Definitions: LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES, and REACTIONARIES
First, the problems with the definitions. These words have no static meanings. They only have meanings when compared to something else. So proposing which characteristics an individuals must have, based on meanings which vary, seems odd indeed. A conservative in Soviet Russia, was a Communist! Yet in American society, and Communist would be a wild, eyed, liberal.
Also among the problems with the definitions used by the writer, is the fact that these terms can be simple nouns, or proper nouns, and they mean completely different things depending on how they are used. The writer completely ignores this. For instance, the article tells us that a liberal is one who favors a philosophy of progress and reform. This is how American Liberals (proper noun) see themselves, surely. But the definition used by our writer has nothing to do with what "liberal" really means. The American Liberal's idea of progress tends to be more governmental control, higher taxes, more restraints on freedom of religion, etc. None of these are liberal (small "l") positions. The word "liberal" is derived from the Latin word "liber" which means "free." In society, a liberal is simply one who opposes the restraints that a society has placed upon them, and demands a freedom from them.
Was Jesus a "liberal?" In the sense that he opposed the societal restraints the Pharisees and Sadducees placed upon Israel, yes. Jesus told them:
John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
In the sense that he came to end the restraints of the Mosaic Law, he was a "liberal."
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
In the sense that he came to free us from the law of sin and death, he was a "liberal."
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
But in other ways, Jesus was far from arguing for freedom from social and religious restraints, but rather the opposite. He warned that salvation is conditional, depending on keeping his commandments, in a very confined way.
Matt. 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
And he warned that love is not unconditional, but dependant upon keeping commandments. These are not the position of a "liberal."
John 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
Next, the article defines a conservative as a person who "does not favor a liberal philosophy of (so-called) 'progress' and 'reform'." To the writer, conservatives are:
"Normal average people who do not buy into liberal philosophy."
This definition is not a definition at all, but a contrast from a definition, one which we have already seen, was incomplete.The simple and basic meaning of conservative is one who seeks to conserve that which now exists. He is the arch defender of the "status quo." The word is taken from the French word "conservateur." It was applied to those who resisted the French Revolution, in favor of the reforms which were made just prior to it. Whatever the status quo is, that is what the conservative wishes to defend.
But a political Conservative can be very opposed to the status quo, and can be defined different ways. For instance, American Conservatives (proper noun) tend to oppose governmentally imposed taxes, restrictions on the right to work, minimum wage laws, etc., all of which are liberal positions. They take their name from their desire to keep (conserve) American laws restricting social freedoms. In some cases related to social freedoms, they seek to overturn the status quo, and return to former law, such as in the matter of abortion. This would make them reactionary.
We can give no example of Christ as a conservative. There was nothing about the status quo of his day, that he had any desire to support or continue. Instead, his language was against the status quo.
Mat 15:12-14 "Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
This writer of this article obviously thinks himself a conservative. My evaluation, for what it is worth, is that the Central "conservative" is not a conservative at all. He is a reactionary, just like me. The Central "conservatives" that I know have no desire to maintain the Central status quo, just like me. They want the "liberal element" identified and ostracized from the ecclesias, just like me. They want to go back to the original Christadelphian position before the corruptions of compromise, just like me.
The only difference between us, is that I have taken the step to separate myself from that "liberal element" in its entirety. They separate from them in their individual ecclesias, but maintain some confederation with them "in Central" which I find confusing and distressing, and more importantly, disobedient to apostolic command. They disagree.
Curiously, the article makes no effort to define a reactionary. The entire inclusion of the reactionary in this article appears as an after thought. Clearly, the article first and foremost desired to express an opinion about the "liberal element" among its body. It appears to have simply taken its conclusions concerning the motives of the "liberal" brethren, and transposed them in only a slightly modified form towards the "reactionaries." We are introduced to them about a third of the way into this article, by use of the following example:
"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...The other brother, as he ages can also take, to be general, one of four routes:
- He can maintain his position, growing in wisdom and knowledge, grace and character.
- He can grow increasingly narrow in his position, moving to smaller and smaller fellowships in an attempt to find a 'pure' Fellowship. This is a special case of self-deception that also requires closer examination. It is what I will term, reactionary conservatism. The reasons for this development are, ironically, on a parallel with the liberal minded brother. In both cases the individuals have chosen an essentially single-dimensional or flat view of God's character. They each have taken whichever characteristics of God are convenient to their own self-justification and projected a God who matches that flat view.
- He can also develop in the same direction as the liberal minded brother.
