Causes, Results and Cures of Reactionaries in the Ecclesia

As the article concludes, it offers what the cause of Reactionaries are.  The cause, it concludes, is the result of seeing every thing through only one set of principles, that being "straight is the gate."  There should be no doubt that we do believe that the principle Jesus laid down that "straight is the gate, and narrow the path that leads to life, and few there be that find it" is considered a sobering warning, and a very important part of Jesus' teaching.  In fact, we can't imagine anyone criticizing us for our concern in this matter.  But this is not the cause of "reactionaries" in the ecclesia.

This line of thinking is the same line of thinking used by Ahab to Elijah. 

1 King 18:17  "And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?"

It is not the Berean "reactionary" which troubles the ecclesia, but rather those men who have been allowed in, who have corrupted the Basis of Fellowship.  They are first in line for the blame.  And second are those brethren, the Central "conservative" brethren, who enable the errorist by refusing to separate from them, thus providing them a platform from which they will continue to corrupt the body.  It is these forces which cause the brother or sister to take a "reactionary" position, and recognize the necessity of returning to a time which such was not the status quo in the Christadelphian body, and then leave the Central body. 

Apart from men who corrupt the truth, and the brethren who enable them, there would be no such thing as a reactionary.  A reactionary exists, encouraging brethren to go back to a previous standard, only because that standard was corrupted by the liberal, and that corruption was permitted to become the status quo, and therefore defended by the "conservative."

When a brother concludes that it is his duty, as a true servant of Christ to separate from those who would corrupt our basis of fellowship, and he enters into fellowship with like minded brethren in the Bereans; that brother immediately ceases to be "reactionary" and instantly becomes a "conservative" in the Berean fellowship.  He has joined a body of believers who together, work to "conserve" the status quo among us, which is the Basis of Fellowship, enforced without reservations in all the ecclesias.

I know our Central "conservative" brethren believe they are not enabling the errorist.  They preach against them.  They bar them from their individual meetings.  They warn the rest of Central about them.  Nevertheless, by identifying with them in Central, they are acknowledging them as a part of their community, and thereby they are providing them a forum to corrupt the entire body.

This is not a difficult concept.  It is the same one Jesus used to try and get the Pharisees to understand what they were in the process of doing, though they, like our Central "conservative" brethren, refuses to come to grips with this issue.  Jesus told the Pharisees:

Matt. 23:29-32  "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,  And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.   Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.   Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers."

These men that Jesus dealt with wanted to deny the actions of their fathers, and renounce the actions of those who killed the prophets.  And publicly, they could.  But in reality, they couldn't.  There was too close a tie, too close an association that they felt with the traditions of their fathers which had led to the disobedience of their fathers.  And that close association was working on them, and it was going to cause them to repeat the actions of their fathers, which they wanted to deny having any part with. 

Likewise our Central "conservative" brethren vocally condemn their "liberal element," really in far worse terms than we Bereans would ever dream of doing.  But by calling themselves "Central" they are witness to themselves, that they can't bring themselves to break their ties.  And so like the Pharisees of old, they are forced to acknowledge their association, whether they want to or not.  And this continued association is disobedience, and it will lead them back to the world of Christendom.  And if not them personally, then their children:  the young and the weak that they are exposing to the liberal wolves.

The result of the "reactionary" is said to be division.  This, of course, is true.  When we discover that the truth is corrupted, all the man of God can do with withdraw from the error, to the Truth.  Should we allow room for growth.  Growth in understanding.  Growth in the principles of righteousness?  Growth in disciplining our walk?  Sure!  That is what the Scriptures require.  But should we tolerate error, and a denial of the fundamental principles of our faith on the plea that the individual is still growing?   No!  When a man has entered into a heretical position, the Scriptures do not ever command tolerance.  They always command an effort to reclaim the individual, and then withdrawal if that effort fails, as we have seen in Matt. 18.  If you think this is insensitive, take it up with Jesus who gave us the commanded to, after an effort of reclaiming the errorist, treat him as a publican or a Gentile.

The "reactionary" divides from corruption and joins himself to likeminded brethren, where these endless fights within the body can cease, and the brother and sister can grow in grace, away from the itching ears of error, and howling of wolves attacking our weak and young.  Not that there won't be more fighting and teaching to do.  There will be as long as we are in these bodies.  But the difference is that the Berean body will support the Basis of Fellowship, rather than brand its defenders as wild eyed extremists. 

We really do, as a body, have very few attacks on our Basis of Fellowship.  Usually, a brother or sister who takes up a position contrary to our Basis, withdraws from us to the Central group long before action is required on our part, and then tells us how unloving we are, that we would not abide with their error. 

