 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
A Personal Note to
Friends and Seekers
There are a number of things I would like to say, some are more important than others.
Why Controversial Topics?
My web site highlights a number of controversies and some brethren want to know why I have chosen controversial topics. This is a very fair question and one I would like to spend some time explaining. Readers might naturally assume by the selection of material that I have a taste for controversy. The assumption is wrong. Like most people, I prefer peace, tranquility and friendliness. And controversy never results in popular acclamation. Who doesn't, naturally, want popularity or at least a friendly reception amongst his fellows? God made, I believe, our mental constitution to be social. It is far preferable to our constitution to be on 'good terms' with other people, than to have contention, disagreement or anything that blights friendly relations. Why then did I choose controversial topics?
Since I was introduced to the truth I have been on a journey that has taken roads I did not and could not have foreseen. If I could have been shown the whole journey at an instant I think that I would have fainted and died. That is probably true of most people's lives for we all face adversity. It certainly would have been a less painful course, though a more bitter end, in the final analysis. The roads life presented me with certainly weren't agreeable to what I personally preferred. My nature is that of a quiet listener, observer and thinker, and certainly not that of a speaker or participant on any stage.
I did not seek out the Unamended controversy. I was faced with it the day a respected Unamended brother handed me Robert Roberts' Resurrection to Condemnation. While I could not accept everything brother Roberts wrote — "poor brother Roberts!" was my first reaction — I saw the first time I started to read the book that he had points, or arguments, that the Thomas Williams / J. J. Andrew position could not answer. I had been well schooled in Blood of the Covenant by J. J. Andrew and had thoroughly enjoyed reading the writings of Thomas Williams. But I was not ready at that time to accept the fact that "I might be wrong."
Here and there, as the Bible was studied, issues related to the subject would come up over and over. They did so to an extent that when I returned to Resurrection to Condemnation, I was prepared to test my own beliefs. I was ready to "seek". I was anxious to know if I had "the faith" and to confess my error and change if needed. What I did find was that my own beliefs were a confused mixture of truth and error. I believed I was still mortal, but I also believed I was "out of Adam", though the thing I got from Adam was sin in the flesh and its consequent mortality. I believed that the blood of Christ was the power by which men were raised from the grave, though I believed unfaithful saints were raised with faithful saints — that is to say, by that same power. I had once believed the "law of sin" was a legal condemnation and that it was removed at baptism, though I had more than enough evidence that the law of sin was still at work in my baptized body warring against the law of my mind — like the baptized apostle's body. And so forth. The result was that I felt compelled to share my research with other Christadelphians who might be in a similar position.
A book was written, Advocatism Exposed, against the Unamended position with the evidence in hand at that point in time. The language of the book was, at times, abrasive. I was, as I have previously confessed, angry at having been lied to. Not lied to by one person, but lied to by a confluence of historical events that had created a community which was itself under a cloud. I have admitted the book was flawed publicly and publicly and privately apologized to some individuals involved at the time for the flaws I introduced into the controversy (and those apologies were unfortunately misused by some brethren who saw profit in me admitting any failure... but such is life).
The result of the book, of course, was that I found myself quite unpopular with a group of brethren I respected and loved but could no longer walk with. My heart still mourns for that loss of companionship. Though the work had been done as a matter of conscience, I did take some comfort in the fact that expressions of approval arose from other Fellowships. I knew there were others who saw the truth the same as I did.
After I joined the Central Fellowship the issue of clean flesh came up. The book Saved By His Life was the initial source of the controversy. I was more than happy to stay on the sidelines of this controversy. I remember thinking how glad I was knowing that there were knowledgeable and competent brethren in Central who could and would deal with it, if there was in fact a problem. I now felt like I was in the place I felt I should have been in, in the Unamended community — an observer, not in the position of an elder brother acting against fundamental false doctrine.
As time proceeded brethren in my own ecclesia were becoming involved in one way or another through their own relationships. Discussions of these things carried into private and ecclesial discussions. As things proceeded, I again felt morally obligated to "try the spirits". I wondered if such a large group of people could be right on any points of doctrine which they advocated and I was prepared to accept anything I found to be Scriptural. The first thing I found was that the language being used was confusing. Things did not add up. One thing was said, and then another thing was said that contradicted the first... by the same teacher. After some period of time I had a "eureka" moment and I understood what the problem was. By this time I was coming to the conclusion that there was an unwillingness of brethren in Central to stand up on the issue since some of the leaders of the current clean flesh movement were so popular. Others were unwilling to look at the issues because of who those leaders were. Others were deceived by the language being used -- they interpreted other men's words according to their own personal beliefs, not according to what the teachers believed, and therefore what they were actually saying. I felt morally obligated to show that "good words and fair speeches" were being used by clean flesh teachers to mislead brethren from the truth. I wanted to show brethren that the current incarnation of clean-flesh shares the same doctrinal basis as the 1873 form of clean-flesh. I presented that research in the book Transgressions and Sin.