- He can fall away from the truth "
The second choice is how this writer determines a man becomes a "reactionary" He ceases growing in wisdom and knowledge, grace and character, while he begins becoming narrower, moving to a smaller fellowship, and searching for a 'pure Fellowship." This obviously is speaking of brethren who would join a fellowship like the Bereans.
Bro. Genusa wrote to me, denying that the author was speaking of groups like "the Bereans." He wrote:
"I don't recall that any living Christadelphian or specific group/Fellowship is labeled in the article."
The author is writing about brethren who leave a large fellowship for a smaller group, searching for some purity which does not exist in the larger group. What can that mean, if it is not aimed at brethren like myself, who left Central for the Bereans, desiring a group which will insist on the BASF enforced in fellowship? Why the writer is making such labels and charges, and then denying the only way they can be applied, I have no idea.
But the example given by the author, is not a proper definition of the "reactionary." The dictionary at Dictionary.Laborlawtalk.com would define a "reactionary" as
"someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era. The political attitude of a reactionary is reaction, reactionism (sometimes: reactionaryism). Reaction is always presented against something that it opposes. Reactionary comes from the French word réactionnaire, coined in the early 19th century.
"It was the first of the two words coined (the other being conservative, from the French word conservateur) for the opposition to the French revolution. "In parliamentary usage, the monarchists were commonly referred to as the Right, although they were often called Reactionaries." (1) A reactionary is sometimes described as an extreme conservative, but whereas a conservative seeks, in the simplest terms, to preserve the status quo, a reactionary seeks to return to the situation of a prior time. In particular the term is used to describe those who are seen to oppose "progress" and particularly revolutionary change, and is used in revolutionary contexts interchangeably with the word counterrevolutionary."
This is the proper definition of a "reactionary." I note the article has an update, based on an email correspondence I tried to have with bro. Genusa. The author concluded from my e-mail:
"Yet in the same email he admits that the article's description of the reactionary conservative generally fit him, though he did not like the full portrayal of the RC."
I can't imagine the person who would claim such characteristics as the author has attributed to the "reactionary." Certainly if I ever felt that my motivation in the truth was selfishness, I would have abandoned this way of life years ago, with full knowledge that such can never inherit the Kingdom of God. No one would ever admit to such.
This careless quoting of me, strikes me as more of the politicizing of the Truth that the author is engaged in, in this article. This really is an outgrowth of the policy the article recommends. When you dwell with the errorist, all your time is spent in fighting the errorist, and your perspective becomes colored and distorted as a result of the constant fight. Truth takes a back seat to winning an argument. Causing others to fall in a bad light, justified or not, becomes merely another tool in the war with any who would oppose them.
What I did was properly couch the terms, and then tell bro. Genusa that I didn't object to being labeled a "reactionary." Here is the paragraph I wrote bro. Genusa, from which the author reached certain conclusion:
"Obviously, as a Berean Christadelphian, in this article I am both labeled and psychoanalyzed as a Conservative Reactionary. I really don't object to the label. As far as Central would be concerned, I would be reactionary, desiring to go back to a previous era, when the ecclesias refused to give place to those men you call 'liberals.' Nor would I agree that the status quo of Central today is something we should be striving to 'conserve'. So I'm clearly not a 'conservative.'"
So clearly, I didn't say that the article's description of "reactionary" fit me, but that compared to Central today, the label of "reactionary" fit me. That is, I desired to go back to a previous era from that which exists in Central today. Let me quickly add that I do not blame bro. Genusa for the misunderstandings. Letter writing is rarely a good way to discuss things.
Conclusions about Definitions
Now, really the first point that the author is trying to make is this. There are a group of individuals in Central who are no longer convinced that the original beliefs of Christadelphians on a wide variety of topics, should be considered the basis of fellowship. These individuals are urging for freedom to fellowship other groups, such as the Unammended Christadelphians, or even the Church of God of the Abrahamic Covenant. There are also others who are now convinced that the foundation principles upon which the Christadelphian movement was based is wrong. These are demanding the freedom to profess beliefs more in harmony with Evolution, with the possession of Holy Spirit gifts, with the women's rights movement, with the Churches view of a substitutionary Christ, and with a host of other new ideas (new to Christadelphians, certainly not new to the world). These individuals who are claiming such freedoms for themselves, or for Central churches in general, are what this writer is terming "liberal" or the "liberal element." And in this sense, the label fits. These individuals are demanding a freedom from the BASF and the doctrine of fellowship, as once practiced among Christadelphian ecclesias.
This is made very clear in an attack of the foundation Christadelphian position on fellowship by Harry Whittiaker which makes essentially all the same arguments as this article by bro. Genusa makes towards the "reactionaries." Harry Whittiaker's article concludes this way:
The One Body "Is it not high time that iron curtains fashioned in Victorian work shops be rolled up? Or shall their rust be a witness against us now and in the Day of Judgment ?"
