for the sake of numbers. To so do would in time mean a multitude of varying bases, instead of our present common and uniform one." (Our Basis of Fellowship, The Berean, 1980, p. 11)

[ Personal note: Again, ecclesial independence is denied. Here is "the ideal". You see, if the ecclesias were independent as Christadelphian ecclesias were in the times of brethren Thomas and Roberts, "the ideal" would be applied locally. But with the Berean Society of ecclesias, "the ideal" now becomes international for Bereans are The One True Body... ]

Ans:  There is no denying of the principle of Ecclesial Autonomy here.  There are no demands made on ecclesias in any of this.  There are only well meaning suggestions.  The standard you are attempting to set, is that any suggestion or advise ever given is somehow a violation of ecclesial autonomy.  In this you are not much different from those who have gone before.  They accused bro. Roberts of lording over the body because he advised, through the pages of his magazine, how he felt men should walk before God.  You are doing the same, accusing every suggestion you can find as a demand, violating ecclesial autonomy.  In both cases, all each ever did was to avoid being seen as a leader, while trying to encourage men to follow Christ.

 

20. "Brother R. W. asks us to countenance the movement at the antipodes to “give up the word ‘Birmingham’ and substitute ‘Christadelphian.’” Our answer must be as before: We have no authority so to do. Neither has anyone else. The Birmingham ecclesia can only speak for itself; and it is so with every other ecclesia. We entirely sympathise with every godly effort for unity on a pure basis; but it would be a mistake to issue a document under the above title, because it would imply the right of the issuers to speak for the whole household of faith, which right does not exist. The principle of ecclesial independence must be jealously guarded, and it is the beginnings of things that have to be watched. There is no desire on the part of the Birmingham ecclesia to impose its form of words on any ecclesia; but there can be no valid objection to any ecclesia adopting it if it sees fit. But to adopt this statement and give it a universal title that the Birmingham ecclesia conscientiously refrains from giving it, does not seem to be right at all. If a group of Australian ecclesias desires a common statement, let them accurately define its scope and limitations. We are happily agreed as to the “one faith,” but let us be careful about our definitions. Ecclesiastical history is a warning to us in this respect." (C.C. Walker, The Christadelphian, 1904, p. 113)

[Notice here, CCW is talking about something as basic as the Statement of Faith! This is 1904 and our brethren who would become the Bereans are still "in fellowship" with other Christadelphians at this point in time and will be for another 19 years. Notice, SPECIFICALLY, that ecclesias were able to carry their own Statement of Faith and that no authority or attempt to unionize ecclesias was being made by CCW -- if the union of ecclesias had already existed his words would make no sense. ]

Ans:  In 1904, your definition of "unionizing" ecclesias (which I would simply call the association of faithful ecclesias and the exclusion of the unfaithful ecclesias) was already in effect for 50 years, contrary to your revision of history.   Throughout the Christadelphian world, the faithful ecclesias had ceased to fellowship with ecclesias who believed, or tolerated the view that the Scriptures were not inspired; and they had also separated from those who believed or tolerated the belief that the unbaptized will not be resurrected.  Note the answer bro. Walker gives you, for it is of paramount importance.  "We are happily agreed as to the 'one faith.'"  Any basis that establishes this is all that is important.  Ecclesias who choose to honor the one truth, fellowshipped with other faithful ecclesias.  Ecclesias who insist on maintaining associations with those who corrupt the one faith, were excluded by the faithful.  Observe bro. Roberts' dealing with an ecclesia in New Zealand concerning this very issue:

