INTRODUCTION
I came across an article on a Central Christadelphian web site hosted by bro. Stephen Genusa from Longview, TX. The article makes an effort to draw comparisons between the political warfare that takes place on the national stage, and the motives and attitudes of our brothers and sisters in Christ. It makes the effort to attribute motive to brothers and sisters for having "liberal," "conservative," or "reactionary" approaches towards the doctrine of fellowship, and the Truth in general.
In taking this approach, the article is unique. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing anything like it. The people who make up the political parties of the world, have as their core motivation, wealth and power in this world. Christadelphians should have no such motivation whatsoever, focusing entirely on the next world. So drawing from the world's motives, and transposing it on brethren, strikes me as most unusual and if true, a very sad commentary on the state of the Truth. I also think it is fair to say that rarely have we seen any Christadelphians develop an argument so dependent upon the assignment of evil motive on those it opposes, and at the same time be so devoid of Scriptural reference.
The article is also rare for the arrogance it displays. Essentially, the argument of the author is that all individuals who disagree with the positions taken in the article are functionally immoral, but the article's positions are proclaimed righteous and sincere. This is offered with virtually no Biblical proof against either of the groups it opposes. Rather, the entire argument is rooted in the psychoanalyzing (the analyzing of the mind and motive) of its opposition. Then it concludes with a statement which is just as unusual, in this regard. It concludes:
"Incidentally, if the reader is a liberal, he will probably assess the author of this document as a reactionary conservative. If the reader is a reactionary conservative, he will probably assess the author of this document as a liberal. If that is your assessment then I close with this thought: having exposed both deceptions, I lay this last evidence at your feet and rest my case."
So the writer's argument is essentially, I will psychoanalyze you, and attribute all kinds of evil motive towards you (though I don't actually know you,) and if you dare disagree with my conclusions of what is in your mind that makes you do what you do, that will prove I'm right! It is a very strange thesis, as Christadelphian works go. I don't think it is unfair to say that it is "clerical" in its arrogance. It takes the approach that "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm not telling you why because you couldn't understand anyway. Deal with it!"
Bro Genusa objected to me calling this psychoanalysis. He objected to me saying that this sort of analysis of brethren is rooted in the flesh, and not in the spirit. Now I have the utmost respect for bro. Genusa and the work he does. His web site at www.Genusa.com/Truth/index.html is second to none as regards giving Christadelphians the information they need to know about the Central group and its history. So it pains me very much to have to take this position against this article which he has hosted. But his defending of this article here, is simply outside the barrier of what is Scriptural. I would have rather discussed this privately, but he preferred not to, nor would he give me the name of the author, so I could discuss it with him (though I asked twice). Therefore I will state my case in detail, and let it go. (I note the article has now been signed by bro. Stephen Genusa, which frankly, came as a surprise. I've never met bro. Genusa, but from reading his works, I would have thought his understanding of divine principles would never have resulted in an article like this.)
Lets look at a list of the charges the article makes against the "reactionaries". I'll focus only on the "reactionaries" for the way the writer has defined things, Berean Christadelphians would be defined as "reactionaries" and therefore generally have some or all of these characteristics. All underlining is mine, to highlight the workings of the mind that the writer judges, and which we are forbidden to judge:
- While reactionary conservatives claim to love God, they in fact love themselves more than God or the rest of mankind..
- Reactionary Conservatives are driven by a feeling of superiority, an innate sense of superior intelligence, and the chutzpa of a fake superior morality
- Obsessed with purity (demonstrating Ecc 7:16) because it knows its own heart is impure
- Where God calls for self-sacrifice, the RC engages in self-promotion and fratricide.
- Reactionary conservatism is based on the vain pursuit of self-justification.
- The self-satisfaction of the RC individual is more important than the health of the society.
- Obsessed with isolationism (division) because it brings the divisive situations they see as self-justifying
- Reactionary conservatives rarely care about the results of the policies they advocate.
- Reactionary conservatives engage in radical individualism -- but not for personal gratification.
- Reactionary conservatism is not easy to cure either because it is not arrived at by conscientious choice.
- Reactionary conservatives, because they are already intellectually compromised...,
I'm sure all would agree that the things this article has applied to "reactionaries" are serious character flaws. But how can the writer make such a judgment about a fellow brother or sister? All of these character flaws spring from a man's psyche. To know the truth of these things, the author would have to be able to read and analyze a man's mind and motive.
The apostle Paul is quite clear that we have no authority to make such judgments. We are commanded to judge people by what they do, and by what they say. We are called upon to: "withdraw thyself from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions you have received from us" ("us" being the Apostle Paul). We are commanded that: "If any man bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed..". But we are also commanded to never judge their motive, or what Jesus will think of them at the last day.
