5). The Specific Attack on "Bereans."

Again, I wish to keep the point clear that if every thing our Nicodemite brethren say about us were true, it would not alter one principle as regards the doctrine of Fellowship.  All that would prove, was that the Bereans were a terribly hypocritical group.   As regards the Bereans, we see the discussion  focused on this principles.

Bereans have a centralized government which make all the decisions for the body

It is argued that Bereans have a centralized government which make all the decisions for the body.   A Nicodemite wrote to me:

"For example, take any example of error you like from brother Robert Roberts' days. Brother Roberts never dictated to the community what position to take, though he could have tried to assert his "authority" (and brother John Thomas declined to dictate as well). He did exercise his influence as far he thought appropriate but not as Berean leaders do today. Brother Roberts knew it was not his, or even a select group (eg. the Berean "Trinity") of brothers' place to dictate to worldwide ecclesias what position to take. Not so with the Bereans -- they demand effective authority over any ecclesia claiming to be "Berean"."

In this, he was clearly arguing that we have set up a group of influential brethren who made all decisions for individual ecclesias. This existed nowhere, but in the imagination of our critics. Through the course of an email discussion, it became obvious that the charge was false. It was then modified thus:

You responded,

"> 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. (This is a quote from me to bro. Genusa.)

"You say we can only control ourselves. You are applying it to an individual level which is clearly not what I was dealing with. Your own argument was that by mutual assent to "the doctrine of fellowship" Bereans are in fellowship with one another. This is, in essence, what I was saying, though coming at it from a slightly different angle. This is not a matter of individual control but mutual assent to a doctrine which is a controlling principle. I am speaking with an abstraction that I think anyone would understand. But if I may, let me correct you... I did not say you control each other's ecclesias -- at least not in the way you represent it. There is control but not of a day-to-day, week-to-week or month-to-month hands-on (direct) kind. I said "you treat fellowship as such to control it..." The specific control is control over fellowship. Now I do not dispute that this works itself out indirectly by the actions of the individual ecclesias which is, without dispute, composed of individuals who (on the whole) voluntarily assent to the Fellowship's doctrine. But this is a diversion. My point was that you view the table as Christ's table (a point you admit) and all who share it, without exception, are in fellowship (a point you admit), and you control it as such so that "'the Lord's table' as you see it is not polluted" (a point that only logically follows). You do not disagree with this point so let's move on to the next point...

In making this adjustment, our position has been correctly stated. We do control ourselves by a principle, and that principle is called the doctrine of fellowship. This is completely different to earlier, nebulous charge that we are all controlled by influential brethren.

And no, this is not what was meant when the charge was first made, and it is not that we are all just too stupid to pick up the subtleties in the arguments, as suggested. It is what the argument was modified to, after the point was clarified in a way which defied any ability to maintain the charge. We can see that from another article on a Nicodemite web site about Bereans, who in this article are referred to as Reactionary Conservatives (RC):

"Absolute control is a hallmark of RC thinking. Control is premised on controlling the RC group. Control begins with the group and radiates in to the individual.

"RC groups tend to have one or more strong leaders who have control of the whole group.

"Centralized control of the group is necessary to maintain 'purity'. For example, meeting with 'outsiders' for Bible study is a 'no no' -- even if the RC and the 'outsider' hold nearly identical beliefs (outside of RC characteristics). And if a meeting is held, the RC must be the leader.

"In RC groups even public gospel proclamation activities maybe forbidden to individuals unless controlled by established authority. After all, all 'outsiders' need to be sufficiently vetted by the group to maintain total 'purity'."

And again from our emails, we were told:

"Berean control is maintained worldwide. Local control is the result of the worldwide control. For Bereans it is the strong leadership of a few over the many. Central has no "Trinity" as some Bereans have labeled their own leadership in the recent past! You =assume= that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered are Christ's table of fellowship =without exception=. That's how the Berean's treat it by practice. And you treat fellowship as such to control it so that "the Lord's table" as you see it is not polluted... based on that assumption. Once again this leads back to the fact that the Berean practices are not the pioneer practices and not the Scripture's practices."

None of the above is correct and it wasn’t hard to show this, so the argument changed, which was a good thing. We went from the implication that Bereans are this poor, pitiful group of brethren, unable to make decisions for themselves but need to be controlled by influential brethren who themselves craved power; to our ecclesias control themselves governed by a common principle, styled the doctrine of fellowship. This final conclusion is true, and we will work hard to keep it that way.

But then, when final conclusions about the Bereans appeared on a web site, again this charge that we are controlled in some way, by influential brethren was resurrected. Finding fault with an article in my booklet, that has a portion omitted, it was suggested:

"Now, the question is, why would this section be removed? It isn't as though the point is irrelevant to fellowship or pioneer practices. Rather, it directly speaks to that point, though in a way not agreeable to Berean practices. The book The Doctrine of Fellowship purports to be an accurate presentation of Pioneer behavior on fellowship. In this quote brother Roberts is stating his view of the limitations he must operate under — limitations some who claim to follow RR's practices seem to be unaware of because they follow a totally different course. There are other parts of the article less important which could have been cut — certainly not as important as brother Roberts affirmation that,

"I am no 'leader' except as a man’s individual actions may influence others. I have always repudiated the imputation of leadership. I but do my own part on the basis of individual right. I claim no authority. I dictate to no man. I only act out my individual convictions, and advocate my individual views."

"This is exactly the point I made about brother Roberts in my second response. Brother Roberts did not exercise the authority that others imputed to him. He did not dictate to his own or to other ecclesias. He advocated his own views on the basis that any men who wanted to could claim, 'individual right'. The Bereans, and other sectarian fellowships, do not have a history of operating in this way. And so it is ironic that the first selective quote I find is one where the Berean publication has excised the part of brother Roberts' comments that are not consistent with their own practices."

