Confessions of an Ex-Berean, Examined

Bro. George Booker has published an article called "Confession of an Ex-Berean" on his web site, and this is an examination of the things he has written there.

 

I read with interest bro. George Booker's article called "Confessions of an Ex-Berean." I was curious about what sins he thought being a Berean had made him responsible for. I guess I hadn't realized anyone accused us of any particular sin from which we needed to be forgiven through such a public confession and recant

So as I read it, I looked for what it was bro. George thought was so sinful about being a Berean. My conclusion is this. Apart from a concern he expresses that we are too judgmental towards our brethren, which frankly is something we are always very concerned with ourselves; he mostly just wanted to tell us he has had a change of mind on what the Bible teaches about fellowship. He just chose a rather dramatic way to do it.

When bro. George was a Berean, he viewed the relevant verses that define the doctrine of fellowship the same way as they were defined by bre. Roberts and Thomas and all the foundation brethren. When he agreed with the foundation Christadelphian position, he practiced the doctrine of fellowship according to that understanding. Through his life experiences, and coming into contact with people whose sincerity he apparently admired, he became convinced that, since the teachings of the pioneer brethren on this subject would forbid fellowship to those sincere brethren, those teachings must be wrong.

Convinced that he had to fellowship sincere people, he set out to redefine all the relevant verses to fellowship, and he came up with a booklet he called “Biblical Fellowship.” This booklet calls in question the entire body of work on fellowship by the pioneer brethren. His new definitions gave bro. George the excuse he needed to alter his fellowship position, and it also gave him a platform from which to throw stones at those who don’t accept either his change, or the motive for change as valid.

When he changed his mind, the obedience he recognized as required with his first understanding, was no longer correct for his latter understanding. Therefore he changed his life accordingly. Why he felt he needed to confess this, rather than simply explain this, I don't know. Perhaps he feels there is some shock value in it all. Who knows?

Apparently this technique has some resonance with some people. The June 2005 Endeavour Magazine, a magazine produced by members of Central fellowship in Britain, has an article from a former Christadelphian who describes herself as previously a “model Logos-Christadelphian” (Central). But she is now a member of a Pentecostal movement and she wants to share with all the virtues of her decision and "just HOW the Holy Spirit worked in the life of the believer." It would seem that she and bro. George have a lot in common.

Bro. George says that at a very young age, he read Eureka clear through. He said he studied the Berean position on fellowship. I would say, as best as I could say without actually being there and by only hearing second hand reports, that I think bro. George's recollections are accurate. He was generally regarded as a good student by the Berean brethren, even as a young man. He was also regarded as an excellent speaker.

Bro. George says that he was well ahead of his peers. That is much harder to judge. In the era he grew up, there were lots of industrious young Bible students. It is my personal experience that brethren who perceive themselves as leaders, usually do think themselves to have a better understanding of things than those they think they should lead. The ability to speak effectively is often misunderstood by both the speaker and the listener as “knowledge.” Good speakers are confused with good students, which experience has taught me, are not necessarily the same thing.

Bro. George gives us a glimpse at the way he studied, at the end of his first paragraph, and I think it explains a lot of the problems he has. He said:

“But I had never studied these passages in context; I just knew, without studying them, that they must justify the Berean position by condemning the Central position.”

He admits he didn't study in context. In this regard, I would suggest he was well behind his peers. Most Bereans strive to not just know, but to understand. The type of learning bro. George claims to have practiced is generally regarded as rote learning, also sometimes called "conditioned response." You learn what to say, and how to answer questions, without ever actually understanding what you are discussing. And, if you can speak these answers with confidence and clarity, many won’t be able to figure out that you really don’t know much. Bro. Roberts once referred to one of his detractors this way. “He sounds profound, but only because he speaks with an aire of profundity.”

I think that bro. George has made a fair self evaluation of his weaknesses, and the difficulties he faced at that young age as regards to the doctrine of fellowship, and the Scriptural teaching on marriage and divorce, and also as regards bro. Thomas' exposition of Eureka, which he soon came to discard in favor of the opinions advanced by Harry Whittaker. He studied the original Christadelphian foundation for these things, but didn’t really understand them. Therefore, he found himself blown about by every wind of doctrine.