The iron curtain fashioned in the Victorian work shop to Harry Whittiaker, was the doctrine of fellowship as Christadelphians unearthed it from the confusion of the churches in the age of bre. Thomas and Roberts. That curtain formed a protective barrier around the truth and preserved it. That protective barrier is what he wants rolled up. He boldly pronounces that the doctrine of fellowship as practiced by Christadelphians here to fore, needs to be rolled up and changed. He is demanding a freedom from our foundation position. And thanks to the support through articles like this one by bro. Genusa, he is receiving that freedom.
The second point the author makes, concerns the "reactionary." If we refer back to the definition above, we find he regards the reactionary as having developed a narrowing view. I can certainly say for me, that has not been the case. I have identically the same view now on the doctrine of Fellowship and on all the first principles of Truth as I had when I was in Central. I have simply obeyed that which I was taught in Central, and separated from the errorists. Whether those same things are taught in Central today, I cannot say. I was in Central thirty years ago. Here is a wonderful article by John Ullman, a Central brother writing in that time frame (1972) while I was in Central.
Nor is the "reactionary" looking for a pure fellowship, for everyone knows that it does not, and cannot exist. This is simply a stereotype Central makes of us. We enforce the statement of faith. That is the extent of the "purity" we insist upon. We need to do this as the first condition of establishing the ecclesia.
James 3:17 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy."
This is the behavior bro. Thomas counseled. This is the fellowship pattern he eventually came to insist upon. He himself wrote:
John Thomas "The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable; God is pure, and He will not dwell with the impure. I would, ten thousand times rather be in society with the few purified ones than with the many impure ones. It is the truth obeyed which makes pure; let us then persevere in the doctrine of Jesus and know the truth and be purified or freed from sin by it. Let us study all the truth in the scriptures of inspiration, as being profitable, or able to profit, in doctrine, in conviction, in correction, in instruction, or training in righteousness.
"When fully enlightened by these sacred studies, we shall in the ration of this light, enjoy fellowship, or society with all the enlightened sons of God, and with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. We shall then joyfully wait for the hope, which is predicated upon the righteousness by faith. We shall contemplate the future, as rendered unspeakably resplendent with the glory of God, in the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus we shall be animated and strengthened unto all patience and all long suffering, and shall conquer through him, who has loved us, and more than conquered-being made stronger than all enemies-and shall obtain a triumph in honor of being conquerors-and enter abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.?
With the truth taught and defended, and insisted upon in fellowship, we then move on to deal with the rest of the struggles and trials common to all our lives, and all our ecclesias. And it is here we move as patiently and lovingly as we can in all matters dealing with our brethren. It is here where we patiently endure the charge of "you see, you're just like Central." Well, we are like Central in that we are imperfect, and all our members need strengthening and guidance and encouragement to deal with the trials of this life. We are different from Central, in that we do maintain the Basis of Fellowship in all our ecclesias.
Nor does the "reactionary" take a one dimensional his view of God's character. He does take a more serious view towards "obedience" than does the Central conservative, especially in the area of fellowship. But the true "reactionary" is always careful not to let one aspect of things, confuse the other.
Nor does he make any judgments about those he leaves behind. This is another stereotype that our Central brethren foist on us. This is a very important point that we wish we could keep clearer. We do not judge those we left behind as regards their final standing before Christ, or their motive. We do judge their words and their actions, as we are commanded. Then we judge ourselves as unwilling to be a partner, or fellowshipper of their words and actions, and we stand aside, leaving all judgment and condemnation (if there is to be any) to God. We simply read the apostle Paul who warns:
1 Cor. 5:6 "Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"
And in personal obedience to this principle, we separates from the leaven, as Paul commanded. Having separated to a group of likeminded brethren who are dedicated to preserving the "Basis of Fellowship" we go about our business, exhorting, encouraging and strengthening one another in the faith, recognizing our own, and our brethren's inherent failures in many things, which precludes us ever being "pure."
