 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
Questions and Answers Regarding
Fellowship and the Practices of
Fellowships Who Claim to
"Uphold the Pioneer Practices"
"A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all sound judgment."
Proverbs 18:1"We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth. I wrote unto the ecclesia: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the ecclesia. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God."
3rd John 8-11"In our generation, as in that of the apostles, the ecclesia, or general assembly of the many, who are called,
is composed of these heterogeneous materials. It has been thus in all generations before and since Satan,
in the days of Job, mingled with the Sons of the Deity, when they presented themselves in the Divine presence (Job 1:6).
The satanic element has ever been among them with its 'depths as they speak' (ch. 2:24), corrupting and perverting the weak.
In the wisdom of the Deity, Satan has been permitted to practice, and to deceive the hearts of the simple,
who are 'ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth' (2 Tim. 3:7), without judicial interference."
(John Thomas, Eureka, vol 5, p. 81, in one of his most "mature" writings)
Question: Is the Central Fellowship "the true fellowship" as opposed to all others which are 'separatist groups'?
Answer: I was recently contacted by a brother who wrote me saying, "What I have gathered is you have defended the Central fellowship as the true fellowship as opposed to all others which are 'separatist groups'. Is this correct?"
This is not correct and it misses a central (excuse the term) point I have made. I don't have time to go through all the material I've written on the topic but, for the record, here are a few places I have addressed this: Here, here, and here.
NO MAN MADE FELLOWSHIP institution is "the true fellowship". This point is really clear once we look beyond the here-and-now state of things and get into what the Scriptures clearly teach and demonstrate concerning the apostolic doctrine of fellowship and apostolic practice. The Christadelphian community (in toto) has evolved as a matter of doctrine and practice. I discuss this point in a number of places (see the following Q/A for example). One of the MODERN innovations is this idea of being in fellowship with everyone in our own man-made Fellowship (Institution). This is an unscriptural idea and an unchristadelphian idea (by that I mean, it is not what the early Christadelphians commonly believed).
- There is only one True Fellowship in the sense of the one true community of Yahweh, Christ and His saints.
- There are many man-made Fellowship institutions, none of them inclusively in the one True Fellowship. I believe individuals — as opposed to ecclesias and unions of ecclesias — from various man-made Fellowships may be, and are, in fellowship with the Father, His Son and one another at any given time. I believe the inclusion of individuals is based on their beliefs, practices and level of maturity and responsibility as determined by Christ, the head of the one Body. To deny this principle is to believe that somehow every saint in the earth, babe and elder, has to find every other saint in the earth and then identify themselves under one earthly institution for fellowship to exist with the Father and the Son or even "with one another". Most brethren would probably agree that the one true Fellowship consists of various scattered brethren taken out of various man-made Fellowships, though some would not be in the position to publicly say it (even some who believed this in years past but for present position would not be able to state it publicly any longer).
- The letters of the Apocalypse clearly demonstrate that some ecclesial members were in fellowship with the Father and the Son while others in apostolic ecclesias were not in fellowship. Could it be said, that these ecclesias having Nicolaitanes, Jezebelites &c. were, without qualification, "in fellowship" with the Father and the Son? Why is it then that people want to claim something today that did not exist in apostolic times? And to solve that problem ecclesias were not commanded, exhorted or advised to band together to purify "the true fellowship".
- In apostolic times there was no attempt to organize ecclesias into a single man-made Fellowship institution, no Central Fellowship, no Berean Fellowship, no Unamended Fellowship and no [fill in the blank] Fellowship. There was the command and exhortation to believe and obey apostolic doctrine, to walk in the light, and to not have fellowship with those who did not do likewise. Individuals were to judge themselves in relation to their own ecclesia (and vice versa) and ecclesias were to autonomously determine their position relative to one another (and vice versa).
- We have a responsibility individually and ecclesially, within Scripturally defined limits, to limit our own fellowship to those who believe and practice those apostolic doctrines. Some things are open before the judgment-seat, others follow after and we are not authorized, commanded, exhorted or advised to go beyond apostolic precept in erecting man-made walls to either establish or purify a man-made world-wide institution.
- What we have today, fraternally, is a man-made mess, which is beyond human repair because it is all based on a false premise which was seeded circa mid-1920's, sprouted circa 1940's, and took deep root circa 1950's: the idea of world-wide fellowship in a man-made Institution. What can be done to solve this problem? To create yet another man-made world-wide institution (which is the false premise) which attempts to "fix" the problem would only exacerbate the problem and create new man-made divisions which separate us from those who believe and practice the same things we do. This does not mean I have to accept, or to consider myself in fellowship with every individual or ecclesia who is "in Central". It certainly does not mean I have to believe Central is "the true fellowship as opposed to all others"! The Central Fellowship represents the root from which all other Christadelphian Fellowships have come. It doesn't owe its existence to the mold of unsound doctrine on fellowship or resurrectional responsiblity. And it allows me, and the ecclesia I belong to, to practice fellowship without intervention, autonomously, just as the first Christadelphians did. That some within that community have a false belief on how fellowship works does not affect how fellowship actually works any more than the false ideas held by someone in any community invalidates what truth or reality actually is.
- These are the last days when there is no king in Israel [fill in your Fellowship name here, unless of course, it is not part of "Israel" (Rom 9:6)] and it is more acceptable to many modern Christadelphians to practice one of two extremes: you are either supposed to accept everyone in a broad Fellowship institution (of which I would classify Central and the Unamended) as being "in fellowship", or you are supposed to accept the alternative of running off to the 'safety' and 'comfort' of a Fellowship Institution that selectively erect new walls and barriers to fellowship under the false flag of upholding original Christadelphian practices -- when in reality many join it because of personal issues, and whose house is supposedly not on fire, and who have a predilection for rewriting Christadelphian history to suit their separatist tendencies. I accept neither of these popular alternatives, and I am convinced, based on studying the Scriptures, that Christ does not judge these alternatives as acceptable either.
Answer: Brethren, in general, seem to be under the misapprehension that brother Roberts not only wanted to, but was responsible for bringing Christadelphian ecclesias under a common Statement of Faith. Brethren arrive at that conclusion by looking at the current state of things in the brotherhood and projecting the current situation back onto our early history. What they fail to realize is that 120 years of history have altered original Christadelphian practice. Controversies and divisions, in particular, have had a significant effect.
In fact, early Christadelphian ecclesias were each responsible for drawing up, adapting, or adopting their own Statement of Faith. I know brethren who have packs of old Statements of Faith, some very similar or identical, and others quite different from the BSF/BASF. There are ecclesias in Central today that still have their own unique Statement of Faith.