It is also true, as he recounts in his "confession," that as a young man, bro. George first got himself blown about over the marriage and divorce issue. As he said:

"Because in Texas, where we lived, a Berean brother had been divorced and then married again, and was not disfellowshipped! Here was a 'sin' which was tolerated by the Berean ecclesias, but would not be tolerated by the Dawn fellowship! We had studied divorce and remarriage also, and concluded -- with the Dawn -- that any second marriage, while the first spouse was still alive, was a continuing 'state of adultery'."

This is the matter which caused bro. George to leave the Berean Fellowship, so I guess this is a large part of his confession. As bro. George said, a brother in San Angelo had his wife leave him, and she remarried. Following that, the brother remarried, and to an alien.

Some brethren in the Berean Fellowship at that time, held the Dawn teachings on the Exceptive Clause, as did bro. George's in laws. These separated from us over this matter. We are all too familiar how big a role family ties play in these things, so it is no surprise that we should find bro. George working to keep his family together. But what became odd, at least to me as an outsider looking in at that time, (since I was not a Berean at that time,) was that bro. George headed up a division which was to the extreme of the Dawn position. Not only was bro. George demanding a position more extreme than the Dawn on the marriage issue itself, but he was also, at least in the earliest stages of the controversy, trying to get the Berean brotherhood to accept a position where those who had married out of the truth (as the San Angelo brother had done) even if it was the first marriage, had to separate from their alien wife!

Now the one thing anyone coming into contact with the Bereans will quickly discover, is that the Bereans are fairly partial to the writings and teachings of our pioneer brethren, bre. Thomas and Roberts. Some may consider this a weakness. Personally, I consider it our great strength. But however one may view it, it is a reality. As bro. George says:

"We had studied divorce and remarriage also, and concluded -- with the Dawn -- that any second marriage, while the first spouse was still alive, was a continuing 'state of adultery'."

As has become pretty much a pattern for his career in the truth, bro. George studied a matter, and came to a different position than bre. Roberts or Thomas. Bro. George therefore, found himself in the unenviable position of trying, as a very young man, to lead the Berean fellowship to adopt a position on marriage and divorce which would condemn the writings of bre. Thomas and Roberts, and put the Bereans out of fellowship with both. That proved to be a very difficult, in fact impossible challenge.

What bro. George failed to realize was that there was a reason why the Dawn brethren had separated from the Bereans. The Dawn brethren had presented the Dawn Ultimatum to the Bereans, some thirty years previous to all this and the Bereans had rejected it. Hence the division between Bereans and Dawn. Bro. George completely ignored this fact of history, and tried to force an even more stringent and unscriptural ultimatum than that which had previously failed.

Over the course of the controversy, bro. G. V. Growcott had been working hard to preserve unity against bro. George's attempted division. Ultimately, bro. Growcott sent out a circular which laid out the true historic Berean position on divorce and remarriage, the same position as taken by bro. Thomas and Roberts, and he did so with such clarity and Scriptural accuracy that bro. George's support among the brethren for a change in the position of the Berean fellowship quickly died. It seemed like overnight, the division which bro. George had nearly brought upon the body, vaporized, except for a handful of followers that he had developed. In his frustration at losing so much support so quickly, due to one single letter by bro. Growcott, bro. George sent out a circular comparing bro. Growcott to the Pope (I suppose not really seeing the irony in the fact that he was actually the one trying to force the Papal position of "forbidding to marry" on the brotherhood.)

Bro. George says:

We became disillusioned with the Berean fellowship because they just would not go to the limits necessary, as we saw it, to preserve the Truth on Divorce and Remarriage.

