Imagined Characteristics of Reactionaries (Bereans)
3. Self Promotion and Fratricide
The third conclusion concerning the Bereans is this:
"Where God calls for self-sacrifice, the RC engages in self-promotion and fratricide."
I know why the author blames us for "fratricide" which means murdering our brethren, but I don't know where the accusation of "self promotion" comes from. This accusation is made, but never justified. And in whatever discussion I have had with Central brethren, and Central members, I have never heard this accusation before. The only thing I can think of, is that perhaps this comes from a position taken by bro. H.P. Mansfield, who accused us of being like the idolaters of Israel who said "touch me not for I am holy."
Clearly the first position comes from H. P. Mansfield, and his interpretation of the parable of the "Good Shepherd." Bro. Mansfield took the position that those of us who leave Central are "hirelings." Jesus said of the hireling:
John 10:12-13 "But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep."
Bro. Mansfield viewed himself as an "ecclesial shepherd." He created this concept which still dominates Central today, and which has become such a barrier for the Central "conservative" to understand the importance of obedience to Christ. The writer of the article we are examining, makes the same erroneous conclusion, writing:
"Two young men are raised in a conservative fellowship. Both are intelligent in the Scriptures. Both are very capable of making contributions to their ecclesia and the brotherhood in their youth, and it looks promising that they will both be shepherds in their latter years."
Bro. Mansfield then reasoned that if the Central "conservative" is the Shepherd in the ecclesia, then those who leave must be hirelings that don't care for the flock. In fact, they must be leaving the sheep to the wiles of the wolves, therefore the charge of "fratricide." Stay and fight, was how he viewed the commands of Christ.
First, bro. Mansfield's interpretation is not the foundation Christadelphian position on this parable. Here is bro. Roberts' interpretation of this:
Nazareth Revisited pg. 151 The Hireling .—The apostles were not hirelings, nor the men who came immediately after them. They were men in earnest love with the work for Christ’s sake, at the peril not only of their living, but of their lives, serving in the spirit enjoined by Peter, who said to them, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” ( 1 Pet. v. 2 ). A hireling is a man who is paid for his job, and who works because he is paid, and ceases to work when he is not paid. This class of worker has been numerously developed by the clerical system. Paid work in spiritual things is liable to become poor Work and mercenary. Paul, who had a right to be maintained, refused on this ground, “lest the gospel of Christ should be hindered” ( 1 Cor. ix. 12 ). He did not refuse occasional help, prompted by love and the appreciation of his labours ( Phil. iv. 10–17 ). But he declined a set maintenance, as all wise men have done since his day. The hirelings have no objection to a set maintenance. On the contrary, it is what they most particularly appreciate and aim to secure. The consequence is seen in what Jesus says happens in times of peril: “The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling and careth not for the sheep.” When he sees the wolf coming in the shape of any danger, “he leaveth the sheep and fleeth.” How little he cares for the interests he professes to have in charge becomes apparent when he cannot turn them to his personal advantage. To be out of pocket or put up with disgrace is quite out of the line of what he feels himself called upon to submit to. This is quite beyond his calculations of prudence. The least smell of danger in this shape makes him look round for a decent pretext to get away. In complete contrast to this is The shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep .
Bro. Mansfield presumes himself a shepherd. I presume Jesus Christ to be the Shepherd. I presume myself to be a sheep. I hear the Shepherd's voice, and follow him. This is what the Shepherd said, in regard to the wolves that might enter the sheepfold.
Mat 18:15-17 "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
This is what the Shepherd commanded, and this is what the sheep will do. Those who wish to shepherd their own sheep into a different fold, will probably do something different. For the best explanation of this verse, I am indebted to the late John Ullman of Perth Australia, Central. Bro. Ullman spoke these words in 1972, and I transcribed them from a tape:
John Ullman "I want you to have a look with me at the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matt. 18. A passage of the word regrettably, not always understood in its full implication. It is said that Mt. 18:15-17 relates to the question of anyone having a personal fault against another brother. That is not so. If it were so, then we would have a most peculiar passage of Scripture, because in verses 15-17 when dealing with a matter, the Lord says you may be reduced to the point where after three applications to the brother, of treating him as a heathen and a publican.
"Whereas in the same chapter at verse 22, the Lord says if anyone offends against you, you keep forgiving him until seventy times seven. Now if both sections of that chapter are dealing with the same thing, we've got the Lord giving two different answers, but that's not the point.