The Birmingham Statement of Faith was called the Birmingham SOF because it was the SOF adopted by the Birmingham ecclesia -- surprise?! The North London ecclesia had a... North London SOF. The Boston ecclesia had... the Boston SOF, and so forth. Each ecclesia met and drew up, altered an existing SOF or just adopted an existing SOF as they saw fit to meet upon as an ecclesia -- not as a Fellowship but as an ecclesia . There were no dictates handed down and no attempts to force ecclesias to adopt a standard SOF.
But what happened was that with time brethren began to just adopt the Birmingham SOF as their own ecclesial SOF. The amendment made to the BSF in 1898, resulting in the BASF, simply accelerated this process of adoption. Most Christadelphian ecclesias, throughout the world, were sympathetic with the Birmingham "reaffirmation" of beliefs they had always held and so the easiest thing to do, in opposition to the teachings of Thomas Williams and J. J. Andrew, was to adopt the BASF.
So there was no plan to move Christadelphian ecclesias to a single SOF. It was, like so many other things in history, the unplanned shape that things took by the forces of historical events. And please notice that the significant shift to a single SOF occurred after the death of brother Roberts.
If we are to judge brother Roberts by his actions and by his words, we must say that there not only was no attempt on his part to create a common statement of faith (and the behavior of ecclesias at that time showed no sign of any movement in that regards), but brother Roberts' own words in 1881 plainly give us his (mature) judgment about a common SOF. In answer to a correspondent brother Roberts wrote,
"'Justice.'—Your proposal for the simultaneous adoption of a common statement of faith by all the ecclesias is made with the best of objects; but it could not accomplish the end you seek. It is not possible in the present state of things to bring all to harmony and stop the mouths of talkers. If the Apostles did not succeed in this, none else need hope to do so. We can but do our best and let things take their course."
Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1881, p. 572
It is interesting to imagine this response being addressed to one of the Berean leaders, say FGJ, or GVG, instead of 'Justice'. If the reader is willing to consider the implications of this he will see that the Berean division might not have ever occurred, or corrected by a later generation. But I digress.
Notice that "our best", in brother Roberts' judgment, did not include the demand of a common Statement of Faith! This is a stark contrast to the behavior of separatist Fellowships such as the Bereans who not only demand a common SOF (BASF) but they also demand a common ecclesial constitution and other "fellowship defining material" generated circa 1960.
Now, if the reader will give this a little thought he or she will realize that the worldwide fellowship doctrine advocated by the Bereans is dead without a common SOF. Bereans, for example, base their oneness of fellowship on all ecclesias adopting the Berean "fellowship defining material". In a separatist Fellowship, a single ecclesia having a non-standard Statement of Faith would, by its very nature of being different, introduce questions of whether or not the faith of all those they claim to have fellowship with was in fact the same faith. The uncertainty which a non-standard or non-common Statement of Faith would introduce is not compatible with the absoluteness found in separatists' beliefs that they have "fellowship with all in our community who share in the emblems".
And yet what does Christadelphian history show? It is a fact that pre-1900 Christadelphian ecclesias each had their own SOF -- again some similar and some very different. What they had was an individual choice, an autonomous choice, of each ecclesia. The Berean worldwide fellowship doctrine, "all in our community who share the emblems", has no basis for existence under that condition!
But those were the conditions brother Thomas and brother Roberts both established and broke bread under. Note: Brother John Thomas never could have broken bread under the BASF (1898) or the BSF (1873) for he was dead (1871) before those particular Statements of Faith even existed! So what else does it demonstrate? It demonstrates that the Berean doctrinal position and practices in relation to "worldwide fellowship" are not the same as brother Thomas' and brother Roberts' doctrinal position and practices concerning "worldwide fellowship" (a phrase which, incidentally, does not appear in The Christadelphian magazine till 1969 -- One Nine Six Nine, not 1-8-6-9).
So do the Bereans really hold the "mature" | "pioneer" | "original" Christadelphian position on fellowship as they claim? Modern Bereans and all separatist Fellowships have made a serious mistake. They take the conditions which existed circa 1923 (and today) where ecclesias were, for the most part, meeting on the same Statement of Faith and they imposed that onto the pre-1900 "pioneer" Christadelphian community. On that basis they claim that brother Thomas and brother Roberts believed they were in fellowship with all in their community who shared in the emblems (even though we have writings that indicate otherwise). Only problem is, the basis for that argument, the common Statement of Faith, just did not exist amongst most ecclesias pre-1900. And brother Thomas and brother Roberts never made the move to establish a common Statement of Faith -- rather, the documentation we have and the actions of the ecclesias at that time plainly indicate they were not in favor of a common Statement of Faith. So the separatist position is a fantasy. A convenient fantasy.
History speaks once again to those with ears to hear and hearts able to receive what is true.
Incidentally, it is also worthy of note that the Bereans were not formed until this movement of ecclesias to a single SOF was almost complete.
Common
Statement of Faith
Required?Common Constitution
Required?Claim of "Fellowship with all in our community who share in the emblems"? Holy Spirit founded Apostolic Ecclesias The desire or labor of brother John Thomas? The desire or labor of brother Robert Roberts? Pre-1900 Christadelphian Ecclesias The Bereans who, oddly, claim to
uphold the pioneer position on fellowship
and to be
the only fellowship upholding original Christadelphian fellowship practices!
From The Berean Ecclesial News, July 1999
Sample of Berean Claims Based More on Wishful Thinking Than Historical Fact
Answer:
Some of these same arguments are true in regards to other separatist Fellowships like the Dawn, Old Paths, and other Separatist Fellowships.
Robert Roberts — Specificity
or
"the constrained vision"
The Bereans — Open Ended
or
"the unconstrained vision"
From the Introduction to the Berean Restatement
Question: Jim Phillips accuses you of "word smithing" the phrase "fellowship without exception". Did you invent the phrase?
Answer: I came up with the phrase, though it is possible others may have used it before me. But there is some additional detail I should add. First, I came up with the phrase because it seemed, and still does, to be an accurate way of concisely stating the Berean position on fellowship -- that is, they believe in a worldwide fellowship table in which everyone who breaks bread is in fellowship together. Secondly, "word smithing" suggests the use of words to mislead or deceive. No deception was intended and I have not heard of any deception that has been perpetrated by the use of this phrase. Rather, Jim continues to hold to this doctrine as I will show. Third, these are Jim Phillips' own words to me, verbatim:
"We do believe that all Berean Christadelphians are in fellowship with each other, without exception." -- Jim Phillips, Berean
So I set the expression forward as a concise representation of Berean views on fellowship. Jim thought the phrase was accurate so he used it himself in describing the Berean view of fellowship! Now, after Jim sees that my arguments are a threat to Berean claims, Jim turns and accuses me of dishonesty in my use of the phrase "without exception".