Really, what disillusioned George is the same thing that strengthens the rest of us in our conviction to be Berean Christadelphians. We are a body which cannot be moved by those with itching ears, and pleasant speaking voices. We are rooted in the original Christadelphian positions on all subjects of controversy, whether we are discussing marriage and divorce, or the nature and sacrifice of Christ, or the resurrection of unbaptized but responsible individuals to judgment, or Holy Spirit Gifts, or the continuous historical interpretation of prophesy, or a seven day creation, or the doctrine of fellowship, or you name it. Everyone who has tried to move us off our foundation has become disillusioned with us, as did bro. George. We hope they always will.

Bro. George was not disillusioned that we would not go to the limits necessary to preserve the Truth. He was disillusioned that we would not follow him and accept his itching ears teaching that the foundation position on the exceptive clause as explained by bre. Roberts and Thomas was wrong. We still won't.

We now come to the first thing that bro. George finds he has to change, and to which he confesses. Yet this is a very curious thing. He says:

"The first thing to go was the Dawn "continuing state of adultery" theory, which I discovered upon further Bible study was neither Scriptural nor even 'pioneer-compatible'."

The Bereans had tried for two long years over the course of that controversy, to teach bro. George that his position was "neither Scriptural, nor even 'pioneer-compatible'." At that time, he wouldn't hear it. It is good that he finally came to that conclusion, after the division he caused. It's sad that the pioneer teachings didn't matter to him, while he was creating a division in our midst, the remnants of which exist to this day.

Now just as an observation, does it not seem odd to anyone else, that while he is making his confessions for his sins as a Berean, that the first thing he finds he has to confess, is that his original stand against the Berean position was wrong? All I can say is that there is no one as funny as us people!

But moving on, bro. George soon became disillusioned with the new group he had been so responsible in creating, which is a group we still call the "Four Points" based upon the four points that made up the ultimatum bro. George tried to force on the Berean Brotherhood. Curiously, bro. George never even joined the new group, though he did withdraw from the Bereans. I don't know why bro. George never joined his new group. Probably, as odd as it may seem, it was his change in heart as to the exceptive clause, which disqualified him to be accepted by the new group he created. That is what happens when you act without grasping the context and foundation beliefs you are propounding. You form groups you can't even be members of.

But I know it is true that he did have a change of mind as he has reported here in his "confession." And after about a year of separation he re-joined the Bereans, and then two years later, he moved on to Central.

I personally made contact with the Bereans, with the intent to join them shortly after this time, and there was much discussion about bro. George coming back into fellowship. To me, this was going to be a chance to observe how the Bereans were really prepared to behave in doctrinal matters. I knew that bro. George had moved off of the continuous historical interpretation of prophesy, and I knew I wasn't interested in a fellowship that included Harry Whittaker's preterits views. I wasn't sure the Berean brethren completely understood what his new teachings were, and I was quite interested in how they would react when they found out.

But, as it turned out, bro. George remained in the Central group instead, where he has been happy ever since. And we are happy for him. As for how happy Central is about the whole process, I guess it depends on who you ask. I note that bro. Stephen Genusa’s Central website has bro. George listed among a grouping of brethren he references at Dowieites, in an article called  “Dowieism, Past and Present and its Continued Harmful Influence on the Christadelphian Community.“ (See page 26) George Dowie was, of course, one of the early corruptors of the Truth, and was withdrawn from by bro. Roberts at the insistence of bro. Thomas. I couldn’t disagree with bro. Genusa’s evaluation.

As bro. George said, it was at this time that he came up with a booklet called "Biblical Fellowship." "Biblical Fellowship" was a direct attack on the fellowship teachings of bre. Thomas, Roberts and Growcott and the foundation of the Christadelphian movement. The wresting of the Scriptures relevant to fellowship has allowed him to ignore the erroneous teachings of many in the Central group, to fellowship brethren he regards as sincere, and thereby be happy and content in Central.