"The number of the brethren in Wellington has been reduced through the objection of some to adopt a basis of faith—that is a formulated statement of the principles recognised as essential to be in fellowship The statement proposed was the Birmingham statement. To this there was a determined opposition in the spirit of the man who said 'If it comes from Birmingham , that is a reason why we should have nothing to do with it.' This attitude is not intelligible on spiritual grounds. There are carnal reasons that fully account for it. True men are only anxious to secure the truth. If Birmingham is a help they are not ashamed to have it. Where would even our objecting friend have been, if Birmingham had done nothing? But in truth it is not the origin of the “statement” that is altogether the ground of the objection; it is the character of it. The objectors do not consent to all that is in it. As one frankly said—“There are some things there that ought not to be.” Think of some objecting to the restoration of natural Israel . The time is come to take strong and uncompromising ground. If men object to the truth, they ought not to pass current as brethren. And if the adoption of a statement of the faith will put an end to a false situation, the sooner it is adopted the better. This is the mind of the brethren in Wellington and elsewhere. The adoption of a scriptural statement of faith, whether of Birmingham origin or elsewhere, will be the beginning of a sounder and healthier state of things, than has for some time prevailed in New Zealand . As for Birmingham , suppose the Birmingham statement is a statement that the Lord approves, where will ye be in His presence who place yourselves in opposition to an endeavour to secure a standing ground for the truth, in the day of its weakness and unpopularity."-- Bro. Roberts Christadelphian 1898 Second Diary of a Voyage   [Emphasis mine--jp]

21. In the Berean document, “Our Basis of Fellowship” we read, “Fellowship is the total oneness of the whole Body, based on THE TRUTH, believed and practiced, and preserved soundly among us according to the commands God has given us.” Is that “whole Body” exclusively the Berean Fellowship?

Ans:  In that sentence, yes.  It is a reference to the whole Berean body, not to the whole body of Christ. 

Response:  Then you do not believe Christadelphians outside the Berean Fellowship can be part of the body of Christ? Did not Frank Jannaway say the very opposite of what you are saying?


Ans:  We make no such conclusion at all.  We are commanded to judge certain things, and to refrain from judging others.  We judge for ourselves who we believe we are permitted to walk with, and if they agree, we walk together.  We judge for ourselves who we cannot in good conscience walk with.  We make no judgment whatsoever about what Christ will think of individuals and who will ultimately make up that glorious "One Body", because Christ alone, can judge the motive, and the heart.  All judgment pertaining to the forming of the true one body, is Jesus' and his alone.  We would not dare to infringe upon his privilege at all.  Like bro. Jannaway and bro. Roberts, we hope that many we cannot walk with now, will be united to us at the last.  But for now, all we have is our own best judgment, and we exercise that in harmony with how we understand the words of Jesus.

Personal Note: What painful choices our Berean brethren must make when they confuse The Body with the Society!

Ans:  There is no pain as you suggest, as there is no confusion.   All the pain is in having to stand aside from our loved ones.

 

22. Brother Roberts said, "To form ‘unions’ or ‘societies’ of ecclesias (and it may be added, ‘conferences’) in which delegates should frame laws for the individual ecclesias would be to lay the foundation of a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life. Such collective machineries create fictitious importances, which tend to suffocate the truth. All ecclesiastical history illustrates this.” (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1885, p. 167)

[ If the Berean contention on ecclesial organization were true, that is that a union or society of ecclesias was the pioneer position on fellowship, there would be no need to form a union or society in the first place! All the Bereans, Dawn, Old Paths et. al, would have to do is send their delegates to the conference! ]

Ans:  I cannot follow your logic here.  We agree with bre. Thomas and Roberts that conferences such as were used by Central to created the division amongst the Bereans in 1952, and then used again to unite even more unfaithful brethren to Central in 1956 and 1957, should never have occurred.  We agree that they create offices of fictitious importance (sort of like your fictitious office of "ecclesial shepherd.")  We agree that ecclesias should never interfere in each other's affairs.  So explain again how individual ecclesias electing independently to only fellowship other ecclesias that meet on the BASF, is the same thing as sending delegates to conferences to decide who is in fellowship and who is not.

 

23. "In our generation, as in that of the apostles, the ecclesia, or general assembly of the many, who are called, is composed of these heterogeneous materials. It has been thus in all generations before and since Satan, in the days of Job, mingled with the Sons of the Deity, when they presented themselves in the Divine presence (Job 1:6). The satanic element has ever been among them with its 'depths as they speak' (ch. 2:24), corrupting and perverting the weak. In the wisdom of the Deity, Satan has been permitted to practice, and to deceive the hearts of the simple,  who are 'ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth' (2 Tim. 3:7), without judicial interference." (John Thomas, Eureka, vol 5, p. 81) Does the Berean community have within itself a “satanic element”?