I subsequently found that there is a long and well documented history of clean flesh teachers claiming not to be clean flesh on the basis that they believe in the mortality of man. I regret that this particular point was not included in Transgressions and Sin. I also had my first exposure to Harry Fry's book, Echoes of Past Controversies. I found the book to be a serious trial of my personal beliefs, at first, till I discovered that the book used language dishonestly. Furthermore, Fry dishonestly cut and pasted quotations to make them say what he wanted. I looked the quotes up, read the articles they were taken from, and was shocked at the intellectual dishonesty of Fry. Fry was able to word things in a way that "sounded right" while in fact they were advocating error. But before I discovered that I was engaged in serious thought and prayer concerning the ideas he put forward.
Like the former controversy, the arguments and the historical research were not flawed, but the style of argumentation was not as dispassionate as I would have liked. Many of the brethren that had given accolades over Advocatism Exposed were now angry with me. Now their friends were the target of criticism. Some who criticized were in a position to act themselves, yet what did they do to counter the errors being taught? And I really felt that they would have had more of an influence on me if they had stepped in and said, "look, let me show you by my own works how to properly defend the truth" and then done something. Others, who thought diplomatic measures like "talking things out" could be substituted for genuine doctrinal agreement, were upset with me. My circle grew smaller but I knew what I valued more.
I faced the question of fellowship many times, though none so serious as on three specific occasions. The first time was when I left the Unamended community. I believed all the bad things said in the Unamended community about Central ("they're all clean flesh") because I had no real information to counter it so I went to a separatist Fellowship. The second time I had to face the issue was when I, as a member of a separatist fellowship, tried to convince Graeham Mansfield he was wrong to be "in Central". Armed with a list of Scriptures and a Berean collection of pioneer quotations on fellowship I attempted to convince Graeham he was wrong. As it turned out, I left the meeting with a mental dizziness I've never experienced before or since. I went into the meeting so convinced I was right and yet Graeham had proved I was wrong on fellowship and that I had misinterpreted (based on the Berean misrepresentations) those Scriptures and pioneer writings. It did not take me long to come to terms with the fact that I had been wrong and I had to do something about it. Shortly after that I "joined" Central. The third time I faced this issue was because a Berean challenged me. I had begun, again, to have some doubts on the issue and so I figured that I would lay out my arguments and if anyone could disprove them a Berean ought to be able. In this course of things I found 1) the pioneer quotes which overthrew Berean claims were either not included or misrepresented 2) pioneer quotes were cut from context 3) pioneer quotes were edited for Berean consumption. Bereans have not even made an attempt at proving their "worldwide fellowship without exception" doctrine -- I think because when you lay things out on the table (a few relevant Scripture citations and the pioneer quotes they avoid or misrepresent) it is an apparently defective doctrine which cannot be defended -- yet their very basis of existence is rooted in that one doctrine.
On fellowship, I made a journey from having no real position, to being a separatist, to today holding a position that reflects, so far as is possible, Apostolic practice. Like the former controversies, I do not believe the arguments and the historical research were flawed, but the style of argumentation was not as dispassionate as I would like. Amongst the Bereans, men who I had supposed were friends were now... well... we do not have to go there. Let's just say that my circle grew smaller, but I still did not lose sight of what's most important to me.
These things remind me how important it is that we learn today all we can learn about what is right and true and just and honest and good. And that men will think differently about the value of holding the truth in the day of judgment.
This last issue, the issue of fellowship was especially trying at times as my leading opponent has dishonestly represented me as being in league with clean flesh and those of an anti-pioneer attitude. It would be very nice indeed if we could divorce personalities from controversies all together. To a certain extent we can try and do that. But brother Roberts comments on the topic are correct:
"Several worthy friends have lamented the complication of the question with personal ingredients, and have expressed strong disapprobation of what has appeared to them the intemperate tone which the Editor has imparted to the controversy. Why, say they, cannot the question be discussed apart from names and persons? Their views are to be respected as those of men desiring to see truth prevail on its naked merits. But there is another side. Such questions never have been debated in this world without personal bearings, and they cannot in the nature of things be detached from them. It is personal transactions that bring them into controversy. Persons are their instruments; and they can no more be dealt with apart from these instruments than politics can be discussed without some reference to the actors on the political stage. This very obvious fact is illustrated nowhere more forcibly than in the Scriptures throughout, in which, at every stage, persons stand forth as the occasion and symbols of the various phases of national character or doctrinal agitations recorded. The spirit of the objection is estimable enough: but the form of it is out of harmony with practical earnest life as we find it under the circumstances now existing on the globe." The Christadelphian, 1885, p. 61
So the first point I would like my readers to understand is that these are issues that I did not go looking for. Rather, at times I felt like the issues pursued me. I felt pressed to give time and attention to the things being presented. When an issue comes up again and again, it tends to get my attention and causes me to think. On these issues I felt compelled to look into them: first for my sake and the sake of my own family, to know what the truth is and to be convinced that I do have a correct knowledge of "the faith".