As I said from the start, this really isn't about a "confession." It is about changing one's mind. And bro. George really does provide us an excellent role model of walk, as it is related to the doctrine of fellowship. Bro. George changed his mind from when he was a Berean, and that change is reflected in his booklet. Before he changed his mind, when the result of his first studies convinced him that the teachings of bre. Roberts and Thomas was correct, he walked with the Bereans. After he changed his mind, and he contested all the writings on the subject by the pioneer brethren, then he joined Central. This is the true and correct course of obedience.

If you agree with the positions bro. George takes in his booklet, then the proper course of obedience is to stay in Central. If you agree with his first position, the position he held in harmony with the writings of bre. Thomas and Roberts and their explanation of the relevant verses, then the proper course of obedience, as demonstrated by bro. George, should be with the Bereans.

I personally found bro. George's booklet quite unsettling, not for the doctrines he set forth, which are the every day, ordinary church teachings on fellowship as understood by virtually every religious congregation in Christendom today. These views are no more unsettling to me, than any of the other verses the churches wrest to their own destruction. And, as Central moves farther from the foundation Christadelphian positions, and closer to the churches, it is little wonder that bro. George's book would find greater and greater acceptance there.

But what I found most disconcerting was the fact that the man he had previously compared to the Pope, bro. G. V. Growcott, was the most frequently quoted individual in his new booklet. Bro. George did this with full knowledge that bro. Growcott would thoroughly disapprove of his work in undermining the foundation teachings of the Christadelphian movement on the doctrine of fellowship. To my mind, this is the equivalent of the forbidden action in the Mosaic Law, of simmering a calf in its mother's milk. But as bro. George has admitted, he doesn't really look at things too closely when he studies them, so concepts like these probably pass right over him.

Bro. George goes on in his "confession":

"The second thing to go was the Berean/Dawn "pure fellowship" paradigm: Careful study of the various Bible passages used to justify separation from Central showed me that they had been misapplied and misinterpreted. In 1974 we joined the Central fellowship, where we have been ever since. Out of this came a book, "Biblical Fellowship", which is still available today.

"But what about other Bible passages, like the passages that warn of apostasy -- the "wolves" among the "sheep", "the love of many shall wax cold", "Shall he find faith on the earth", etc, etc? Yes, they are there. And there HAS developed, in the history of Christianity, an apostasy fully answering to the verses. But is the Central fellowship, or any other group of Christadelphians, the Scriptural fulfillment of those predictions? No, I do not believe so. Why? Because the basis of faith and fellowship in the Central group is sound, and because any individual instances of error (in teaching or conduct) should be Scripturally dealt with by the nearest brethren and/or ecclesia on a local basis. How well -- or poorly -- they are handled in every case is not our personal concern."

What bro. George is saying here, is that careful study of the verses relevant to fellowship has convinced him that the foundation principles of the Christadelphian movement were wrong, the writings of bre. Thomas and Roberts on fellowship were wrong; and that through his study, he has come up with the right way. To bro. George, the Scriptural warnings concerning the destruction of the truth in the ecclesia through the toleration of error are in fact, not to Christadelphians at all, but to the Christian world. He acknowledges that the introduction of error did corrupt the Christian Church, but we have no worries, because that has already happened, those verses are already fulfilled, and it all of those concerns are behind us now. Lucky us!

It is not my intent to move this into a specific discussion of all the verses relevant to the doctrine of fellowship. It is more than adequately done, and every position bro. George makes in his booklet on fellowship is addressed by the writings of bre. Roberts and Thomas as found here. But in Acts, Paul is very clear that the wolves arise "of your own selves."

Act 20:28-31 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

The apostate Christians of today are no different from the Pagans of Paul's days. The wolves were not arising from the Pagan circles to corrupt the truth, but rather from within the ecclesia. Men were to rise from our own selves, who sought to corrupt the body. But, as bro. George has pointed out to us, he is not one to consider things in context as he studies.

And while it is not my intent to take the time to go through all the verses relevant to the doctrine of fellowship, perhaps I can be excused if I draw your attention to just one group of verses, those involving the parable of the Wheat and Tares; as this seemed to weigh so heavily on the mind of bro. George as he developed his new ideas.

