6). "The Doctrine of Fellowship," Incomplete Quotes

As I have pointed out,  the principles made in the booklet "The Doctrine of Fellowship" are not attacked,  which is what should be done, if it is error. Instead, he is attacking the character of its assemblers (me) in suggesting that we have done something immoral or conniving, somehow leaving out certain pertinent things.

On page 20 of the booklet called "The Doctrine of Fellowship" our Nicodemite brother finds it strange that a particular portion is left out. He reasons,

"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 simple answer is, "No, it doesn’t speak directly to the point." I would think it clear to all reasonable men that this section deals with the question of whether or not you can have "Union" in fellowship when you have no "Unity" of belief. That is why the article was called "Union and Unity."  Bro. Roberts is writing against a periodical which is arguing for exactly the type of fellowship the Nicodemites believe to be correct. The periodical under attack from bro. Roberts argues for a fellowship where union can exist, but without unity of belief. Bro. Roberts reasons through the course of this article that this is an impossible situation for faithful, obedient brethren, which of course, it is.

Nicodemites wishes to divert our attention from this fact–to ignore the force of the entire article--and deal with a different issue than that which the focus of the whole article is concerned with. Is this not a usual technique for those who will not meet the discussion? It is a classic debating rule. If you know you are on the losing side of the argument, change the subject!

I would think that the reason this section was left out would be obvious. It was left out because it dealt with unseemly personal matters between brethren now awaiting their Lord, and because it adds nothing to the discussion which the article is dealing with: that union in fellowship without unity of belief is unscriptural. It makes little sense in a booklet such as was produced, to include such things.

It was argued:

"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 , the 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."

I do not know why anyone would believe this contradicts the position of the Bereans on fellowship. If anyone has any evidence that we operate in any way different than bro. Roberts, he should present it, or go away from this statement. If anyone has evidence that we have established a power base that dictates to the ecclesia, he should present it, or go away from this statement. To continue to affirm of us, that which we plainly deny is not brotherly, and frankly, a little silly. Wouldn’t we know if we had "rulers?" I recall this same complaint made to a sister about bro. Roberts’ authoritarian control, when she wrote to him:

"For my own part, I am thankful for your championship. We do not all possess faculties for keen discrimination, farsightedness, and courage; so that we are naturally glad of help in these directions. Such help involves no tyranny, and those who avail themselves of it are surely the best judges as to whether the act is one of bondage or not. The very fact that many have taken another course than the one you adopt, is proof that all could do so who wished. I feel that the points now raised, viz., ‘arrogance,’ ‘bondage,’ ‘tyranny,’ &c., are calculated to mislead, that the real issue—hide it as they may—is the same as at the be ginning—whole or partial inspiration of the Scriptures. Repudiation or endorsement of the Exegetist article alone will settle it."¹

In the unquoted section, brethren were accusing bro. Roberts of exactly the same things of which Nicodemites accuse the Bereans. They were complaining to the brotherhood that bro. Roberts was the "leader" and that he had too much power or authority. Nicodemites complain that the Bereans have a central government who dictate to the ecclesias their required behavior. Bro. Roberts explains to his critics, the exact same thing that I have been trying to explain. This is the product of both of their imaginations.

Just as bro. Roberts states he exercised no authority, so do we explain that no one in the Bereans is a leader, or exercises such authority. We make no decision that Nicodemites do not make for themselves.  They make an independent and personal conscious decision to remain in fellowship with the errorists, (which are very well documented on Nicodemite web sites) in Central. We make a personal an independent and equally conscious decision not to.

Bro Roberts writes in the omitted section in question:

"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."

And again:

"If others are influenced by what I do or say, is this wrong? Is it not what the critics are aiming to do? An enlightened man would refuse to be responsible for such an unreasonable criticism."

Do we not do exactly as bro. Roberts sets before us in example? We dictate to no man. We have no power to do so, even if we so desired. We set before the brotherhood in our booklet, the true teachings concerning the doctrine of fellowship as explained by the Pioneer brethren. Our intent is to influence brethren to see the wisdom in these writings, and follow our example. We ask Nicodemites the identical question bro. Roberts asked his critics: "Is this not what you are aiming to do?"

But there is this difference. We are doing so by accurately quoting the full context of the material under consideration by bre. Roberts and Thomas, and laying the true teachings on the doctrine of fellowship plainly before them. Nicodemites do so by ignoring the teachings of the doctrine of fellowship altogether, implying impious motive to those of us with whom he has a disagreement, and inventing for us doctrines that we don’t believe.

We would all be so much better served if Nicodemites would come to the battle and show us how we are to understand the words of bro. Roberts, that faithful brethren cannot maintain a union in fellowship with brethren that they do not share a unity of belief.

* * * * *