Response to Jim Phillip's Criticisms

THIS DOCUMENT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND IS NOT COMPLETE YET.

Jim Phillips, a Berean, has responded in length to my article on Liberalism and Reactionary Conservatism. Jim wrote me about this article some time back. I did not understand at that time that he (deeply) felt like I had personally judged him -- as he said at the time, it was as if I had performed psychoanalysis on him without the benefit or courtesy of a personal interview. I, frankly, didn't make much of the comment at the time. The article I wrote lists stereotypical characteristics of different stereotypical classes of people. Now, having read his response I know that Jim see's it very differently.

Jim's response, in my opinion, is filled with irrelevant commentary for the following reasons:

Bro. Phillips has wrongly judged my motives as to why the article was written and he spends too much time condemning a motive that did not exist. Jim even admits that the "reactionary conservative" appeared to be an "after thought" to the article. It was, as a matter of fact, an after thought. So the big conspiracy Jim claims is behind the article (an attack on Bereans; support for 'status quo in Central') just does not exist and for some reason Jim didn't make the right conclusion even though he cites a number of points that should have led him to a different and correct conclusion. He might try reading the article's title next time he tries to divine my motives. Jim felt under attack. If you approach something with a "bunker mentality" you are likely to misjudge and mischaracterize the actions and motives of others who do not feel the need to hunker down in your personal bunker.

Bro. Phillips makes a really big issue of the article claiming that the article personally judges brothers and sisters. It does no such thing. If I had assigned names in the article or if I had made blanket statements about specific persons holding specific characteristics then Jim would be right. But that is not what the article does and not the purpose of the article. I have no need to personally judge individual persons. Jim makes this argument because everyone knows that to blindly judge individuals or to blindly impute motives to specific persons would be completely wrong to do. So he wants his Berean readers to believe a falsehood which will automatically turn them away from what the article says (just as Jim has made a variety of other false and slanderous charges against me in his recent writings). There is a big difference in laying out stereotypes of character vs. applying stereotypes to named individuals.

Bro. Phillips is quite serious about his arguments against my article but his arguments are not serious. Take for example his opening argument. He claims that the things that motivate people in the world "should not be" the things that motivate Christadelphians. My article doesn't even indirectly make an argument against what Jim is saying. No one reasonable would dispute what should and should not be. But the Bible itself is quite clear about the source of ecclesial problems: "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?". Now will brother Phillips argue that once you are baptised the lusts you have by birth are converted into an entirely different set of unrelated lusts? I mean, what kind of argument is he making? Bro. Phillips' argument is most bizarre seeing that one of the fundamental tenets of his Fellowship is how corrupt all but his minority of the Christadelphian world is. But Jim is angry with the article. So, as men will do, he grabs on to any argument he can make, even if it contradicts the very basis he uses to justify the existence of his Fellowship.

Take then Jim's opening argument about definitions: Jim argues that the words used 'liberal', 'conservative' and 'reactionary conservative' have no static definition. Never mind the fact that my article provides a static definition which I use, as the basis of the article, at the very top of the article! Jim cannot be bothered with little details like that. Jim goes back to the Latin meaning of the word liberal and tells us what it means in Latin. Then he goes to political parties and talks about how differently the words are used in the political world. If I had not provided a standard by which to judge (in this case the definition I am using) Jim's argument would hold weight. But Jim's argument is empty because I plainly specify what I mean by the specific words I used. As such, Jim's arguments are so much beating of the air signifying little other than his own anger.

Bro. Phillips complains the article is filled with stereotypes. Oddly, laying out stereotypes was the very point of the article! Jim seems to think that since stereotypes aren't always true, that stereotypes must always be false. This is another one of his 'logical' arguments that I just don't accept. I thought stereotypes were the rule, but that there were exceptions to the rule. And the article is clear that this is the premise I worked on.

Bro. Phillips accuses me of "clerical" "arrogance" because of a closing comment I wrote which was really a little humorous but due to Jim's anger he was unable to see any humor in it. Actually someone else provided the comments to me but Jim was happy to impute, clerical (!) arrogance to me. The comments in my article were based on the idea of "projection". Jim wrote a recent article (cited below) in which he sets forward the same idea of "projection", yet he does not find his own use of projection to be clerical arrogance? Curious.