When we examine bro. George’s exposition, we see him again getting into trouble because he doesn’t like to worry about context. Jesus starts out this parable:

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

Here is the context for Jesus’ parable. Jesus is describing an event relevant to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is the sower (v. 37). The field is the world, the “cosmos” or the order of things (v.38) in which the sower worked.

Bro. George wrests this, to say that the world here, is the ecclesial field. Can this be true? This parable, according to the context is about the Kingdom of Heaven? Is the ecclesial field the Kingdom of Heaven? All the churches say it is. What do our Central brethren say? It is notable that bro. George never once addresses the context of this parable, or in any way tries to explain how he goes from the Kingdom of Heaven to the Ecclesia.

Observe this from another Central writer, John Carter, and his book “Parables of the Messiah.” Now I am not in any way a fan of John Carter. His actions led to the most serious corruption of the Truth that we have experienced in our 160 year history. But even he saw the impossibility in bro. George’s interpretation.

Parables of the Messiah, by John Carter pg. 92 “Of all the parables, that concerning the tares has been the cause of the most contention. Its interpretation played an important part in the contentions that arose at the time of the Donatists. The rise and work of this body is noticed in Eureka II, chapter vii. The Donatists opposed the corruptions which had grown up in Christendom and denied that many who claimed to be Christians were entitled to be so described. They particularly opposed the growing association of Church and State, and consequently by the decrees of Constantine suffered the loss of their buildings used for worship, banishment, and in some cases death. They were opposed by the leaders of the corrupt church, particularly by Augustine, who has the distinction, more than any other of the “fathers”, of establishing the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and that the Church was the Kingdom of God as accepted tenets of the Church. The Donatists were exclusive, and one of the arguments used against them was based upon the interpretation of the parable of the Tares, that Jesus taught that the wheat and tares had to grow together until the harvest, and that the discipline which the Donatists called for was not scriptural. The Donatists reply was a denial of the application made by the Augustinians. The later taught that “the field” was the church where “wheat and tares” should remain together; the Donatists insisted that in the interpretation given by Jesus, the field was “the world” and the lesson of the parable had nothing to do with the question whether spurious and heretical Christians should be excluded from the Church.”

We see from John Carter’s writing, that the interpretation taken by bro. George is the same interpretation taken by Augustine in the formative days of the Catholic church. It was an interpretation used by the Catholics to persecute, murder and rob the true believers. It was an interpretation used by Augustine (who obviously did observe context, unlike bro. George) to establish the doctrine that the Church is the kingdom of God. If this parable is about the Kingdom of God, and if the field is the Church, then there can be no other reasonable conclusion.

But while bro. George ignores context, look at the emphasis bro. Roberts places upon the context of this parable.

The Parable of the Tares.—The parable of the tares deals with a larger matter. It deals with “the kingdom of heaven” in a history extending to the rectification of all things. The kingdom of heaven is a phrase interchangeable with the kingdom of God as we saw on page 115. We must have in view the truth concerning the kingdom of God before we can understand parables that illustrate it. The kingdom of God is not exclusively an affair of futurity, though it mostly belongs to the future. The foundation of it has been laid in what God has already done upon the earth. His work with Israel by Moses—his work by Christ—have both contributed important and powerful elements; and even his work in Providence among the Gentile nations is doing something towards it in the way of preparing the earth and mankind. When the kingdom is finally and fully established, it will have been “prepared from the foundation of the world.” The parable of the tares represents that phase of it that embraced the personal work of Christ. This appears from Christ’s explanation. We will look at that explanation item by item: “A man sowed good seed in the field.”

Contrast the two explanations. Bro. George ignores the fact that the context deals with the Kingdom of God. Bro. Roberts focuses on it as fundamental to establishing the context for the parable.

Next, Bro. George must go outside the explanation given by Jesus to support his exposition. He must invent an explanation of who the sower is, “by extension” as he calls it, or by imagination as I call it. Now bro. George says that by extension, the sower is anyone who preaches the gospel. If that is the case, are these sowers by extension not sowing in the Kingdom of God? And are the churches not then correct that the church is the kingdom?