I like this quote from brother Thomas about controversy, especially the part I've italicized:
"Sin, then, takes away 'the answer of a good conscience towards God', and converts it into an evil conscience; which may be certainly known to exist, when the subject of it is ashamed of the truth, and harassed by 'doubts and fears'. They are ashamed of the truth, who, being enlightened, feel themselves condemned; or, being ignorant, apprehend it. Such, on account of unbelief, or of 'a dead faith', may well be ashamed and afraid; for to be ashamed of God’s truth is to be ashamed of His wisdom and power. People of this description proscribe all conversation about the truth as unfashionable, and vulgar; or as calculated to disturb the peace of the family circle; others, again, make a great outcry against controversy as dangerous to religion; as though God’s truth could be planted in the hearts of men, already prepossessed by God’s enemy, without controversy: others subjected to the timidity of sin, reduce everything to opinion, and inculcate 'charity'; not that they are more liberal and kind than other people; but that they fear lest their own nakedness may be discovered, and 'men see their shame'; while another class of bashful professors cry out, 'Disturb not that which is quiet', which is a capital maxim for a rotten cause, especially where its subversion would break up all 'vested interests', and pecuniary, emoluments. So it is; while 'the righteous are bold as a lion, the wicked flee when no man pursueth'. Sinners, however 'pious' they may be reputed to be, are invariably cowards; they are ashamed of a bold stand for their own profession; and afraid of an independent and impartial examination of the law and testimony of God." (Elpis Israel)
It is a fact of life that the things that are worthwhile do not come easily.
Why These Doctrines Have Been Controversial
But then, we might ask, why have these topics been a source of controversy after the truth was established in the Christadelphian community, say 1849-1870? The issues involved touch on core issues of the Gospel truth and how we are to practice and live it: the nature of man, the condemnation man is under, man's responsibility to God, a saint's responsibility to his brothers and sisters etc. I realize there are some who view the topics as isolated issues. They might argue that we all believe in the Abrahamic promises, the coming kingdom, redemption through the sacrifice of Christ &c. and therefore we should not make issues of these doctrinal disagreements. My response is that when you only have a general knowledge of the truth you can certainly hold general ideas about what the truth is. General ideas ("for God so loved the world...") do not create conflicts as readily as specific ideas ("what world is being spoken of?"). "Even the devils believe" (James 2:19) some things that are true. But when you examine ideas more closely you might find that one point contradicts another basic point and so on. So general ideas are not the basis our faith should be built on -- unless you are willing to be "led down the garden path" at some point by someone else who holds error. Those who spend more time in front of the TV or participating in social events, than in reading the Bible and in thinking may disagree. I have faith that time will reveal otherwise.
In short, the items I've looked at are controversial. They have generated controversy because the things touched are on important to those who value the Gospel truth. If they weren't important ecclesias, even families, would not divide over them time and time again. My goal has been to gather documentation and arguments into a place where seekers can find the truth.
Flaws and Personal Growth
The Truth is not flawed but the author of the material on this web site is flawed. I recognize that, and have since I first found the Truth. I want to be clear that I am not confessing to the slanderous things said about me by those who wouldn't know me from Adam (not that I saying anything about Adam mind you!). I have made no attempt to pretend I am perfect. And the material on the web site reflects those flaws. If I could take the material and make it a purely dispassionate defense of Truth I would. But that is beyond my limitations. If another person could take the research, the arguments, the logic of the positions, removing from it the flaws, I would gladly remove this site. But there is a lot of research, both Scriptural and historical that is currently found no where else. No where I am aware of.
As a non-Christadelphian child I believed in "truth". And I believed that God rewarded those who sought Him. As a child, I read the Bible believing God would show me Truth if I sought Him. But I could not have known how much I did not know. The Bible was nothing more than a confusing book of stories which I could not make any sense of. There were righteous people and unrighteous people. Of course, I wanted to be one of the righteous people. God did show me the truth when I was old enough to come in contact with the Christadelphians. I was still searching those many years later, wandering in and out of various religious groups looking at what they believed. I was still sure God would show me truth. When I found The Truth I embraced it. Over the years I have changed doctrinally and behaviorally. I have regrets about wrong things I've done but I have no regrets about the changes I've made. I have no regrets that I have pursued the truth wherever it would lead me.