"Look at verse 15. 'Moreover, the Lord said, If thy brother trespass against thee.' Now those words 'against thee' do not belong in the text. They are not there. In the Sinaitic, and the Vatican manuscripts, they are not to be found. You will not find those words in the Diaglott, in the Nestle's text, in Rotherham, in the Jerusalem Bible, or in numerous other translations.
"And the word trespass is not a very good translation. The Greek word is 'hamartia,' and it means to sin, to miss the mark. Now the question concerns divine principles. It concerns the doctrine of fellowship. So the Lord is saying if thy brother shall sin, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone, and if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witness, every word may be established. But if he shall refuse to hear them, then tell it unto the ecclesia. But if he neglect to hear the ecclesia then let him be unto thee as an heathen, (and that word means Gentile) and a publican, (and that word means a tax gatherer). People that were hated by the Jews. Not rejected, hated.
"Now we are not suggesting that the Lord is telling us that when we reject a brother we're to hate him. But that is the extent of the extremity of the language. That is the extent of extremity. Now here we have a case revolving around the question of fellowship and here is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"And now look at the contrast in verse 21-22. 'Peter then says, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me' and the words do belong in the text there. And its as though Peter is saying now look, if we have to adopt this attitude when the commandments of Christ, when the principles of divine wisdom are at stake, then what do we do when someone sins against us, personally? And the Lord gives him an answer. What shall I do when my brother sins against me, and I forgive him?
"Verse 22, the Lord says, 'I say not unto thee until seven times, but until seventy times seven.' Now look at the contrast, and really its very beautiful, because the Lord is teaching Peter in verses 21-22, that he must be prepared to do for his brother what he expects the Father to do for him. How many times do we sin against the Father and what do we do? We don't expect that the Father will forgive us, maybe twenty times and no more after that. We ask him to go on forgiving, and forgiving, and forgiving. And Peter says that's what we do when we become involved with our own brethren and they sin against us. And we must do that, because that is what we ask the Father to do for us.
"But when it comes to the issue of verses 15-17, it is entirely different. There is the question of a former sin which contravenes the commandments of Christ, and the principles of divine wisdom. And the Lord says if needs be, in that case that man must be dispensed with altogether out of the body.
"And I invite you to have a look at your Unity Book, on page 14, because you'll find that in the Unity Book on page 14 they acknowledge the understanding of Mt. 18 that we have just set forth. Because on the following page of the Unity Book, where they speak of any brethren departing from any element of the one faith, then action is to be taken, extreme action would be ecclesial disfellowship. And what's written underneath that? Mt. 18:15-17."
This is how we understand our responsibility to the flock according to the teachings of the True Shepherd. Do we stay and fight. Sure, under the loving constraints and care of our Great Shepherd. We deal carefully, and prayerfully, and as lovingly as the situation will permit as we go through these steps. It is less of a fight, than it is an education process. There is nothing really to fight over. The Truth is God's, not ours. The Shepherd will fight for it. We merely obey it.
First, the matter is dealt with quietly and patiently one on one, till there is no more progress on the matter. Then, two or three brethren become involved, hoping that any misunderstanding might be cleared up, and that different approaches might bring different results. But if it doesn't, then the matter is brought to the attention of the ecclesia. And if the sin continues, the individual is withdrawn from the ecclesia.
This is the same counsel repeated by the apostle Paul:
Titus 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
But according to the modern Central "conservative" ecclesial shepherds, we stay and fight, leaving the error in the body. And this position is defended in spite of the clear warnings by the apostle, as to what the result of such behavior is. Paul to the Corinthians wrote:
1Co 5:6-7 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Here is Paul's clear warning. The ecclesia in Corinth had a man who had departed from the Truth in his walk and conduct. The ecclesia had taken no action against him. Paul told them that this was unacceptable. He gives them a comparison they we're all familiar with. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. It was not possible that they could miss the comparison that if they leave the error in their body, it will permeate the body, after the same manner that leaven permeates a lump of dough.
Paul gives the same warning to the Galatians:
Gal 5:7-12 "Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you."
Central "conservatives" at times appear to be amazed at the growth and strength of the errorists in their body, which they call their "liberal" element. There is nothing unusual in this. It is simply the fulfillment of Paul's prophesy. To think you can stay and teach out the error once it is established, is nothing more than telling the Holy Spirit that it was wrong, and a little leaven will not leaven the whole lump. I told this to a Central "conservative" brother not too long ago, and to my amazement, he agreed that the leaven would eventually leaven the whole lump. But then he argued that that was not proof that he shouldn't try.