But Jesus gives us the interpretation, and it is the bold man indeed who changes it. Jesus is the sower. Note bro. Roberts acceptance of this fact. Bro. Roberts writes:

“The parable of the tares represents that phase of it (that phase of the Kingdom of God) that embraced the personal work of Christ.”

Because bro. Roberts observed context, but bro. George feels no such requirement, Bro. Roberts and bro. George end up as far apart as two people can. Consider these things.

The field to bro. Roberts was the Jewish world, or order of things.  To bro. George, it is the ecclesia.

To bro. Roberts, the sower was Jesus.  To bro. George, it is anyone who preaches in the ecclesia.

The sleeping of the sower to bro. Roberts was the time Jesus and his disciples left one region, to preach in another. To bro. George, this sleeping is lazy and unfaithful work by stewards in an ecclesia.

To bro. Roberts the enemy was the Jewish authorities. To bro. George, they are fleshly lusts in individuals in the ecclesia.

The angels who gather the wicked to be burned was the influence of God’s angels on the Roman armies. To bro. George, they are God’s angels bringing the wicked to the judgment seat of Christ.

We now come to the gathering of the wicked. Bro. George says it can’t apply to the destruction of the Jews and their temple in 70 AD. He goes on:

“Some brethren suggest that this means A.D. 70, and the related overthrow of Israel is the fulfillment of this parable, but this seems to involve more than a minor dislocation of several related references. In the first place, such an interpretation would imply that the “sowing” or gospel proclamation must also have ceased in A.D. 70, and this is far from the case.”

Yet this is precisely what bro. Roberts understood the gathering of the wicked to be.

“The harvesting is to be performed by the angels in both cases, under Christ’s command, but the harvesting of the tares to be done in the way of Providence, in which the angels work by influencing natural circumstances, while the harvest of the wheat would be done by them in an open and visible manner. The parable has been nearly all fulfilled, except the glorious part which is still future. “First” as the parable required, at the end of the Jewish world, the tare-class were gathered into Jerusalem, as into a furnace of fire, where there was wailing and gnashing of teeth, where they were destroyed with every circumstance of suffering and horror, as a study of the details of Josephus’ account of the devastation of Judea, and the destruction of Jerusalem, nearly forty years after Christ’s ascent to “all power in heaven and earth,” will abundantly shew to the reader. Thus were retributively “gathered out of his kingdom all things that offended” during his personal ministry, and “them who did iniquity.” The kingdom of the Holy Land is his kingdom which enables us to understand the interpretation.”

In rejecting bro. Roberts’ conclusions, bro. George gives us some very shallow exposition. Bro. George tells us that bro. Roberts’ interpretation must mean that the seed ceased to be sowed after 70 AD. Simply stated, no it doesn’t.

Jesus tells us that he was the sower. He had ceased sowing long before 70 AD. Bro. George gives us an interpretation, (that the sower in this parable by extension goes beyond Jesus, which we reject) and the tries to bind us to some conclusion based on his interpretation. That method of exposition is about as “churchy” as you can get. In the Christian church, for their interpretations to make sense, you first have to accept their premise. If you accept the premise that you are going to heaven at death, then the interpretation of Jesus’ Fathers house having many mansions makes sense to you. But you can’t establish the premise, and so the interpretation doesn’t make sense.

We don’t believe that an interpretation that places the destruction of the wicked at AD 70 means that all preaching must have ceased at AD 70, because we don’t accept his premise that the world is the ecclesia, or that the sower is anyone other than Christ. We accept the parable the way Jesus explained it, not the way bro. George has re-explained it, and so there is no such conflict such as bro. George imagines.