Is this a case where it depends on what the definition of what "is" is? Really, does the phrase
"without exception"
have another meaning than what everyone understands the phrase to mean? Jim's endorsement was no 'slip of the pen'. He also wrote the same idea, in his own words, as follows:
"We do believe we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems." -- Jim Phillips, Berean
His definition is all I intended to say with the phrase "fellowship without exception" -- viz., "fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems".
In light of the quotes from brother John Thomas which I produced as witnesses against Berean claims, I can understand how the phrase might cause some Bereans to draw back and start trying to explain it away -- or to accuse me of being deceptive (depite the fact that Jim used the same phrase and the fact that my definition matched his own explanation of the Berean position). Jim knows that it does the Bereans no good to have the differences between their position on fellowship and the Thomas/Roberts'/Original Christadelphian position on fellowship painted in clear terms. However, either you believe in the idea of worldwide fellowship with every person who partakes of the emblems or you do not. The Bereans, and other separatist Fellowships do. Brethren Thomas and Robert did not and their writings demonstrate that.
Now, that Jim believes this doctrine is further shown in this: This doctrine of "worldwide fellowship without exception" is the very basis upon which Jim Phillips accuses me of giving "lip service", as he calls it, to not fellowshiping heretics. His own claim is that I fellowship heretics -- not within my own ecclesia -- but by virtue of being in Central. So you see he believes in the doctrine, like all who hold Berean doctrine on fellowship do. He imposes his own doctrine of worldwide fellowship without exception on me, though I do not believe it is Scriptural.
I do not believe the fellowship without exception doctrine is a Biblical doctrine. The apostle Paul did not. The early Christadelphians did not. Or maybe the Bereans are right and Christ fellowshipped the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees. That's a novel idea. Christ fellowshipped those who were perpetrators of his own crucifixion -- men who he called whited sepulchres and children of the devil. They were, after all, in the same Israelitish Fellowship. And, last I checked the Gospels, they attended the same synagogues to meet at the same time as every other Jew. So are the standards by which Bereans judge the same for all, or are they conveniently situational? They apply the principle when it suits their argument and they forget or ignore it when it suits them. Perhaps the Bereans believe in the "non-fellowship" doctrine after all. Or then again maybe they believe Paul fellowshipped the immoral Corinthian. Or perhaps they believe Christ fellowshipped the Jezebelitish and Nicolaitane elements of the ecclesias? Or maybe they will argue fellowship worked differently in those days? Or like the Unamended, they can claim that those particular words applied to the Jews only? When the Berean leadership decides where they can safely set foot down, for words do communicate ideas, please let me know.
Jim is happy to claim the doctrine of fellowship without exception for his Fellowship; and he is more than happy to use this doctrine as the basis for pejorative attacks upon non-Berean brethren. So why he calls it word smithing is beyond my ability to understand... unless he's doing it so as to not miss a chance at ascribing pejorative labels to non-Bereans. I think Jim is throwing dust up to distract from the now exposed and false position he occupies.
Answer:
The analogy is misleading though a convenient one for those who wish to avoid the Scriptural issues and Christadelphian history.
It strikes me as odd to see brethren, who on the one hand present themselves as advocates on behalf of a rightly divided Word of truth, and present themselves as individuals who have thoughtfully weighed out the issues of fellowship, and who then make such unworthy arguments.
The analogy, as presented, paints a picture of something that will undoubtedly be destroyed: A house burning to the ground. Therefore the analogy suggests the obvious conclusion which is simplistic: flee the burning house and move into the analogist's house. The analogy might be all that's needed to convince someone who is predisposed to accept the separatist position, but the simplicity of the argument (to a thoughtful mind), and its leading answer, suggests that such an obvious conclusion has no real basis upon which to safely be founded because it does not take into account the true issues involved.The advocates of this analogy will have us accept their conclusion (flee to save yourself and your family) but they won't like it if you take their analogy and turn it around using Scriptural precepts:
"The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep" (John 10:13)
"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it NOT to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me." (Matthew 25:45)
"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (1st Peter 1:7)
"Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is." (1st Cor 3:13)
"And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." (Jude 23)
The burning house analogy not only leads to the answer of fleeing, but it promotes self-interests above the interests of some whom we are told to esteem better than ourselves. The analogy, even if unintentionally, promotes a selfish attitude of leaving others, some of which are brethren of the Lord, to burn.
If the house is the body of Christ the falsity of the analogy is manifest. You do not flee from the body of Christ unless you are a hireling. That is what Christ said. The hireling sees the wolf and he flees, because, as the Lord says, he is an hireling and cares not for the Lord's brethren.
If the house is a man-made Fellowship institution, none will survive. So every Fellowship is "on fire". I do not think I need to prove this as history, and a knowledge of human nature, speaks to that point.I consider the changes the Bereans have made to their basis of fellowship significant, and we are only some 84 years out since the first fellowship action was taken. That's not to mention how many times the Bereans have subsequently split, taken on new names and altered various doctrines to suit the new Fellowship. And when Bereans have to send around an email asking people to hide their tattoos when attending Bible school, we learn that the Bereans who decry the worldliness of other Fellowships are made of sinful flesh just like those they have separated from. But then, they are more secretive about hiding it from outsiders because they have an image of "purity" to maintain. Other problems within the Bereans have been mentioned elsewhere so I won't digress.
The brotherhood has never been strong. Read your Bible and see if it isn't so (O ye analogists). The epistles and Apocalyptic letters are more than enough evidence (see the next question and answer). The testimony of the pioneer brethren testify to the state of the brotherhood in their day.
So the "house" has been on fire since it was founded in Eden. Read your Bible and see if it isn't so. But the true house to be built out of the raw materials that undergo fire won't be destroyed. And all the elements of that house, according to the Gospel, will have been purified by fire. So when people want to flee from the fire a red light ought to flash in the minds of the hearer.
And it speaks volumes when the only interests you ever hear promoted with this analogy are self-interests. There's never a sober consideration of God's ways and God's doings and God's honor, O ye analogists. Hear your own argument, please, if you will.
Anemic analogies are a rallying cry, not a thoughtful weighing of the Scriptures, the issues, the complexities, and the historical facts.
Here's a partial list of problems which afflicted the early ecclesias. A longer list could be made but I think it sufficiently demonstrates the desire of some brethren to overlook infallible testimony, written for our instruction.