Ans:  Obviously, and sadly we do.  The ecclesia is always in this state in this life.  You do not like bro. Thomas explanation of these things, because it goes directly against your teaching, but he wrote in Vol 1 of Eureka the way in which the satanic (adversarial)element exists in the faithful ecclesia.  It was not tolerated in open rebellion such as exists in Central today, as you have so well documented on your web site.  But it exists in the faithful ecclesias, none the less, quietly waiting till it has its opportunity to corrupt, or till it can't stand the restraints the Truth places on the faithful.  Bro. Thomas wrote:

Eureka I:  270   "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."   [My emphasis--jp]

You can see what bro. Thomas means when he says that the satanic element was in the ecclesia.  It was there, because it was not yet exposed.  But that element can't stay quiet indefinitely, because its sympathies are fleshly, and it becomes impatient of divine principles.  When it becomes exposed, the fellowship with the true Christians ceases, and the satanic element allies itself with the Balaamites Jezebelites, Ebionites, or whatever denomination it finds sympathy with.  I might add that from their new perch, the satanic element never misses a chance to stand up and scream about how unloving, uncaring etc. the true Christians were, that they would not tolerate them in their fellowship.

[ Personal Note: Remember GVG's claim "Fellowship is the total oneness of the whole Body, based on THE TRUTH, believed and practiced, and preserved soundly among us according to the commands God has given us." If the "whole Body" were nothing but the true servants of God then that would be true. But in a mortal ecclesia this is impossible. So if the Bereans have total oneness, they have total oneness with the "satanic element" as well, which brother Thomas plainly says "has been thus in all generations". Will the Bereans has us to believe that this statement from brother Thomas stopped being true in 1923? Sorry my Berean brethren, but the Scriptures speak against using a false weight in judgment ]

Ans:  And bro. Growcott made that same acknowledgement when he said that the term right now is only tentative?  Why did he use the term tentative, if he was teaching that the body is already perfected?  The answer should be obvious.

 

24. “It is certain that the Lord will find much that will displease him; absolute and unruffled unanimity is unattainable in his absence.” (The Christadelphian, 1896)

Ans:  Is there a question here?  I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this.

 

25. "Neither Dr. Thomas nor brother Roberts were satisfied with the state of the ecclesias in their day. Dr. Thomas wrote to bro. Roberts: 'The people of this generation are more expert in acquiring a superficial and theoretical outline of the Truth than the spirit which a deep and comprehensive and affectionate appreciation of it is sure to generate. Our labours bring us into contact with two classes who profess the Truth—the lukewarm and the hot.' And bro. Roberts, referring to one of the Plymouth Brethren with whom he had a discussion, said, 'He has all the godly fervour that characterises the body to which he belongs. It is distressing that we have so little of it among those who profess the Truth' (The Christadelphian, Sept., 1886). No one of any experience can deny that the remarks of our brethren apply with equal force in our days." (The Berean, 1935, p. 104)

[ Personal Note: Compare these frank remarks on the state of the Berean community in 1935 with the idealism found in GVG's descriptions of the Berean community ]

Ans.  There is no difference.  A fair reading of bro. Growcott's writings would clearly exhibit that he had all the same concerns for us in 1980.  Those of us who knew him, (and I did know him) were under no illusions that he thought we were an ideal society.

 

26. "Do they wish all ecclesias in the United Kingdom, and all 'members' thereof, to consider them a permanent ethical tribunal, to whose judgment as to 'right ways and wrong ways,' in such cases as that under consideration, all must bow under pain of excommunication? Surely the answer must be in the negative. Where would our jealously guarded ecclesial independence vanish to if such an idea were tolerated? Some time ago brother F. G. Jannaway was alluded to in the press as 'the head of the Christadelphians.' Of course, he only smiled. Some time ago the editor of The Christadelphian had to answer the question of a Court of Law as to whether he was 'the recognised head of the Society of Christadelphians.' He said, 'I am not ‘the recognised head of the Society of Christadelphians,' neither is there any such recognised head upon earth.' Then came the question: 'Have you been authorised by the Ruling Body of the Society?' (The matter in question did not concern the body generally.) The answer was: 'I have not been ‘authorised by the Ruling Body of the Society,’ because no such Ruling Body exists.' Then, for the information and guidance of the Court, the following statement was made: 'Our Society in the United Kingdom consists of a number of churches (or ‘ecclesias’ as we call them), each of which is absolutely independent and self-governed. And this is the order of things in the U.S.A., Canada, the Australasian Overseas Dominions, and other countries.'" (The Christadelphian, 1919, p. 461)