For years I looked at my own flaws and failures and naively believed in a "turning point" in which I would finally become the person I so strongly wanted to be. Maturity has shown me that real growth is a long and painful process, not an overnight 'turning point' (a flesh pleasing dream), and we cannot grow in faith without that long and painful process of trial. I also know, from personal experience, that people are not always immediately ready to challenge their personal beliefs. I have developed patience in that respect, knowing that God has been patient with me.
The Web Site: Up or Down?
Controversy for controversy's sake is a disease. I have always known this. My critics will accuse me of having this disease, but I have faith that time will reveal the truth. In my personal studies (things not posted to the web site) I have been careful to avoid two things: 1) getting bogged down in some controversial topic and 2) specialization or over focus on one specific area of the Truth, a "bag" as some people call it (as in, "my bag is prophecy" or better yet, "my bag is walk"). The truly spiritual mind cannot thrive on a monotonous diet.
On the web site I have pulled parts of the site down, heavily edited some sections and given serious thought to removing the entire web site.
I knew that if I was wrong in something, someone else would point it out and I could examine it and correct things if needed.
Whenever I seriously start thinking of taking the web site down I get an email from someone who has had their own "eureka" (I have found) experience with some help from the web site. I want to thank those persons for contacting me. The emails I have received have meant more than the senders can realize. I have very much appreciated the comments and encouragement. I am no stoic. I very much care about the welfare of brethren and state of the ecclesias. I am human and have more than my share of the infirmities associated with mortality, and I long to see the Kingdom of God established on earth when the long trials and controversies are put to silence and the loneliness for like minded persons, for truth seekers, will be at an end.
Note to those concerned one way or the other: I have no plans to take the web site down. Lobbying by errorists or their supporters will only help me realize the importance of keeping the web site up.
Gossip, Slander and My Personal Responsibility to Others
There is one other thing I'd like to address. It would be foolish to address the various slanders that have been circulated about me. A few brethren have encouraged me to actively counter these things. I think it would be a foolish pursuit and use of my time. I am happy to address brothers and sisters who have the courage and morality to contact me directly if they have questions.
My involvement in controversies has won me few friends. I accept that my mistakes, in one sense, justify chastisement, while at the same time I recognize that it may be handed out in unrighteousness. Assyria meeted out just punishment but it was wasn't an act of virtue but rather the basis of their own condemnation afterwards.
Most people are always ready to grab onto anything that injures the reputation of those they dislike or [whisper] hate. It is natural to our human nature to think evil of others. More prevalent, it is used as a convenient escape from having to actually think and deal with ideas. Our natural tendency towards this is why the New Testament is clear about esteeming others as better than ourselves. If you don't cut off wrong thinking, at the root, that root of bitterness grows.
One criticism that comes up time and time again is that I live in some isolated corner of the world. One brother recently suggested that I must not feel any sense of responsibility to others, based on where I live. It is natural to the flesh that once you have a critic in your crosshairs, any reason to criticize looks valid. The irony was that my critic lives out in a rural area himself. If I felt no responsibility I would not have spent the time and money (not to mention the other personal costs involved) I've spent in trying to help others understand issues that have been controverted for the last 100 years (really, since the Apostolic truth came into existence). Where I live is a matter of how life unfolded. In more youthful years I would probably have picked up and left. But now I have responsibilities — things I am old enough to recognize and appreciate — to local brothers and sisters who cannot or do not want to pick up and leave. That is how things currently stand. If things change, as they invariably do, then new opportunities may arise.
I have no desire to take myself or my family where we are not welcome or to be attacked by those whose minds rise no higher than in holding persons in admiration. Or if a person's basic concern is in being well received in the Christadelphian community, we probably have very little in common. For those not chained down by such considerations I would be happy to travel and meet with, to speak, to exhort, or to make presentations publicly, and privately where I am welcome. I also welcome the opportunity to receive exhortation and instruction. I still have many many things to learn. If it can be arranged within the constraints of time and health, I, along with my sister wife and two children, would be more than happy to travel anywhere in the US or Canada, at our own expense, to spend time with brethren who either hold the truth or who are questioning things related to the controversial topics covered on this site. Barring that, I invite seekers to contact me via email to discuss the issues. I also enjoy Bible types very much and believe that many have not received the attention they deserve. I am not interested in argument but with genuine inquirers, searchers and kindred spirits. To encourage one another in these closing final days is both an honor and a privilege. If you would like to contact me via email please do so using the name steve which is at genusa . com (written to avoid spam harvesting).
"As individuals, he has no controversy with them. His opposition is to their systems, which he trusts they will abandon for the gospel of the kingdom."