On this same point of the gathering of the wicked, bro. George’s interpretation sets up an impossible standard for withdrawal. Bro. George offers (without ever telling us how he would do this)

“Of course there are some brethren whose errors in doctrine or conduct clearly place them beyond the boundary of traditional Christadelphian “fellowship”, and faithful ecclesias will deal with these brethren in accordance with Matthew 18 and related passages…”

But this has to be a false conclusion by bro. George, if it is the angels that gather the tares out of the ecclesia as required by this parable. What brother would presume to take action reserved by God for the angels? Matthew 18 tells us that after three efforts of reclaiming a brother, that we should treat him as a heathen (Gentile) or as a publican (tax gatherers). These are men that the Jews had no association with. But if we must allow tares to remain in the ecclesial field till the angels gather them out and burn them at the end of the age, how could we ever possibly exercise the commands of Matthew 18? Of course we couldn’t. That, by itself condemns bro. George’s interpretation, for the first ecclesial field has resulted in the Christian Church. If bro. George is correct, then bro. Thomas was wrong to separate us from the Tares in the Church of Christ, and Alexander Campbell would have been wrong to separate from the Tares in the Catholic Church.  So then all Christadelphians should all go back to be united with the original tares.  That is the logical conclusion of bro. George's teaching.  Sadly, that will also be the result of bro. George's teaching, should Christ not intervene to stop the eroding of Christadelphian teaching by his return.

On a personal note, a few years back I took my mother to a Central function, a prayer day on Thanksgiving at the meeting where I was raised. I was simply dumbfounded to learn that the new Central hymn book included a hymn extolling the “fact” that the church is the field, and that those in the church are wheat and tares. One wonders howj little sense of history one must have, to be able to sing hymns of praises to the death sentence of Christadelphians, 1700 years ago. I can honestly say that I have never, even for a minute, questioned my judgment of myself as not compatible with Central some thirty years ago, and things like that further solidify me in the fact that I made the correct choice for myself, some 30 years ago. I just couldn't, in all good conscience, sing those words, nor remain silent while others did, if I were in partnership (fellowship) with them.

But back to bro. George’s confession, as I said from the start, this "confession" is not so much a "confession" of wrong doing, but rather an explanation that bro. George simply changed his mind, and wants us to change with him. There is nothing difficult or complicated, or even particularly sinful in all this. Bro. George developed a difference in opinion from that with which he was raised. After changing his mind, bro. George chose to build his house on a different rock, on a new foundation which he prefers over the one laid by those who went before us. This is his prerogative, just as standing on the foundation principles of the Christadelphian movement is our prerogative. Bro. George has come to believe our behavior is sinful. This is his judgment of us.  We think our behavior is obedient. That is our judgment of ourselves.  We are very grateful that our Central brethren are not our judges, and we are quite content to let Christ judge.

Finally, we come to the point where bro. George does begin to address something he regards as sinful. Bro. George will now take the obligatory "cheap shot" as the world would call it. I'm always amazed at how the loving and nonjudgmental attitude our Central brethren claim to have, becomes quite unloving and judgmental when it comes to placing motive and innuendo on anyone who would stand aside from them.  Bro. George writes:

"And that is an overview, albeit a brief one. Sometimes, on reflection, it seems like a pale version of the Saul/Paul spiritual journey... There was a time when I thought I was doing service to God by remaining separate from, and castigating (condemning?), most of the Christadelphians worldwide, because they would not join a "pure fellowship" like mine. "Been there, done that!" I pray that I will obtain mercy, because I did it in the flush of youthful zeal, when I thought I had all the answers, and when I thought it was NECESSARY to have all the answers."

"Don't be satisfied to stake your claim to acceptance at the Judgment Seat on being "better" than your brethren -- Central or Unamended or whatever."

Perhaps when bro. George was in the Bereans, he did judge our Central and other brethren.  He shouldn't have.  It was not his prerogative.  As we have seen, he did not study too closely, so he may not have grasped exactly what withdrawal truly is.  We stand aside. We don't judge or castigate or condemn others. We judge ourselves. We determine what foundation we believe we should stand on, in obedience to our Lord, and we do it. Is this not the same behavior that our Central brethren themselves take towards those they will not fellowship? Are you castigating and condemning our Unamended brethren, in standing aside from them? Or are you not rather saying that you do not wish to be involved in the beliefs and actions they practice, and let Christ judge?