- Those who would not receive into fellowship true brethren
- Those who cast true brethren out of the ecclesia
- Those who denied the resurrection
- Those who taught the resurrection was past already
- Those who denied Jesus came in the flesh
- Those who were accepting false teachers
- Misuse of spirit gifts
- Gnosticism
- Nicolaitanism
- Jezebellian teachers
- Judaizing
- The teaching of Jewish fables
- False prophets
- False apostles
- Incest / Fornication / Sexual immortality
- Respect of persons
- Reliance on human wisdom
- Those who love the present evil world
- Using the legal system to acquire and dispossess
- Those who taught brethren should sin that grace might abound
- Misuse of the memorial table
- Those who refused to work
- Those who testified against the apostles
Finally, see the description of the community from JT & RR written at a time which brethren would describe as the ecclesia's latter-day Philadelphian ("a little strength") period.
So, no, I do not accept the argument that things are worse today than in apostolic time, except in one sense: we have what the apostolic ecclesias did not have: a multitude of "Fellowships" all claiming to be the faithful One True Body of Christ.
Answer: The "open door" position, as brother Roberts pointed out, "deprecate[s] scrupulosity" (The Christadelphian, 1891, p. 268) over who you break bread with. At the time brother Roberts addressed this issue, it was specifically over the wholly inspired Bible -- those who took the open door position were in sympathy with partial inspirationism. These same persons grew to "deprecate scrupulosity" over many other errors which they welcomed into their bosom. I make no such argument and any fair minded person who reads this page will see that the "open door" position has nothing to do with the argument I am making.
There is one similarity though, a surface similarity which Jim Phillips grabbed on to and promoted in some of his responses to me (The Berean Ecclesial News, February and March 2007). The "open door" fellowship position quoted some of brother Thomas' earliest writings on fellowship to justify themselves in taking the same position brother Thomas had taken in the 1840's to early 1850's. I have quoted some of the same articles from brother Thomas, though not limited just to his earliest writings, not "to justify loose fellowship" as Jim claims in his articles, but to show that from brother Thomas' earliest writings to his final writings he never set forward the formula that breaking bread was automatically equivalent to fellowship. Jim, taking a surface similarity (party A quotes specific writings and party B quotes some of the same writings) -- and ignoring the reason I plainly and repeatedly have stated, is actively misrepresenting the position I have argued. I take it as a sign of weakness in the Berean position when such glaring falsehoods have to be engaged in.
But even Jim knows this representation is a falsehood for he wrote, "Clearly, Bro. Thomas, in 1848, did not believe that his salvation was at all effected by those who he broke bread with. The first thing to note is that no Christadelphian body today, practices this belief as set forth by Bro. Thomas." (The Berean Ecclesial News, February 2007, p. 62-63). Like a lot of arguments Jim makes, he likes to have it both ways -- whichever suits the argument he is making at the moment.
Sept 16, 2007: Jim wrote, "Bro. Thomas in 1851 argued that fellowship was between God and Christ, and that he was not responsible for fellowshipping even immortal soulists". Jim then admits that my "argument doesn't go as far" and then claims "yet, ultimately it will have to". No Jim, you are prejudicially mistaken: 1st Tim. 6:3-5; Tit. 1:1, Tit. 3:10, 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15, Rom. 16:17, 2 Jn. 7-11, 1 Cor. 5:11-13, Eph 5:11, Rev. 2:14-15, Matt. 18:17, 1 Jn. 1:5-7.
Question: Brother Roberts wrote, "They 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." Aren't you in violation of this by being in Central?
Answer: This is frequently quoted by Bereans to argue that anyone claiming to be in the Central Fellowship must be in fellowship with one another, whether they receive a visit or not from others in the Central Fellowship. The quote, taken out of context as it is by the Bereans, appears to support the Berean claim. But notice, in the full quote below, that this isn't what brother Roberts is addressing at all! Brother Roberts is not addressing organizational affiliation which is what the Bereans turn this quote into. Brother Roberts uses, as examples, the Mormons and Church of England because the two organizations clearly define "the faith" of people who are immediately recognizable by Christadelphians as holding a faith which is not the faith of the Scriptures. Therefore it is easy to identify them as not being "in fellowship" whether we received a visit or not. Then brother Roberts puts the issue in a more practical form for Christadelphians: viz. Men 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 as "will not avow their faith in the infallibility of the Scriptures" are evidently so unsure of what the truth is ("are in such doubtful relation to the question") as to prevent men of straight purpose from having confidence in such men. Brother Roberts goes on to say "And so a body of men professing to receive the truth in its uncompromised fulness and integrity, do not require to pay or receive visits from another body or members of it, to say whether they are or are not in fellowship with it."
Brother Roberts argument was, if you define your doctrinal position, and the other party defines their doctrinal position, you will be able to say if you have fellowship whether a visit occurs or not. Some Bereans, to justify their own Fellowship, make the argument of brother Roberts into a mere matter of what Fellowship card you carry. The full quote is as follows:
"Some inaccurate ideas appear to be entertained by some on the subject of fellowship. They 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. Fellowship is that recognised 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. If, therefore, when an ecclesia is asked, “are you in fellowship with the Mormons?” it answers 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. 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 to barbarism. And so a body of men professing to receive the truth in its uncompromised fulness 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 closed his eyes."
Berean use of this quote is similar to the selective and misrepresented quotations of clean-flesh (eg. "Yes, the Lord was involved in his own sacrifice").
Question: A Berean quotes Robert Roberts where he writes, "The community as a community has become corrupt. We propose to cease our connection with it on this account." Doesn't this prove Bereans were right to take action in 1923?
Answer:
The Berean web site and "lesson" are located here. The principle stated by brother Roberts is true. Brother Roberts writes, "The community as a community has become corrupt. We propose to cease our connection with it on this account. We will go out in the name of allegiance to the Bible as God’s wholly-inspired and infallible word. This is a Scriptural line of action. To 'come out from among them' is a matter of command when a community, as such, has become hopelessly corrupt." If you read the article through, "the community" of which brother Roberts writes is the "Birmingham Ecclesia". Not the Christadelphian community as a whole.
Bereans take the principle of the article: separation is required since "The community as a community has become corrupt" and instead of applying it to the local ecclesia as brother Roberts used the principle, they argue today that separation is justified since Central "as a community has become corrupt". However, if you had read brethren Thomas' and Roberts description of the Christadelphian community in their own day you would conclude that it too was "corrupt". Yet these brethren did not take the actions that Bereans claim the pioneers would have taken (if it had been corrupt).
