Anti-Social, Suspicious, and Angry
6 A. We will call this section 6A, as I do not wish to upset my links. This is a section which has been added since my email discussions with bro. Genusa. According to the author, some new characteristics for the Reactionary are these:
- Outside of its own narrow clique, the reactionary conservative is antisocial.
- When RC's gather together 'outsiders' are viewed with suspicion.
- Some RC's may perceive arguments made against their position as 'hostility' and 'anger'. Some may purposely engage in their own hostile behavior to alienate an 'outsider' from other members of his sect.
- Outsiders who are strong and have something to offer but who never join their group are viewed as 'traitors' or 'sell outs'.
It would seem that our author had some sort of contact with us, and made certain conclusions based on his feelings during that contact. Or perhaps (more likely) he is relaying feelings from someone else who had contact. It is hard to say.
I seriously doubt that our author can drag up any psychobabble from any source to indicate that antisocial behavior is a common trait of any one specific political group of people. And it is obvious from the lack of Scripture, (which is even more apparent in all the new additions, if that is possible), that our author can develop no such arguments from the Scriptures themselves.
Do we view outsiders with suspicion? My experience is that we view outsiders, whether from the world or other Christadelphian groups who visit us with much enthusiasm, hopeful that such a visit might indicate another individual is interested in walking with us. I know that was very much the way I felt I was viewed in all my early contacts with the Berean brothers and sisters in Texas. It is what appears to be the case now, when individuals come to visit our meetings and gatherings.
I doubt anyone views outsiders with suspicion, unless we are first given a reason to be suspicious. Our gatherings are intended to be uplifting to the brothers and sisters. We carefully attempt to keep controversy out of them (though sadly, not with perfect success.) So if the intentions of visitors to these events are not clearly stated, and some suspicion of proselytizing on their part exists, then I suppose it is possible that individuals could consider us as acting suspicious or antisocial.
Do we view arguments against our position with hostility and anger? Its a hard question for me to answer. People sometimes say that they think I'm angry when I am in a discussion, but I rarely am. I'm just focused on trying to make my point clearly. And when I make my point, I can usually tell by the response I receive. My rule is, when the attacks turn personal, that is when you know you won. That is also when the discussion can make one angry, if you can't quickly or emotionally detach yourself from the circumstances.
The argument we are examining is a good case in point. The author has no possible way of establishing his views on fellowship from a Scriptural perspective. The lack of Scripture in making these arguments proves this. He can also find no teachings from the Pioneer brethren which will support his point of view, which is obvious from his lack of references to their teaching. The result is that all the attacks in his article are quite personal, even to the point of speculating on the core of a brother or sister's heart or psyche, such as is Scripturally forbidden.
If the author gave us a well thought out argument for the fellowship stand of the Central "conservative" brother, that would be one thing. Instead he has chosen to simply call us names and imply evil motives against us. So it is obvious that the author knows how lacking of proof his arguments are. But as lacking as this is, it is perhaps the only attempt at a defense of the Central "conservatives" position, that I have ever seen.
Hostility and anger, then, are usually the byproduct of a poorly prepared argument. If you are confident that you know the answer to the questions you will be asked, you are usually calm, and quite patient. If you lack confidence, that often is displayed in hostility and anger.
Outsiders who are strong in faith, but remain in Central are viewed as "disobedient, as we understand the Divine teaching" but not as traitors or sellouts. We leave those conclusions for Jesus, should he wish to make them. We even leave the question of disobedience to Jesus, who will judge his own servants. We simply judge ourselves in these matters. We presume that those of us who have separated from Central, are viewed similarly by those who believe the proper course is to stay and fight. One wonders why this is such a difficult concept for our author to grasp.
This concept of outsiders "having something to offer" is an idea which appears to me to be rooted in the false idea of "ecclesial shepherd." You have something to offer when your fellow sheep decide you have something to offer, not when you decide it. And then it is a great honor. To force yourself on the sheep makes you a bore. I know this teaching of bro. Roberts is going to be hard for our Central "conservative" ecclesial shepherd brethren to grasp, but bro. Roberts wrote:
"No man who wants to be head is fit to be head. The headship that comes from service is the only headship that is either useful or tolerable—or, in the long run, possible."--February, 1897, p. 60.
The purpose of withdrawal is to protect our young and weak from false ideas, before they are strong enough to deal with them. If a person is sound on one subject, but astray on another, how can we allow him access to the sheepfold, without risking exposing the sheep to the subject upon which he is astray? And besides, the best way to teach fellow sheep is by example. What kind of example is a brother setting, when he openly claims fellowship with individuals who he knows, should not be granted fellowship, as do our Central "conservative" brethren?