This is just another example of how bro. George has come to a different conclusion from bro. Roberts. Bro. George sees withdrawal as aggressive. As those withdrawing supposing themselves to be "better" than others. As rooting up the tares.  Bro. Roberts and the foundation Christadelphians saw withdrawal as defensive. Bro. George considers it as judging others. Bro. Roberts considers it judging ourselves, and doing what is right for ourselves.  Bro. Roberts points out in the following excerpt, that we can't call anyone tares.  That is Christ's judgment, which he has reserved to himself.

In responding to one with identical beliefs with bro. George, who accused bro. Roberts of the same things bro. George has accused us of, bro. Roberts once wrote this:

“If this is a right position (and it has been proved in the article on Fellowship to which you object) [see The Nature and Conditions of Fellowship] , then it is no faithful man's part to unite himself to those who may ‘differ from himself in his reading or interpretation of the Scriptures.’ He is under apostolic obligation to withdraw, where the Truth--as he conceives it--is not received.

“You call this ‘setting up as judge and jury.’ This is a mis-description. The man in such a case judges and jurifies himself merely. He decides that his surroundings in a given case impose upon him a certain line of duty. In this, he is a ‘divinely appointed arbiter’ insofar as God requires him to discern and perform his duty.

“You look at the act as it bears on those from whom he withdraws. It is this that confuses your view. You speak of ‘excluding’ from fellowship. This is not the question. It is ‘withdrawal‘. There is a great difference. No enlightened man will claim jurisdiction over another. His jurisdiction is limited to himself. And here, surely, it is absolute. If the conditions of scriptural association do not exist, he is bound to perceive the fact and ACT upon it, or else accept the character of neutral--of which the divine law provides no recognition.

“It is not a case of ‘pulling up the tares,’ but of acting a part apostolically enjoined. The tares are still left, if tares they are. It belongs to God to pull them up.

“Nevertheless, it belongs to men who may wish to be garnered with the wheat to meanwhile act a faithful part by the Truth which God commits to every man who receives it; and--when necessary--to ‘withdraw from every brother who walks’ inconsistently with apostolic principles.

“You suggest that this was the prerogative of apostolic authority only. Look into it, and you will see it is apostolic advice and command to believers. We do not require apostolic authority to obey apostolic counsels. Apostolic counsels are as valid in the 19th century as in the first. Otherwise it would come to this: that the apostolic work was confined to the lives of the apostles, and that there can be no compliance with apostolic principles (and therefore no salvation) in the 19th century!

“It doubtless would ‘require the gift of the Spirit,’ as you say, ‘to act with the authority of Christ’ with regard to others. But a man does not require the gift of the Spirit to decide his own attitude toward men and things. What may be the right attitude, he has to find out. When found, he is bound to take it--or incur condemnation on the day of account. It requires no inspiration to see when the doctrines or the commandments of Christ are set aside. And when he sees this, Christ has commanded him what to do as regards continuing or not continuing his participation with the unfaithfulness.

“He leaves God to deal with the unfaithful. But while he does this, he is not absolved from the duty of exercising his own discernments, and ‘coming out from among them.’ We have truly no right to excommunicate. But we have a right to take ourselves away, if circumstances call for it.”

But bro. George rejects the wise council of those who have gone before. He impugns motive to us, and judges us. The motive he impugns to us, is that of the self righteous Pharisee,. His judgment is that we are sinful, from which we need to repent.

Yet we impugn motive to no one, but simply acknowledge that we see how our foundation should be built and maintained differently than bro. George, and we each practice fellowship according to our understanding in obedience to Christ. We don't want to stand on the foundation Central has, as we believe it has been eroded. We encourage all that know how eroded the Central foundation has become, to judge themselves, whether they wish to be a partaker in this new foundation. If you don’t, come walk with us. But make your own judgment of yourself, for yourself as to whether or not you are in a position of obedience to Jesus. We have made ours.

Jim Phillips