"I entirely agree with you in your graphic description of the barrenness of Christadelphia. Yet dry and withering as things appear within its limits, all exterior to it is scorched and destitute of any vitality at all. The Christadelphian Body in the days of the apostles abounded with professors whose hearts were but little attuned to the faith and hope they professed. Peter styles them washed hogs; and Paul, as little complimentary of them as he, terms them, 'liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies.' These were creatures who had 'crept in unawares,' and 'spoke evil of those things which they understood not;' clouds they were without water, carried about of winds of doctrine, and sporting themselves with their own deceivings, by which they beguiled unstable souls, and brought 'the way of truth' into disrepute. The influence of these, who passed themselves off for Christadelphians, was more disheartening to the apostles, and the rest of the real brethren of Christ, than all the opposition that Satan could bring to bear upon them from without. Their influence was great, yea, strong enough to turn multitudes from the truth to fables, even to old wives’ fables; and, as a consequence, to alienate them from the apostles, who had before turned them from pagan darkness, and the power of Satan. They were an element of the One Body, answering to sin in the flesh, which cannot be eradicated till this corruptible shall put on incorruptibility, and this mortal shall put on immortality." (JT to RR, The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 204).
According to the Berean's own writings 1923-1926 the Bereans raised an issue with ONE ecclesia, The Temperance Hall ecclesia. Frank Jannaway did not argue in his own account of the division that the Christadelphian community in 1923 was "hopelessly corrupt". The modern Berean suggestion that it was is another indication of the kind of revisionist history that some Bereans engage in to justify the actions taken in 1923.
The title of the article from The Christadelphian from which the quotes are taken is "The end of the Inspiration Controversy in Birmingham". The first sentence of the article says, "We have reached the end of the inspiration controversy in Birmingham." So the "community" to which bro. Roberts refers was Birmingham. Now, if the Berean contention is right, brother Roberts should have taken the action that Bereans took in 1923. He did not. He took a local action to solve the problem locally. But a little fact like this does not prevent some Bereans from construing him to support the actions of 1923.
Answer:
- The issue of fellowship is important because our behavior and our attitude towards Christ's brethren are clearly set forth, by the Scriptures, as matters of personal responsibility and matters upon which we will give an account at the judgment seat.
- What troubles me the most is that some brethren, under the plea of upholding God's righteousness, jump with little or no hesitation at the opportunity of upholding one particular responsibility, viz. our responsibility of rejecting a heretic:
- "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed"
While at the same time, they totally overlook a no less important responsibility, viz. to receive into fellowship those who conform to the teachings and practices of Christ and the Apostles:
- "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42)
- "Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me." (Mark 9:37)
- "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another." (1 John 4:11)
- "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10)
- "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; Which have borne witness of thy charity before the ecclesia: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: Because that for his name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth." (3rd John 3-8)
- "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is" Heb 10:25
- and many similar commands that the NT is filled with.
It is a hallmark of separatist thinking to magnify the first responsibility. Separatists err in minimizing the latter obligation, while the former obligation they magnify through the false doctrine of "fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems." By that particular false doctrine they can justify applying the latter obligation to a select few they want to break bread with. But when the "worldwide fellowship" doctrine (as they view it) is seen to be the falsehood that it is, and that it is not a Christadelphian doctrine, the true responsibility reappears. Christ will judge us based on our true obligations as plainly stated in the Word, not on those we voluntarily chose to recognize. It is not an invitation to submit to the gospel but a command. And when we find out what is right and still ignore it, what then? Light makes men responsible... right?
Answer:
No, I do not believe that doctrine. It is just another false doctrine which seeks to evade individual responsibility.
- "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" (2 Cor 6:14)
- "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:3)
- "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7)
Answer:
No, I do not believe this argument has any validity whatsoever. It strikes me as being similar to the partial inspirationist's theory in that, for all practical purposes, it is left to each individual to decide which instructions apply today and which they can disregard. Christ gave instructions, such as those found in Matthew 18, which in some cases would end in not having fellowship, and those instructions were given at a time when holy spirit gifts and guidance were not available. The argument is another specious argument designed to evade individual responsibility.
Answer:
- This is an interesting question because it raises a number of issues that are important to consider. I read an argument by a brother who claimed that to say,
- "we cannot tell if all brethren are walking in the light"
is to
- effectively deny that fellowship (as a reality) exists at all
because, according to this brother, the claim subverts the foundation upon which fellowship exists. The brother further argued that since a tree is known by its fruit we can always tell whether a brother or sister is walking in the light. The brother, who was writing in the midst of a controversy, was mistaken.
- If sin may be "known or heard of" (Commandments of Christ #25), it may also be unknown or unheard of. Fellowship is not founded upon an infallibility of determining other men's faithfulness or unfaithfulness. "Some men’s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later" or as the NET Bible translates it, "The sins of some people are obvious, going before them into judgment, but for others, they show up later." A brother may be a member of an ecclesia, in "good standing", with no apparent sins and yet be a nominal follower of Christ and be found unacceptable at the judgment seat. He may be quite zealous for the truth, an active student, a good speaker, but also very talented in hiding his sins -- I have known such. That "many are called but few are chosen" does not destroy fellowship or fellowship's foundation.
- A tree is known by its fruit when the fruits are manifested. The larger portion of a person's "fruits" will not be manifested, to those not intimately associated with that person, until the day of judgment. And even those intimately associated with that person will not know the "full story" till the day of judgment. That fact does not destroy fellowship or the foundation of fellowship. What it does, as a matter of fact, is it limits our ability to speak with certainty about things we have limited powers to discern and judge. But it does not destroy fellowship.
- There is such a thing as being "partakers in other men's sins" (1 Tim 5:22; 2 John 11) and therefore the Scriptures clearly indicate that where men participate in, or turn a blind eye to sinful behavior or false doctrine, they become partakers. So it is wrong to claim we have no responsibility in regards to those we have fellowship with. But, on the other hand, some Christadelphians carry this fact too far in another direction, claiming that they have fellowship with "all in our community who share in the emblems". When brethren identify their own beliefs in exaggerated or extreme terms ("all in our community") it should be a red flag that their thinking is unscriptural.
Answer:
- "This is not a new basis of fellowship; nor is it an addition to, or an alteration of, our Basis of Fellowship."
- "Our purpose is consolidation, not innovation. We desire to remove any occasion for the charge that we are setting up new requirement. "
But then the Berean claims are just not true for all the principles outlined in the restatement.- The phrase "Common Constitution" and its appearance in the list of Berean Fellowship documents does not appear in The Berean magazine until the January 1980 cover of The Berean magazine. The inclusion of the "Common Constitution" is an important element to note because the Berean Introduction, also added in 1980, notes that some issues in the Constitution are matters of fellowship. Thus, it wasn't just the issues outlined in the Berean Restatement, now all ecclesias were bound to uphold all issues noted as fellowship matters in the Common Constitution.