We see love differently.  We see the meaning of love as obeying Christ first.  He commanded us to withdraw from those who could not abide his teachings.  We see love as protecting our loved ones from the influence of error.  We withdraw from the wolves to a safe sheepfold, where out weak and young, can become strong, and mature.

We now come to how a "reactionary" can be cured.  First we are told that it is not easy, because we have not reached our decision by conscientious choice.  Here is more clerical aloofness.  The author has determined for us all, what is a conscientious choice, and what is not.  Really, it is quite amazing to me to see this in Christadelphian literature. 

Is it not a conscientious choice for a man to read the Spirit's words:  "Come out from among them, and be ye separate" and therefore withdraw from the errorist?  Is it not a conscientious choice for a man to read the Spirits words, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.  Purge out therefore the old leaven..." and then withdraw from the errorist?  Is it not a conscientious choice to read the Spirit's words, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition, reject" and then withdraw from the heretick?  By what twist of logic, are these things not conscientious choices?

The author claims that they could recite "a litany of facts" and not change our minds.  Well the one thing that is for sure, is that the author has not cited a single fact that supports the article's position.  This article is unique in Christadelphian literature for its absence of facts, and its reliance on its opinion presented in a manner which presumes Clerical authority.

In the Clerical circles of Christendom, the way they argue is this.  First they make a statement for which they offer no proof.  This statement is to be accepted based on their Clerical superiority.  Then they find Scriptures which, if you first accept their statement, supports what they say.  For instance, first they state "you go to heaven when you die."  They cannot prove this.  It is simply stated as a fact based on their "superior understanding" as Cleric.  But once you accept this as a fact because the Clerics say so, then they can point out to you verses like "In my Father's house there are many mansions...I go to prepare a place for you" and that appears to support their stated fact.  But it doesn't, because the original fact, the foundation fact, is unproved.

This is the same way the author has presented his argument against "reactionaries."  With Clerical arrogance he has told us that: "Reactionary Conservatives are driven by a feeling of superiority, an innate sense of superior intelligence, and the chutzpa of a fake superior morality..."   This is the Clerical statement which must first be accepted without proof.  Then, when this is accepted, he can add:  "-- whited sepulchers (Matt 23:27)."

Using this clerical technique, the author has made an unproven statement.  If that statement is accepted (that reactionaries display the chutzpa of a fake superior morality) then he can quote Jesus to the Pharisees saying:  "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."

But if anyone is paying attention, they know that the foundation statement is unproven.  Where is the proof that the Berean "reactionary" is driven by an innate sense of superior intelligence, and a fake superior morality?"  It certainly is not proven in this article.  It is boldly, and clerically stated.  But there is not even a hint of an effort to prove it.  I don't even know how you could prove this, till Jesus makes such a declaration at the judgment.

And the same is true of the rest of the few verses it uses.  Go back and observe its use of  Mark 7:3, and Ecc.7:16.  These are the only three verses used in the entire article against the "reactionary," and each is presented in exactly the same way.  First, a gratuitous foundation statement is made without proof, and then a verse is used to support the foundation statement, but which only "proves" it, if you first blindly accept the foundation statement.

So can the author provide a "litany" of proofs that our position is wrong?  Can the author even find one?  Isn't it fair to presume that if the article could do so, it would have done so?  And then it wouldn't have had to lean on so much mind reading and innuendo and psychoanalyses to make its point.

The author claims that a presentation of the facts would only make us believe he is a wild eyed liberal.  How does the author know, if the author doesn't try?  This is often the cry of disobedience.  "Why should I follow apostolic command, since the person wouldn't listen anyway?"  You do it because it is a commandment, if for no other reason.  And it is God's system, so obviously it is the best system, and not one we should lightly discard just because our natural man finds it distasteful or unlikely to succeed.

And why would we suggest he is a liberal under any circumstances.  He appears to be a Central "conservative," trying to conserve his community.

In my entire life, there have only been four arguments presented to me by the Central "conservative" brother to defend his position.  (The liberal brethren offer far more "proofs" but they are such that our Central "conservative" brethren themselves, would reject.)  I would hardly call this a litany. 

First is the argument that we are "hirelings"  I have shown in Self Promotion and Fratricide that this idea is not the explanation of our pioneer brethren for this parable.  Its introduction then, is something new to the Christadelphian community.

Second, I have been told that we are nowhere commanded to withdraw from whole ecclesias in the Scriptures.  This is of course true, but it is just as true to say we are nowhere commanded that we may fellowship ecclesias in other areas where errorists exist.  Both are arguments from silence.  One is logically inferred, from clear Scriptural teaching which states to withdraw from errorists without regard to where the errorist live.  And the clear Scriptural teaching that the man who is not willing to withdraw from errorists, himself becomes an errorist.  And we cannot meet with such a man, according to the principles of fellowship as I have shown repeatedly throughout this paper.

