7a Bereans Insist Upon Absolute Control
This is another new section to this article. This section is particularly telling. If you refer back to the section dealing with definitions, I quoted from an email I received from bro. Genusa where he claimed he was not describing any specific group as "reactionary." Yet a part of the following characteristics this author applies to Reactionaries, deals directly with an experience bro. Genusa, and a bro. Carroll had at a Berean Christadelphian gathering. Why the obfuscating? Isn't that supposed to be a trait of we reactionaries, not our righteous Central "conservative" brethren?
Several sound brethren have joined the Bereans recently, rather than embrace the line of thinking encouraged by this author, and the practice of "at the door" fellowship which the article encourages. It is obvious to me that that is why "reactionaries" are included in this article. Clearly, the article intended to attack the liberals, and that position is better explained, though still unscriptural. But the attack on the Bereans is much more self contradictory and careless, added as I said earlier, almost as an after thought.
(Of course the author will simply say, "That is just what a reactionary would say!" as if this is some answer to his obfuscations. And if believed by the reader, it frees the author of actually having to make an argument. That is kind of a neat trick, if you can find people shallow enough to buy into it.)
The characters added for this section are:
- 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.
- RCs 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'.
I suppose while we are in the flesh, all organizations will be plagued by brethren who perceive themselves as leaders, and they will act in such a fashion, to the detriment of the body. We certainly are not immune from this behavior, or any behavior rooted in the flesh. But whether our Central "conservative" brethren wish to admit it or not, they are actually more prone to this behavior than we, through their doctrine of "ecclesial shepherds," and their tradition of Bible Schools, and their traditions of missionaries, and their tradition of publishing committees, all of which we reject as forerunners to forming a clergy.
Ecclesial Shepherds will try to control things in the ecclesia, generally thinking that they know best. Bible School Teachers, Missionaries, and Publishing Committee members will have an heir of importance or superiority automatically granted them. As I said earlier, we are not immune from any of the diseases which attack the flesh. But we do our best to avoid even the appearance of an elevated status among sheep.
We work hard to discourage this sort of behavior. We refuse the terms "Bible School" knowing it establishes the teacher/student relationship which is the foundation for the clergy. We only have "Fraternal Gatherings." We jealously guard the concept of ecclesial autonomy, where it is appropriately applied--that is, where attacks on our basis of fellowship are not involved. These safe guards work to keep us from centralized control, of which we have none.
But when brethren presume to know what is best for everyone, sooner or later, if brethren do not ultimately grasp their position as sheep, rather than "ecclesial shepherds," brethren with these characteristics make the effort to lead. If they lead in a direction contrary to our stated basis, either by taking away from it, or more commonly, trying to add to it; they find they weren't such a leader after all. These are very real problems, but it is a reflection on the individual, not the group.
Our purity, that is, our adherence to the Basis of Fellowship is not at all dependent on Centralized control. It is dependent upon ecclesias all having the same goal, which is to maintain our stated basis as the first condition of fellowship. Nor do we ever even try and control any effort made by another ecclesia. We encourage brethren to make whatever outreach they can.
Did bro. Genusa run into Berean brethren at a gathering who gave him these impressions? He claims he did. At one point, before I had any contact with bro. Genusa, I was sure that he had this unfortunate experience. And the brethren who he claims told him these things, did have that kind of controlling personality. Those brethren did try to lead the Berean body in a wrong direction, and their wrong ideas were rejected by the body, and those brethren left us. That is just inevitable with brethren who see themselves as Shepherds, rather than Sheep. But now, after having corresponded with bro. Genusa some, I am much less confident that the matter has been accurately recounted by him. This event may simply have been a clash of two very controlling personalities running headlong into each other.
We have no restrictions on brethren having study classes with whomever they wish. My personal experience is that it doesn't usually go that well, when brethren from other fellowships get together, but there are no such restrictions as the author imagines. I've certainly been in mixed study groups, some led by Central.