- The truth is, Bereans started off by breaking bread on the basis of the BASF -- the same basis as those they withdrew fellowship from: Temperance Hall(Central). They had no issue other than this: they were demanding that the Temperance Hall ecclesia (ONE ECCLESIA, not a "host of ecclesias") unreservedly uphold the BASF as the basis of fellowship. You can see this by looking at the early Berean magazines. EVERY MONTH FOR YEARS the Berean magazine printed a monthly notice that they would join in fellowship with those they had left if the problem in Temperance Hall was fixed. This indicates that they had no additional issues which they were demanding as a basis of fellowship. Here's the notice from a 1923 edition of the Berean.
The Real Original Berean Basis of Fellowship (1923)
As a statement of support of the BASF they printed the Statement of Faith in the August 1923 issue of the magazine, "unreserved acceptance of which forms our basis of fellowship". No extra points of doctrine were added to the basis of fellowship like anti-evolution, anti-conferences &c. as you find in the so-called "Always-Held" Berean Restatement.
The Berean, August, 1923
Here's the same basic statement still being published each month 3 years later, 1926:
The Real Original Berean Basis of Fellowship (1926)Notice the original Berean basis of fellowship: the BASF unreservedly. Nothing about evolution, conferences, a "common Constitution" &c. (not that I have any sympathy with evolution or its advocates... the issue here is "what was the original Berean basis of fellowship?"). The problem which Jannaway left over was in fact fixed but the Bereans then found other reasons to continue their stance, and so they removed the note from the magazine.
Doctrinally and behaviorally, everything else, as you would expect, evolved with time in the Berean community. There were smaller incremental steps taken which have resulted in the modern Berean Fellowship and their view of fellowship. This is a fact which is demonstrable in 30 seconds. Take for instance this, written by the co-editor of The Berean magazine in April 1934, C. F. Ford:
"They describe as 'of the Berean fellowship'... it is a description WE REJECT ...
There is no Berean fellowship"
C.F. Ford, Co-Editor, The Berean Magazine, April 1934, p. 131You see, some early Bereans rejected the idea that they had started a new fellowship Institution. This was written 11 years after the initial move to disfellowship Temperance Hall. To do this in one single step was too much of a doctrinal deviation from Christadelphian standards of behavior and practice. Instead the change to a Fellowship would occur gradually over a 40 year period.
Six years before the above editorial was written (and 5 years after the initial move against Temperance Hall), the Berean editors, in response to an item of ecclesial news, inserted the following note into the ecclesial news section of the magazine:
The Berean, June 1928, p. 227
In other words, not only did the early Berean editors reject the idea that they had established a new Fellowship, but they also rejected the idea of such institutions in toto. This is the same argument I've been making against the modern Berean Fellowship (and all like Fellowships) and I have been consistently opposed in contending for this by modern Bereans!
May I ask those in the "Berean Fellowship" who have opposed my arguments to step back and do a little re-examination of your own history and your changed doctrines, attitudes and behaviors? The Bereans have changed doctrinally, attitudinally, and behaviorally over the years. The main incremental steps the Berean Fellowship took are documented here:
What had been rejected 32 years earlier was now to be embraced*. In 1960 "The Berean Fellowship" was endorsed and emblazoned by the then editor as the Fellowship "of sound Christadelphianism" -- the very thing rejected by earlier editors of the Berean magazine! Use of the phrase "The Berean Fellowship" ballooned in the 1960 Berean magazine coetaneous with the Berean Restatement which breathed life into the lungs of a Fellowship Institution. The phrase appeared some 20 times that year and searches show it was rarely used in the early years of The Berean magazine, often years where it was not used at all: It was used 19 times over the first 17 years of the magazine. Think of that. That 1.1 times a year for the first 17 years and two of those appear in the above quote! In later years, there were spikes in a few years in the 40's and again a few years in the mid-50's. By the late 50's no one seemed to question use of the phrase, or the idea behind it.
* to be clear, the phrase "Berean Fellowship" was used early on, sprinkled here and there in the Berean magazine by ecclesial recorders reporting into the magazine. But the editors' note in 1928 makes it clear that these men, personally, rejected the idea. And since most correspondents avoided the phrase, the editors' note seems to reflect the mind of most ecclesial recorders. But as the years proceeded more recorders were using the phrase in their ecclesial news, and the magazine editors began using it as well.
The Berean, 1960, p. 208The Berean Fellowship appellation and its Berean Restatement is all the evidence needed for the evolution (if I may borrow the phrase) from fellowship into a Fellowship Institution. The Berean Restatement is now a central part of the Berean basis of Fellowship. Taking that away would force Bereans to return to a pre-1960 Fellowship position: The BASF, CoC and DTBR. Then, on that basis, they might find commonality with local Central ecclesias -- a thing the editor of the Berean in 1960 was completely opposed to. The Berean Restatement guaranteed that (unity) would never happen (again, as it had in the 1950's), and cannot so long as Bereans continue to cling to an unscriptural wall.
The Current Berean Basis of FellowshipIn 1980 (for a reason I do not personally know as yet), the Berean magazine made one more incremental step in forming the modern Berean Fellowship. The magazine republished the existing fellowship material but added an introduction which was entitled "Unified & Universal Berean Position". Other significant changes were made to the Restatement as noted below. Also, the "Common Constitution", a phrase not used by the magazine until 1980, appeared in the list of Fellowship documents. The new introduction informs us that there were now matters of fellowship in the Common Constitution.
What is shameful is that the Bereans created a new basis of fellowship while at the same time claiming that it was not a new basis of fellowship. It would be easier to overlook if it didn't come from a community who's leadership has made their banner integrity, honesty and purity, while at the same time pointing fingers of condemnation at everyone else.
Bereans Pre-1960 Bereans 1960-1980 Bereans 1980-Today
The BASF
Doctrines to be Rejected
The Commandments of Christ
The BASF
Doctrines to be Rejected
The Commandments of Christ
+ The Berean Restatement* Clause 4 of the Restatement which was not a matter of fellowship in 1960, technically, became a matter of fellowship in 1965 when the note associated with Clause 4 was deleted (more detail below). Clause 10 dropped from 1965 and 1974 reprints of Restatement.
+ Our Basis of Fellowship (Introduction)
The BASF
Doctrines to be Rejected
The Commandments of Christ
+ The Common Constitution
+ The Berean Restatement*Clause 10 added back into Restatement and made part of the Berean basis of fellowship.
