Imagined Characteristics of Reactionaries (Bereans)
10. Insensitive to the Results of our Obedience
It is said by this author:
"Reactionary conservatives rarely care about the results of the policies they advocate. More important is that they demonstrate for themselves and anyone who will pay attention, that they were right, are right and will be right. Because of this, RCs are slow to take any action outside of self-justifying activism."
It is wrong to say that we don't care about the results of our policy--our policy being to withdraw from error. We understand fully what the consequences are. If we withdraw from error, the truth can survive. If we fail to withdraw from error, the truth will suffocate and die.
Bro. Roberts wrote:
"The Truth has been an obscure and weak thing from the beginning. From its nature it cannot become popular, because it runs counter to human feeling in so many practical ways not seen at first.
"Its true friends know this, and they are not working to obtain public success or even public notice. They are simply carrying out orders. Christ calls for exhibition of the Light, and they exhibit it. Their operations in this respect are necessarily misunderstood by the public which judges from its own motives, and cannot judge in any other way."
It is the defense and preservation of the Truth, which we see as the consequence of our standing aside from error. The Truth is weak, and obscure. Error is popular and enticing to the flesh. The two cannot flourish side by side indefinitely. The leaven will always leaven the loaf.
So we are obedient first, and both enjoy and suffer the consequences of obedience without regard to what advantages to this life, disobedience may bring. But we are aware of the consequences of disobedience.
And that is really what the author is ridiculing us for. It is not that we are insensitive to what our policies (our policies being the defense of the Basis of Fellowship) will bring that he is critical of us. It is how our policy effects life in this world, for which he is criticizing us.
Why should the results of obedience be considered by us, as regards this current world? The author is correct that we are obedient first, without regard to those consequences. May that ever be the case. One of the underlying themes throughout the article by this author has been that we, as "Ecclesial Shepherds" are in charge, and God is a bystander. From the argument that he is the "ecclesial shepherd," to the criticism of those who walk in obedience to God without considering the consequences of that obedience, the author makes it clear that he feels he has to work in the body to save the "good brethren" regardless of what Jesus has commanded. He, therefore, has to consider the what the results of obedience to God brings, before he will be obedient. We really share very little with our Central "conservative" brethren in this regard. We believe we are to be obedient first. God is in charge, and things will work out exactly as God intends them, if we are only obedient in all things.
All of our Scriptural examples are in this vein, but perhaps none more so than the example of fellowship given by Jesus himself. Again I refer to bro. John Ullman's talk on fellowship, for it shows the policy of Jesus and his concerns for the results of his teachings, and how they were affecting the people of his day.
"In Luke 12:51 the Lord says, 'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth. I tell you nay, but rather division.' And notice the dramatic contrast in the two words. The word peace, and its a word which according to Bullinger means 'peace in contrast with strife and denoting the absence or the end of strife.' Christ told his disciples, I haven't come to provide a situation in the world today that is going to bring an end to strife, a situation where there is will be an absence of strife. Not at all, he says. And nay rather, division.
"Division. A word which means dissension or discord. Now why did he say that? Its very often interpreted by the Gentile world as a very harsh saying. But what the Lord is really saying is that this will happen because there is one Truth. There is one Truth. And that one Truth will divide men from one another.
"You know, this was graphically put into demonstration in the Lord's own lifetime. The question of fellowship. The question of division. We find for instance in the gospel of John, that John records three divisions which took place within one year during the Lord's life. The Lord himself during his own lifetime was the reason for these divisions. And here notice what John says in John 7:33. Notice this comment. 'Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me accept the father which has sent me draw him.' They would not accept that. That was chapter 6, notice chapter 7:33. 'So there was a division among the people'. Why? 'Because of him.'
"So, said John, there was a division among the people because of him. It began with murmuring, dissatisfaction with what the Lord stood for, then it sprang up into outright rejection of what He said. So there were those who were for him, and there were those who bitterly opposed him. And there was a division born of men, a fulfillment of those words in Luke 12:51. So, there was a division among the people because of him.
"Turn over to chapter 9 at verse 16. 'Therefore said some of the Pharisees, this man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, how can a man that is a sinner do such miracles. And there was a division among them.' You see, this is the word at work. And before you can have fellowship, you've got to have division. You've got to have separation from that which is opposed to the principle of Divine reason, and separation to the principles of the righteousness of God. And there it is demonstrated during the Lord's own life time.
"Notice the 10th chapter at the 19th verse, all in the gospel of John. The Lord has made this statement that has been the cause of much contention ever since in the 18th verse. 'No man taketh it from me', that is, his life. 'But I lay it down of myself, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my father.' So as a result, there was a division therefore again. Notice the way John emphasizes that point. There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
"John in the 6th chapter records another startling event, very, very similar, where another division took place. But the settings here are quite remarkable, to say nothing of dramatic. In John 6 notice what happens in verses 60-61. 'Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this said, this is an hard saying, who can hear it. When Jesus knew himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, does this offend you, or as it could be translated, does this cause you to stumble?' And in verse 66-67. 'From that time, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, will ye also go away?'
"Now, I want you to notice those words because they are extremely powerful upon the doctrine of fellowship. The Lord said, 'will ye also go away?' The ecclesia had just divided, over the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now what does the Lord said. Does the Lord say to the remaining disciples, 'Quick, run after them, bring them back. Tell them it doesn't really matter.' Does he say that? Look at the words of verse 64 and you get your answer in that regard. 'The Lord said to them, there are some of you that believe not for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."
"There was your answer. Why did they go away and leave him. Why did he let them go? The answer is, they would not walk in the light, and were not willing, they turned away. So instead of the Lord saying, quick, run after them, and tell them I take all that back. I'm not as strict as they thought I was. I'm willing to compromise on this to keep them within our community. Instead of saying that he challenges the remaining disciples, and says, "look, we've come to this state, now what about you. Are you going to leave too? Are you going to leave the Truth? And they were forced to face up to the issues involved."
Did Jesus consider the results of his words on the "good brethren" among the Jews? Obviously not. They could not bear his teaching. They divided and left him. He accepts this, and turns to his disciples, and asks, now what about you? What a powerful lesson this is to us. The ecclesia has just divided. Is Jesus considering the results of his actions? No! He is considering the truth. He stated the truth, and brethren left. A few stayed. The twelve. So now he asks, are you going, too?
How many examples do we have in Scriptures where men considered the results of their obedience, and then thought they knew better than God, going away from their obedience? I have already referenced one event in the life of Saul, that with the Amalekites. But Saul had a previous issue, where he failed in the matter of obedience for fear of the consequences.
1 Sam. 13:5-14 "And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude: and they came up, and pitched in Michmash, eastward from Bethaven. When the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait, (for the people were distressed,) then the people did hide themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks, and in high places, and in pits. And some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. As for Saul, he was yet in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling. And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him. And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering. And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.
(11) "And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash; Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.
Saul considered the consequences of obedience. If he was obedient, his army would leave him. He chose disobedience, and it cost him his kingdom. Saul didn't understand anything about faith. God had the ability to either restore his army to him at any time, or confuse the army of the Philistines. It was all in God's hand. None of it was in Saul's. All Saul had to do, was act in obedience to divine commands.
The same is true for us. We simply act in obedience. If it is God's will that these "good brethren" are to come out of error, then God will cause circumstances in their lives to see that it happens. None of it is dependant upon us. We have this in our hymns:
"What though all the world resist Him, God will realize His plan."
Saul chose disobedience to divine command, and that disobedience caused Saul his kingdom. Are our Central "conservative" brethren sure that their weighing the consequences of obedience, will not cost them their kingdom?