[ Personal Note: It was the order in 1919. Less so in 1923, worse in 1960 and even worse in 1980. The Bereans will want to claim they have ecclesial independence. But their own phrase "inter-ecclesial unity of action" (The Berean, 1980, p. 11; 1986, p. 11; 1996, p. 11) is indisputable evidence that they have surrendered independence for the Society ]

Ans:  Again, I'm not sure of the relevance of the quote.  I don't know how anyone could be, as so much relevant matter is omitted.  In your quote, those who wished themselves to be considered the permanent ethical tribunal in your quote, were seven brethren in London.  They had reached a conclusion, and were then interfering in the affairs of other ecclesias, dictating to them how they were to behave.  This is an improper method, and sets up a clergy.  This is what bro. Walker is objecting to.  So what should these seven brethren have done?  If they felt the truth was under attack, they should have stood aside from the error.  Having stood aside, and making their complaints known, other ecclesias who are in the area would determine which body they would fellowship.  The matter would eventually be resolved this way, the ecclesias, in independent fashion, electing to fellowship the faithful, and stand aside from the unfaithful.

 

Summary:

1. Early Christadephians maintained that ecclesial independence was a "sacred principle".
2. That there was no union or society of ecclesias based on a Common Statement of Faith, DTBR and CoC circa 1903. So JT and RR could not have established a common basis of fellowship, because some brethren were pushing Birmingham in 1903 to do just that! And brother Roberts and CC Walker are both on record saying that a common SOF would not create the paradise that some brethren sought for.
3. Bereans were not satisifed with a Common SOF, DTBR and CoC. In 1960 they added the Berean Restatement and in 1980 they added the Common Constitution with "matters vital to fellowship". You can see how ecclesial independence atrophies in such a union.
4. When brethren began forming unions of ecclesias they began to mistake the Union or Society of Ecclesias for The Body of Christ. The wood, hay and stubble element, the satanic element, clearly recognized and confessed to by early Christadelphians suddenly disappeared and the union began to claim to be capable of 'pure fellowship'. This is nothing short of an apostasy of ideas, in one particular area, with significant ramifications.

Conclusion:  Your criticism of the Bereans are not accurate.  We simply don't believe the things you say we believe.  Every Berean brother alive would be able to testify to this.  Clearly your criticisms are aimed at scaring brethren from examining the Bereans, thereby preserving Central brethren who may be frustrated at where Central is heading, and the speed in which it is now corrupting, and who may be looking for an alternative; along with Unamended brethren who now find themselves in fellowship with Central.  It is clear you have chosen not to appeal to Berean brethren. Berean brethren know we don't believe the things you allege, and you telling us we do, is the height of absurdity.  So your target audience is clearly Central and the faithful brethren within the Unamended community.  That is good, because it is my target audience as well.

Concerning your conclusions:

1.  Yes, this was true then, and it is true of us now.

2.  There was clearly an association of ecclesias who met on the principles of the truth defined in the BASF, and rejected ecclesias who taught, or tolerated error.  It is true that the exact document was not relevant.  Only whether or not it clearly defined the truth was important.

3.  The Berean ecclesias meet on the BASF with the DtbR and the CoC.  In 1960, to accommodate brethren leaving Central over the reintroduction of the errors through the Cooper Carter Addendum, and the Final Statement; we published the Berean Restatement which explains how certain clauses of the BASF were to be understood.  All the rest of your conclusions are simply your imagination.

4.  Brethren have always formed associations of ecclesias, based upon accepting ecclesias that walk in the light, and excluding ecclesias that walk in error, or which tolerate error.  I think it must be considered very unique in Christadelphian history to refer to this behavior as "apostasy." Ecclesias have always referred to themselves as "the body of Christ."  No one understands this phrase in anything other than a prospective term.  I suppose we will get to your concerns of a "pure fellowship" soon enough.

 

First Set of Questions,

Home Page

Why the Bereans?  A discussion on the history of the Berean Christadelphians