Note: The Berean Ecclesial News web site has an edition of the Restatement which drops Clause 10, Marriage with the Alien. (as of Sept 16th 2007)
The Evolving Berean Restatement
Besides the published evolving Berean fellowship position as shown above, the published Berean Restatement has also gone through changes. Though it is often referred to as if it were a document published once and then faithfully reproduced, The Berean Restatement has gone through a number of editions. Readers interested in doing their own comparison may consult the following issues of The Berean magazine to get the text of the various editions published:
Date of Publication Notes July 1960 In the original Berean Restatement published in 1960 there were notes, associated with two of the clauses (4 & 6). The notes were set apart from the Restatement text by boxing the notes in such as you see here:
Part of the Clause 4 Note from the Restatement in 1960These notes were clearly marked as "not part of the Restatement itself" though the notes included important background information specific to the clause it was printed with.
After clause 9 the text says "The Restatement as approved ends here". Clause 10. "Marriage to the Alien" appears in a box immediately below item 9 and the "ends here" note. Clause 10 also has a note associated with it explaining its publication with the Restatement.
N.B. The last note on clause 4 reads, "This is not a first principle. It should not be made a matter of fellowship. It is simply a restatement of what the Berean fellowship believes to be the original Christadelphian judgment of the application of scriptural principles, for the preservation of sound fellowship stability." I would contrast that statement with the claim of a modern Berean who wrote, "If you read the Restatement, and think that it is a change or addition to the BASF, then you do not agree with us on first principle subjects" (Jim Phillips). Also, notice there is no attempt, in the 1960 text, to claim BASF support, unlike some modern Bereans.
"This is not a first principle. It should not be made a matter of fellowship." (Note on Clause 4 deleted in 1965) "If you read the Restatement, and think that it is a change or addition to the BASF, then you do not agree with us on first principle subjects" (Jim Phillips, Berean)
May 1965
- In 1965 the notes interspersed in the 1960 edition were totally deleted from the publication of the Restatement.
- Clause 4 was explicitly not a matter of fellowship in 1960. Now with no note to exclude it from being made a matter of fellowship, clause 4 is published as just another Clause of the Berean basis of fellowship.
- The text of the Restatement appears to be the same as 1960.
- Clause 10 was not included in the May 1965 edition.
January 1974 Appears to be a faithful duplication of the 1965 reprint including no clause 10. January 1980
- The Berean Restatement was republished in January 1980. It was published under these claims:
- "The Restatement As Approved in 1960".
- "Agreed upon by the Berean Fellowship in 1960, and printed in the July 1960 issue"
- "The 1960 Restatement follows:--".
- In fact, the text found in the 1980 republication of the Berean Restatement was edited in a significant number of places (word and phrase deletions, textual additions and word substitutions). In most cases the edits were not of a significant nature (note next bullet point though). What surprises me is that the 1980 Berean Restatement is repeatedly presented as if it were a faithful reprint of 1960's Restatement when in fact the text was edited without any note (like the pioneer works were edited without note). "The Restatement As Approved in 1960"?
- What is significant is that the 1980 version went back to the original 1960 edition, took the notes (all marked as "not part of the Restatement itself") and made some of those notes part of the 1980 publication of the Berean Restatement. As these notes were not part of the Restatement, it seems unlikely that they were ever submitted for approval by the existing Berean ecclesias. There was a heavy amount of editing involved in the inclusion of some of the notes. But the Restatement was published as "The Restatement As Approved in 1960".
- Significantly, the note from clause 4 which declared it not to be a first principle and which also excluded it from being made a matter of fellowship was not incorporated as some of the other notes were.
- Clause 10 "Marriage to the Alien" reappears noting that it was "subjoined in the first printing". Clause 10 had never been submitted to the Berean ecclesias for approval. The principle is listed in DTBR but the particular expression of the principle was not submitted for approval. It wasn't even officially part of the original Restatement and was not included in the 1965 and 1974 republications. Clause 10 becomes a matter of fellowship. Clause 4 had become a matter of fellowship, as noted, in 1965.
circa 2003 The Berean Ecclesial News publishes on their web site what appears to be the 1980 text of the Restatement minus Clause 10. Notice the 1960 Title:
Compared with the 1980 Title:
The title "Always-Held Berean Position" was a phrase coined in 1980. Notice the claim "The 1960 Restatement follows:--". Here's a screenshot of one page from the document comparison between the 1960 text and the 1980 version (which falsely claims to be the 1960 edition):
From 1980 onwards, to this day, the Berean Restatement is presented as if it were the original Berean basis of fellowship. These notes plainly demonstrate that the reality is different from the claim.
Then we have this claim by Jim Phillips as published in the Berean Ecclesial News:
From The Berean Ecclesial News, July 1999
"STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO ALTER... NOR ADD NEW ONES"
A note with Clause 4 in the 1960 edition says, "This item is not intended to apply to local meetings for discussion with any who consider joining us". Notice that Clause 4 allowed Berean ecclesias to meet with non-Berean ecclesias when the non-Bereans expressed an interest in joining the Bereans but clause 4 unconditionally prohibited Berean ecclesias from meeting with non-Berean ecclesias that potentially could end in ecclesias leaving the Berean Fellowship! The Berean Fellowship has had these kind of one-sided self-preserving rules since the 1960's.
The Berean Restatement was more about self-preservation of the Berean Fellowship than upholding the BASF. The text of the Restatement indicates this and the use made of the Restatement by leading Bereans confirms it.
I once raised the question as to whether brethren Thomas and Roberts would break bread with the Bereans. I now question whether early Bereans would break bread with modern Bereans. (Update: New research indicates they would not. But this will have to wait its time)
Answer:
Brother Phillips points out in his argument that "It [the Berean Restatement] was intended to be a unanimous reaffirmation of how we, in the Bereans, understood various clauses in the Statement of Faith which had come under attack by those calling themselves Christadelphians." Not to quibble, but the Berean magazine (and modern copies of the Restatement) say, "the Berean Restatement was unanimously adopted as expressing the mind of the whole Body. We invite the fellowship of any who are wholly of one mind with us." These sentences make two important points 1) The Restatement was unanimously adopted and 2) Fellowship, today, is only granted where assent to all ten principles is agreed upon: "wholly of one mind with us". If you are not wholly of one mind with the Bereans on these 10 points, fellowship is not, according to the Restatement, possible.
Brother Phillips then cites the Cooper-Carter Addendum as an example of a Central document which explains the BASF. By calling it a "Central" document he misleads his readers. He says "They have added documents" as if every ecclesia associated with Central had "added documents". There are some very important points he fails to notice or bring to his readers' attention:
- Cooper-Carter was generated by a minority of Central ecclesias located in Australia. It was never intended for worldwide use and never put up for endorsement by the community as a whole. Cooper-Carter is a local document, local to Australia and in force no where but in Australia. In that sense, it is not a Central document but a document generated by a small minority of ecclesias in Central. It was designed to solve a local problem -- a point which even Jim admits! I have written against Cooper-Carter and have not been challenged by anyone in America, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Africa or Europe, because no one in those countries pays any heed to the agreement. No one in those countries, including the current editor of The Tidings, believes that Cooper-Carter has any force outside of Australia.