Yes, it is! It is essential to separate from the error, to escape from the leaven. Some people won't. We know this, and we also know that they will ultimately succumb to the leaven themselves, and by exposing their loved ones to it, see them corrupted as well. If you truly love the brethren, and if you truly love your families, and you truly want to save them from the second death, you will do all you can to convince them to remove to a sheepfold where the wolves are not tolerated and excused as "sincere brethren."
What about those who are left behind? Are we committing fratricide by leaving these brethren behind? No brethren, we are not. We are all individually responsible for our own salvation. We don't have to be among Central to teach and educate brethren, anymore than we need to be in the Christian Church to exhibit to them the Truth. It is God that does the calling, not us. These "ecclesial shepherds" apparently believe they have the ability to influence a man in a certain direction, and therefore they must disobey God, and stay and fight the error, in hopes of saving the ones who are confused and in need of their help. This is just fleshly arrogance, plain and simple.
The man God calls will be exposed to all he needs to know and understand for his salvation. God will see to that. Jesus promised:
Matt. 7:7-8 "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."
We do not need to disobey God, to make sure a man who is seeking, finds the Truth, or the man who is asking, receives the Truth. God has assured us that He has provided for the men he calls. We simply need to obey. That is faith. Do we doubt that God can do this? Look what Jesus said, right after he promised that those who seek will find:
Matt. 7:9-11 "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"
God will provide for the man that is searching. We must keep our candle on top of the basket that it shines clearly. God will call the man He wants saved from the wolves to us, if our sheepfold is deemed by God, worth calling His servants to.
Jesus gave us the parable which makes this point so very clear. And it is precisely the principle upon which our Central "conservative" brethren condemn us. The rich man desired that Lazarus should go from "Abraham's bosom" to warn his five brethren of the destruction that awaited them. They needed to be warned. Much like our Central "conservative" brethren believe they must stay in a corrupted society, because they need to warn the brethren. What was Jesus' response?
Luke 16:29-31 "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
But not only is it disobedient to the Shepherd's voice to stay and fight beyond that which was commanded by Jesus, and explained so perfectly above by bro. Ullman, it is also not the best way to teach. The best way to teach is by example. This was James' point to us all:
James 2:17-18 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."
We cannot teach brethren to separate from the "liberal element" by remaining among the "liberal element."
Self Promoting
The article claims that we Bereans are self promoting. What does the Scriptures say about this, in relation to the doctrine of fellowship? Note Paul's discussion to the ecclesia at Corinth. Note how Paul begins this discussion:
1 Cor. 5:1-2 "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you."
Paul's evaluation is that the ecclesia that has refused to take responsible fellowship action, is "puffed up." This word is from the Greek "phusioo," and it means "to make proud (haughty)." You see, according to the Scriptures, and away from the psychobabble of man's wisdom, the truly proud are those who resist the application of the doctrine of fellowship. It is not hard to understand why the Spirit should make such a judgment. Frequently, it is to keep "my family together," or to support long time friends, or to keep wealthy men or socially pleasing men around, that error is permitted into the ecclesia. The Spirit says that this is where the true pride of the flesh has its course. True pride is an unwillingness to give up that which is dear to the flesh, for the sake of the Truth.
The Spirit through Paul gives us the most powerful exhibition of the doctrine of fellowship, in relation to this. I know this will be completely missed by the "liberal element" of Central, as they no longer understand the meaning of "Christ our Passover" but the Central "conservatives" should easily understand this. Paul's concluding statement is:
1 Cor. 5:7-8 "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
What is this statement "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" doing here in the middle of a discussion on fellowship? What does Christ our passover have to do with purging out the leaven of wickedness? The answer goes directly to those who are willing to walk with the errorist.
The Spirit's point is this. Sin is such a terrible, wicked thing, that God did not even spare His own son, who did no sin, but who only bore sin in his nature. Because sin is so terrible, and because all sin needs to be destroyed, God required the sacrifice (slaughter) of His own son on the tree that all the world should be freed from sin. God did this. And so now, Paul reminds the ecclesia of this, in the middle of this discussion of fellowship. And Paul challenges them, that since they know how God cut off His own perfect son for our salvation that we might be purged from sin, why are you going to refuse to purge your ecclesial body of error, and allow sin back into the ecclesia? What a powerful statement, brothers and sisters, and one that should truly give pause to all who argue that the error must be fought in the ecclesia.
Bro. Roberts wrote:
My Days and My Ways "The ecclesia is not a place for argument: it is for worship in agreement. When a man requires to be argued with, his natural place is OUTSIDE, and if he will not go outside, separation must be enforced by withdrawal on the part of the rest."