Thirdly, and perhaps most strangely, I have been told that one of bro. Roberts' housekeepers, or some such, accepted the Truth, but then reverted back to a belief in the personal Devil.  She wished to withdraw, but bro. Roberts encouraged her to remain in the ecclesia even with her beliefs.  This, if true, would of course prove only that bro. Roberts was a man who "said, and did not."  It would say nothing about the Scriptural teaching he elucidated about the doctrine of fellowship.

But when we enquire as to where this information about bro. Roberts comes from, we learn it comes from the camp of his enemies, the Doweites.  I'm just going to have to be considered one who doesn't make conscientious choices, if I'm expected to take the word of his enemy over any such testimony from within the Christadelphian camp.  To my mind, to take the word of his enemy against him, would be unconscionable.

Finally, the fourth reason I have been given, particularly by brethren who were close to me and responsible for my training, is:  "We just can't do that anymore."  That is it.  No explanation.  No proofs.  Just a simple statement that they are not willing to act in the manner they had acted in times past, for what ever reason.  I would say of brethren who knew the truth, and who understood the presence of this "liberal" element in Central; that this is the number one reason for themselves staying in Central.  They simply could not personally bring themselves to sever their ecclesial relationships in obedience to Christ.  They knew they should.  They just couldn't.  They make no excuses, and no distorted "litany of facts."  This is the class of brethren that my heart goes out to.  This is the great tragedy in Central. 

Without trying to cast too broad a net, the "liberal" corrupters and the "conservative" enablers to some degree deserve each other.  They both confuse contending for the truth, with being contentious over the truth.  They never learn that it is the flesh that loves and lives for controversy.  And the controversy that exists between their groups is a never ending source of fleshly elevation and arrogance for both of them.

The cure for "reactionaries" is said to consist in five things.  First we must believe that God created the ecclesia for a purpose.  We do believe this, though we are pretty sure we don't believe it like our Central "conservative" author.  The ecclesia is not a particular meeting, but rather is the complete group of all the "called out ones" regardless of their fellowship or groupings.  The purpose of the calling is to manifest the righteousness of God.  I don't know what our Central "conservative" author believes the purpose of God's calling is, as he doesn't say in this article.

Within the "called out ones" or ecclesia, we now have brethren who are corrupting the calling they received, and those who are obedient to the calling they received, and all sorts of shades in between.  The obedient in the ecclesia separate themselves from the disobedient, first, because it is a command of Christ to do so, and secondly, because the Holy Spirit teaches us that it is the only way that the Truth can survive.  It has been this way since the first century. 

Second we must understand that the ecclesia is a place where trials will eventually come.  We also understand this.  The history of the "called out ones" since the Truth was brought back to light in 1847 is a testimony to this.

Thirdly we are to understand that no ecclesia is composed of perfectly sinless individuals.  We understand this.  We would even strengthen that to say that among the "called out ones," or ecclesias, we understand that there are no sinless individuals.  Certainly we understand this.

Fourthly, the cure for a reactionary is to understand that our patience must match the patience God has showed toward us. The author has quoted Jesus explaining that with what judgment we judge, we will be judged.  We are acutely aware of this standard.  It is, in fact, what prohibits us from making the judgments this author has made.  The author has taken the liberty of applying  its imagined motives to the "called out ones," or ecclesia; without the ability to make such a judgment.  What will prohibit this from being the author's basis for judgment, and the Judgment seat of Christ?

We judge by the standard the Holy Spirit commanded.  We judge what we can see, and stand aside from error, according to the commands of Christ.  We "try the spirits."  We judge nothing else.  We take great care to exercise all the care and patience towards our brethren, that we would want Jesus to extend to us.

Lastly, it is said that the reactionary must come to understand that there is one fellowship, but many fellowships.  We also understand this.  Fellowships, such as we call them today, are temporary arrangements formed because men and women of Adamic nature do not see eye to eye on divine things.  We all make the best choices for ourselves, based upon our own understanding.  We make no presumption about who will, or will not constitute the One Fellowship at the Judgment.  That is Christ's decision, and his alone.

So it would appear, since we have already affected all five of the cures, that we are already cured!  Or maybe this wasn't the cause of our "disease," in the first place.  I mentioned to my sister wife that I was to the last portion of this article, and dealing with what we must do to cure ourselves from being "reactionaries."  She suggested that the real cure for the reactionary, would be to go blind.  Because anything short of that will result in fellowshipping error.