The author charges us with all these things, because he judges us from his perspective. We separate from the author, and the author feels rejected. Therefore the author lashes out at us and attributes motives to us which are unfavorable. We are genuinely sad that we evoke this sort of emotion, but there is nothing that can be done about it. In this whole process of conforming to the truth on these matters, we feel with Bro. Robert Roberts, that which amounts to "painful embarrassments" especially when publicly examined and ridiculed. But it is the path of faith, which God has required of us. Bro. Roberts once wrote:
Christadelphian April, 1891 "God has been pleased to subject those who desire to conform to His Word to what sometimes amounts to painful embarrassment, by having required of them things that at first sight are incompatible with one another. They are to do good to all men, and yet not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. They are to be "in the world," and yet to "come out from among them and be separate." They are to love their enemies, and yet to love not the world. They are to be patient with the erring, and yet to abhor that which is evil and not to bear with men that are evil. They are to think no evil, [what a contrast to the article we are examining, which dares to think nothing but evil towards those it opposes--JP] and yet to try professors. They are to submit to wrong, and yet to refuse even to eat with men that are called brethren who espouse wrong doing or error. They are to show hospitality, and yet to receive not into their houses those who bring not the doctrine of Christ.
"There is, doubtless, an object in prescribing these apparently conflicting duties. It sets up contrary mental currents that at last bring about a fine equilibrium of character which would not be attainable if duty lay all in one direction. But often the effort to conform brings distress, and it is impossible not to feel pity for men sacrificing one duty in their endeavor to conform to another."
And bro. Roberts specifically wrote this about the charge that in withdrawing, we are judging:
Christadelphian April, 1891 "In withdrawing, we wash our own hands. We leave to God those whom we withdraw from. We are not authorized to judge or condemn them. But this document lays it down that we must not withdraw unless we are prepared to maintain that the cause of withdrawal will make salvation impossible. This would erect an ecclesia into a spiritual judicature, deciding questions which the Lord has reserved for himself. The document proposes "union with all who have not forfeited their right to the fully assured salvation."
"The time for withdrawal is when men drift into unscriptural attitudes of faith or practice. These we note and separate ourselves from, without reference to the question of whether the offenders can be saved, which we cannot decide. And the withdrawal is NOT putting them out, but going out ourselves, as the term implies. We simply go away, saying we cannot be responsible. The attitude prescribed by this suggested 'basis' would place the ecclesia in a chair of authority, with power of excommunication, arrogating the right to 'cut off' or say the excommunicated cannot be saved.
"Faithful men are more truly modest, while more uncompromising toward departure from the Faith than the sentiments that inspire this 'basis.' Faithful men say- 'We have no power to cut off. Christ will do that. But we have power to withdraw; and this we will do-with however much reluctance and pain-when the Word of God and its obligations are tampered with by whomsoever. We will exercise this liberty unhampered by any assumptions as to the position of those who have 'responded to the Gospel call'."
Modern Central interpretations of such things as the parable of the Wheat and Tares, and the Good Shepherd and the Hirelings, causes them to take the position with the "basis" bro. Roberts was writing against, that is, that we can identify tares. We can't. This is Christ's decision, and his alone. All we can do is stand aside. We cannot judge who will be accepted and who won't be, and we do not judge. We withdraw ourselves from those who fall into unscriptural attitudes of faith or practice. This is a defensive action, without respect to what Christ may think of those individuals or groups at his return.
"Reactionaries," properly defined, are a group of brethren who agree with our Central "conservative" brethren that these "liberals" have taken a wrong position. But unlike our Central "conservative" brethren who would counsel continued identification and working with the "liberal element," as they call it; "reactionaries" withdraw fellowship from them, not self-righteously putting them out, but withdrawing in obedience to divine teaching.
In the case of "reactionaries" in the United States, we believe that Central began fellowshipping this liberal element in 1911. After years of education and pleading, and after those first Bereans who formed a separate meeting in England (the John Bright Street meeting) were disfellowshipped by Birmingham, we separated from Central and its errorist fringe in 1923. We named ourselves the Berean Christadelphians. The author of the article we are examining regards the behavior in separating to have been wrong, springing from selfishness, pride, and other immoralities. He offers no Scriptural proof that this position is wrong.
This is where the article becomes very strange and unscriptural. We are condemned because we do as a body, that which many Central "conservatives" do as an ecclesia. They keep the errorist out of their ecclesia. We keep the errorist out of our entire body. How does that difference make the Central "conservative" morally righteous, while the Berean reactionary, morally degenerate?
We, as Berean Christadelphians, fit the label of "reactionary," when properly defined, not as defined by the writer of this article. We have gone back and maintained a standard from a previous era, that exhibited before 1923. We urge brethren to abide by the standards established from the beginning of our movement, by our pioneer brethren Thomas and Roberts. We insist that the BASF is believed, and enforced in fellowship in every ecclesia claiming association with us. We have no desire to have anything to do with the current status quo of the Central group, which have very strong voices in both the "liberal" and "conservative" schisms in that body, that condemn the beliefs and fellowship practices of the pioneers.