- Next, Cooper-Carter was never intended to be used as a document upon which fellowship was based. Cooper-Carter, originally, was designed only to be used as an explanatory document which would fade from use over time. Errorists in Australia saw opportunity to reshape Cooper-Carter by keeping Cooper-Carter alive by publishing "The Australian Unity Book", some editions which included unnoted edits to John Carter's writings. So the premise behind Cooper-Carter is totally different from the Berean Restatement which was set forward as a long-term document and used as a basis of fellowship.
The Berean Restatement is a "unanimous" affirmation of principles of fellowship by every ecclesia in the Berean community. Bereans call their current fellowship position the "Unified and Universal Berean" position. There is no Central document corresponding to the Berean Restatement. Period. There are local documents such as the Buffalo Statement or the Cooper-Carter Addendum. Local documents assented to by local ecclesias or groups of ecclesias represent local autonomy and is what we'd expect in a healthy community where old divisions are trying to be solved.
That is altogether another issue than creating a document which is endorsed and upheld by every ecclesia worldwide. And altogether another matter than claiming that that document represents the original fellowship position of the community from the beginning. That is what I take issue with when the claim can be shown to be a falsehood.
Jim then says, "It was intended to be a unanimous reaffirmation of how we, in the Bereans, understood various clauses in the Statement of Faith". Here are the principles which Berean brethren have "found" in the BASF (some I agree with, while others plainly are not there).
- The Nature and Sacrifice of Christ
- Resurrectional Responsibility
- Evolution
- Conferences
- Suing at Law
- Divorce
- Worldliness
- Military Service
- The Formula for Fellowship
- Marriage to the Alien
I again note that no attempt is made in the Restatement to tie in its clauses to the BASF. The obvious is missing (references to the BASF) in the Berean Restatement. The 1960 Restatement and explanatory notes do not make the claims that Jim makes. The reason is obvious to anyone who has a familiarity with the BASF and who views the 10 point Berean Restatement. On the one hand Bereans want to claim it merely upholds the BASF because "this is not a new basis of fellowship; nor is it an addition to or an alteration of our basis of fellowship". On the other hand, you just can't twist these 10 points to fit in the BASF. The Berean position is caught in it own failed attempt to legislate against "CURRENT PROBLEMS" (1960) while at the same time claiming to not establish a new or altered basis of fellowship.
Brother Phillips writing about the "unanimously" adopted Restatement wrote, "#6 is a complete mystery in every sense. It is generic enough and easy to agree to, but there is no evidence that this clause was ever presented to the Berean brotherhood in this form, or accepted, prior to its inclusion in this document." I am really surprised by brother Phillips answer. It was after all, an apparent infidelity, reservations to the BASF, which were the original source of the Berean split from Temperance Hall. Now, we have a Berean Restatement, claiming to be the Always-Held Berean basis of Fellowship and Jim doesn't seem to be sure where one of the clauses came from or how it got included?! Worse, the 1960's Restatement says, "Two drafts were submitted, the 3rd (this present form) incorporating as far as possible all suggestions received as a result of the circulation of the first two." Even worse, I thought these 10 points were the "Always-Held" Berean basis of fellowship? That's certainly what the document claims right at the top of the document. Bereans hand these statements out with no explanation or qualifications to the claims made therein. Would it be too much to ask brother Phillips if Bereans meet under the Restatement without reservation? And was it really the Always-Held position or not brother Phillips? I am not quibbling over details. I am asking about a very important BASIC CLAIM of your Fellowship Restatement. Notice the words in the bold heading right at the top of the Restatement?:
THIS IS NOT A NEW BASIS OF FELLOWSHIP;
NOR IS IT AN ADDITION TO OR
AN ALTERATION OF OUR BASIS OF FELLOWSHIPBut Jim says, "there is no evidence that this clause was ever presented to the Berean brotherhood in this form, or accepted, prior to its inclusion in this document."
The Berean, 1960, p. 208And then, bro. Phillips wrote, "If you read the Restatement, and think that it is a change or addition to the BASF, then you do not agree with us on first principle subjects." So besides the fact that the first claim of the Restatement is a falsehood which Jim is happy to overlook, "rejecting conferences" is " a first principle subject" to some Bereans. That is what brother Phillips has said, and it must be if they require it as a basis of fellowship. I wonder how many Christadelphians did not understand "rejecting conferences" before they were baptized? In my own thinking, I just cannot seem to place "rejecting conferences" alongside the Promises Made to Abraham or atonement through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Brother Phillips says, "Rejecting conferences is a fundamentally important clause endorsed by both bre. Thomas and Roberts, and an important part of our beliefs concerning fellowship from our foundation" (emphasis mine). But 1) Brother Phillips doesn't seem to think he needs to show how Conferences were part of the BASF. 2) The early Bereans didn't leave Temperance Hall over Conferences. 3) Jim doesn't cite a BASF clause in support of this clause, he thinks an "endorsement" by bre. Thomas and Roberts is sufficient. More than that he says, "Rejecting conferences is a fundamentally important clause endorsed by both bre. Thomas and Roberts". Which "clause" in the pioneer writings would that be brother Phillips? In all the Statements of Faith ever drawn up by those two brethren "rejecting conferences" was never a "clause" in their Statements of Faith. Is brother Phillips being just a little loose with his words again? And if mere pioneer advocacy of a principle is sufficient justification for inclusion then on that basis shall we also write in the present whereabouts of Enoch, Moses and Elijah as a first principle of fellowship? Of course, bre. Thomas and Roberts never drew up a Statement of Faith that made conferences a first principle. 4) And Jim's claim, and the Berean claim, is that the Restatement is NOT A NEW POSITION ON FELLOWSHIP. But "rejecting conferences" had never been made a test of fellowship before had it brother Phillips? But it is now in the Berean Fellowship. Are you willing to concede that point brother Phillips? It's not an insignificant detail. I question the basic Berean claim and Jim's arguments only confirm that the modern Berean representation of all these points being Always-Held Berean fellowship position is a falsehood.
Jim says, "rejecting conferences" was "an important part of our beliefs concerning fellowship from our foundation". This is a modern fabrication by a modern Berean. It would not surprise me to see circa 1923 Bereans speaking against conferences. What would surprise me (and I