Rom. 14:4 "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."
1 Cor. 4:3-5 "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God."
Besides engaging in the kinds of judgment which we are forbidden to do, the entire foundation for the article is flawed from the beginning. The writer is writing a response to articles in some other Christadelphian magazines which refer to Jesus as a "Liberal." I've seen some of these articles, and yes, they are terribly flawed as well. Its amazing what one can see in this regard among modern Christadelphians. I recently saw one article which claimed that "legalism" is a fundamental approach to life and religion. That is a linguistically wrong statement. Legalism is a legalistic (governed by law) approach to life and religion. Fundamentalism is a fundamental approach to life and religion. There are no end of flawed arguments in this regard. But it is hard for me to understand how one flawed argument is attacked by advancing another flawed argument.
I personally believe that articles like this one I am examining, and the ones it was written against, can appear reasonable to some brethren, because Christadelphians are not involved in politics, and therefore do not study these things. Christadelphians study the Bible. Our arguments come from the Bible. Titles, and labels, and classifying of one another are irrelevant, because the only valid comparisons are to the Bible. Whether a man is a liberal, conservative, or reactionary is not the least bit relevant to us. He could be either, depending upon the time he lived, or the society in which he lived and was compared to; and be Scripturally sound. But in the end, the only relevant question is, is he Scripturally sound?
Since this article is so unique in Christadelphian exposition, (as it is so obviously dealing with judging each other's hearts and minds, which any reasonable Christadelphian led by the word of God will quickly identify as completely off limits to brethren in their dealings, one with another;) why bother responding to this at all? I'm doing so because at its core, this article is an attack on the Christadelphian's foundation doctrine of fellowship. The main point in this article, as I see it, is to try and lay a foundation for this point, as made by the author.
"That there is only one Fellowship, while there are many 'Fellowships' (1Joh 1:7) "
This is an argument made for schism IN the body, in opposition to Paul who counseled such was wrong. It is an article to lay the foundation to encourage the policy we in the Bereans call "At-the-door Fellowship." It is a policy which recommends we all abide in a common body, Central, but we refuse to allow the "liberal element" to break bread with us in our ecclesias, though they are Central brethren. And further, we don't exclude brethren from our ecclesias who are otherwise sound in the Truth, though in other meetings, they may break bread with errorists. This false teachings states that when a brother approaches us at our door, then we should decide if we are in fellowship with him, or not.
Bro. Roberts had this to say about that policy:
Christadelphian Magazine, 1887, pg. 329 "Some inaccurate ideas appear to be entertained by some on the subject of fellowship. The think they are not in fellowship with a meeting or ecclesia if they do not pay or receive a visit from it, and that they are only in fellowship with those actually in their midst. If this were correct, there would be no "fellowship one with another" in personal absence, whereas John declares this to have been the case with those from whom he was personally absent (1 John 1:7).
"Fellowship is that recognized mutual relation of harmony that only waits the opportunity of personal intercourse for its fullest enjoyment. This harmony exists, or does not exist, quite irrespective of the opportunity of its practical illustration.
"Suppose, when an ecclesia is asked, 'Are you in fellowship with the Mormons?' it should answer that they cannot settle the question as to the Mormons as a body, but must wait for individual Mormons to apply for each individual case to be decided on its own merits. Such an answer is an evasion of the question.
"And what holds true concerning the Mormons, is true of the Church of England, or of those who will not avow their faith in the infallibility of the Scriptures. An ecclesia that is not able to say whether they are in fellowship with such, but must wait for individual applications, is evidently in such a doubtful relation to the question as to prevent confidence on the part of men of straight purpose.
"Men do not require to come within so many yards of each other to know whether they are friends. Friendship of this circumscribed order would be a relapse into barbarism. And so a body of men professing to receive the Truth in its uncompromised fullness and integrity do not require to pay or receive visits from another body or members of it (who are in a doubtful attitude), to say whether they are or are not in fellowship with it.
"A little reflection on this ought to clear honest men of all difficulty in defining their position--a process which had become necessary before the apostle John had closed his eyes.
I also decided for myself that the article is so chalked full of stereotypes and caricatures of the Berean Christadelphians that it is clear our Central brethren do not grasp who we are, and what we are truly about. In fact, these stereotypes exist for the sole purpose of discouraging brethren who are dissatisfied with the Central group, from examining the Berean Fellowship, or other groups who have separated from Central. Perhaps by examining these stereotypes, our Central brethren will gain a better understanding of us. I hope to be able to make the point that our position is not one selfishness, and pride towards our brethren as suggested by this article, but rather one of obedience and true love of God and man.