So this is the same charge originally made and we have come full circle. (The omissions complained about, will be dealt with here.)

Our ecclesias are ordered by the Common Constitution for Berean Ecclesias, which is from the old Birmingham Constitution. The principles of ecclesial autonomy are well spelled out, and should be closely attended to, and defended. We have no central authority figure, nor do we have anything that even comes close to resembling the Christadelphian Magazine Publishing Committee. This section of the Ecclesial Guide was included in my booklet:

41.--Involved in another Ecclesia's Trouble

An ecclesia may be at peace in itself, but may get involved in the troubles of other ecclesias, through an incorrect mode of action. The simple law of Christ, to do to others as we would be done by, will greatly help us to take the right and wholesome course. Let us suppose, then, that some other ecclesia has withdrawn from a brother on grounds that have seemed just to the majority thereof; is it right that the brother so withdrawn from should be received by you? You can settle this by considering: How would you like the said ecclesia to act towards a brother or sister you have withdrawn from? Should you like them to receive such? There is only one answer--No. And this yields this general rule that no ecclesia ought to receive into fellowship a brother or sister that has been withdrawn from elsewhere. (Remember this point, for it will come up again when we examine bro. Genusa’s charges of excommunication–JP.)

If you say "perhaps the brother or sister is unjustly withdrawn from", such a case is possible; and the door ought not to be shut against the consideration of such a possibility. But there is a right way of dealing with such a supposition. and the simple rule of christ aforesaid will again be an all-sufficient help. should you not like your decision in the case of a brother withdrawn from to be held good until it is proved a wrong one? There is only one answer--Yes. We ought, therefore, to respect the withdrawals of other ecclesias until we have proved them unjustifiable.

But here again we must be careful. There is a right way and a wrong way of trying such a case. Would you like the case of a brother you have withdrawn from to be tried behind your back? There is only one answer--You would not. Therefore you ought not to hear the case of a brother who has been withdrawn from, without the presence of those, either actually or by representation, who have withdrawn from him. If a withdrawn-from brother comes to your ecclesia and alleges the injustice of the withdrawal, if you are disposed to listen to the case, your duty is (meanwhile withholding fellowship) to apprise the ecclesia that has withdrawn from him, that he applies for your fellowship on the ground of the withdrawal being unjust, and that you wish to investigate the case concurrently with them. If the withdrawing ecclesia refuse to grant such an investigation, they place themselves in the wrong, and justify you in examining the case for yourselves in their absence. But an enlightened ecclesia would not refuse. They would act on Christ's rule. They would do as they would like to be done by. If they were the withdrawn-from but demurring brother, or the doubtful ecclesia applying for re-examination, they would like to have the opportunity of judging for themselves, and would, therefore, grant that opportunity thus respectfully applied for. The result would tend to peace. The concurrent re-examination would either manifest the righteousness of the withdrawal, or the uncertainty and perhaps unjustifiableness of it. In either case, the course to be taken by the applying ecclesia would be freed from doubt.

-----------------------------

42--Ecclesias in Relation One to Another

If a careful attention is given to these reasonable rules of procedure between one ecclesia and another, there will be little danger of disagreement. The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist. It is not only calamitous, but sinful somewhere.

There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time, they have reciprocal rights. Ecclesial independence is a principle essential to be maintained. But it is no part of that independence to say that no ecclesia shall consider a matter that another has decided upon, if that matter comes before the first ecclesia, and challenges their judgment, and, in fact, requires a decision. In the example already discussed, if a brother withdrawn from by one ecclesia applies for the fellowship of another, that other ecclesia is bound to consider the application, and it is no infringement of the independence of the first ecclesia that it should be so, subject to the rules and attitudes indicated. It would, in fact, be a renunciation of its own independence, were it to refuse to do so. Respect for the first ecclesia requires that it accept its decision until it sees grounds for a different view; and in the investigation of these grounds it ought to invite its co-operation, as already indicated. But the mere fact of the application imposes upon it the obligation to consider and investigate the matter, if there are prima facie grounds for doing so. The other ecclesia would make a mistake if it considered such a procedure an infringement of its independence. Such a view would, in reality, be a trammelling of the independence of every assembly; for it would then amount to this, that no assembly had the right to judge a case coming before them if that case happen to have already been adjudicated upon by another ecclesia. The judgment of one would thus be set up as a rule for all. An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with; but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere. In the majority of cases the withdrawal of one ecclesia is practically the withdrawal of all, since all will respect it till set aside, and since, in most cases, a concurrent investigation would lead to its ratification. But there may be cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first. What is to be done then? Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgment on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result--a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgment: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot. Are they to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person? What sadder spectacle can there be than to see servants of the Lord Jesus frowning at each other, and denying each other the comfort of mutual friendship and help, because they cannot agree about a given action or speech of perhaps some unworthy person. The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ. An ecclesia acting otherwise--demanding of another ecclesia, as a condition of fellowship, that they shall endorse their decision in a case that has become the business of both--is in reality infringing that principle of ecclesial independence which they desire to have recognized in their own case. It would be to impose what might be an intolerable tyranny upon the brethren; for suppose it were to happen, as it might happen, that a deserving brother or sister were withdrawn from on insufficient grounds by an assembly that might happen to be composed of persons not remarkable for breadth of judgment, to what hopeless injustice such a brother or sister would be subjected if other ecclesias were to be debarred from forming their own judgment in the event of application for their fellowship.