There is one other point of 'logic' in Jim's criticisms that I can't quite make any sense of. It is this: I laid out three positions in the article. Jim voluntarily reads the article and concludes there is a dark conspiracy behind the article. He comes to the conclusion that I've targeted Bereans under the label of "reactionary conservative". Now as the article lays out two totally different positions from the reactionary conservative I wonder why Jim didn't identify Bereans as one of the other stereotypical groups? Jim focuses his complaints on the descriptions of the "reactionary conservative", not on the liberal or the conservative. Then, after he identifies himself and his community as being targeted under "reactionary conservative" he declares the article to be "so chalked [sic] full of stereotypes and caricatures of the Berean Christadelphians" that the article is worthless. It is like painting three portraits. Jim identifies one portrait as faintly representing himself. But unfortunately for Jim that portrait is labeled Satan. Angry at what he see's in the picture, he claims all three portraits are utterly worthless since none perfectly match his genuinely handsome profile. But he's especially angry with the portrait he see's himself in. Whoever painted that portrait, thinks Jim, must have had access to his personal picture before they painted the portrait because it kind of looks like him. But the painter put horns on his head and a pitchfork in his hand and Jim knows he doesn't have horns. However, if Jim can identify himself and his Fellowship in the article by the descriptions given, how is it that the stereotypes are false? Stereotypes are never true in every detail and I do not make the claim that they are. If Jim then admits that the stereotypes are even partially true, and he has done that by claiming, without my solicitation, that the reactionary conservative targets Bereans, then Jim unwittingly proves the portraits do in fact have some accuracy and therefore some relevance in self understanding, self-examination and in understanding human nature -- which was my real motive in writing the article. Individuals hold certain stereotypical attitudes and positions. It would come as no surprise that persons tend to bond together in groups with common outlooks and interests. I make it clear throughout the article that the stereotypes are not hard and fast rules. It goes without saying that the reasons and motives men may do things may widely vary. My article provides stereotypes. Jim takes offense at the stereotypes as if I have claimed to painted his personal portrait in 1200x1200 DPI resolution. I never made such a claim. The only claim I would make is that I have attempted to paint generic positions which most men will fit into, with this caveat: the article plainly states that individual manifestations of characteristics vary from person to person and that individuals can even cross over the stereotypical lines mixing personality traits. But all of this is lost by Jim. My portraits were too discomfiting for Jim's tastes, he becomes angry, responds to the article, and in expressing his anger doesn't realize he's admitting the basic premise of the article, or that his arguments are a pointless thrashing of the air.

I do not want to spend a lot of time answering false charges and irrelevance, but I will answer some of the claims he makes, for the record.

Jim wrote... My response is...

"The people who make up the political parties of the world, have as their core motivation, wealth and power in this world. Christadelphians should have no such motivation whatsoever, focusing entirely on the next world."
Whence come wars and fightings Jim? The Bible is quite clear about the source of ecclesial problems.

And while Jim is right in saying, "Christadelphians should have no such motivation whatsoever", Jim is wrong in arguing that Christadelphians are exempt from the same problems as the rest of the world. Ecclesiastical history and the apostasy (if Jim will recall what that word actually means) demonstrate that human nature does not change. What may change is whether a person manifests that fleshly nature or not.

Now Jim, a Berean, who flies a banner on Fellowship which is based on how corrupt all the rest of Christadelphia is, suddenly begins to lecture us about how different Christadelphians are from the world? There is something that just doesn't add up logically in Jim's argument in relation to the position he holds as a Berean who does not want to be defiled by fellowship with the rest of the unclean Christadelphian community.

"drawing from the world's motives, and transposing it on brethren, strikes me as most unusual "
The article deals with personality characteristics. And motives may be intentional or they may be unintentional. Neither of these things are lost in the waters of baptism. Hopefully a person learns enough of the truth prior to the waters that his motives have changed prior to baptism. And hopefully that growth will continue after baptism. But the fact is, human nature is human nature. It is only controlled in so far as a person has 1) the light of the Bible in their minds 2) faith in that Word and 3) the essential element of self-inspection. Missing any of these is fatal.

What strikes me as most unusual is a champion of modern Bereanism arguing that Christadelphians are not made of the same nature as their blood relatives. Apparently bad apples are a minority in Christadelphia. I would have never known that based on Jim's fellowship position though.

"The article is also rare for the arrogance it displays. Essentially, the argument of the author is that all individuals who disagree with the positions taken in the article are functionally immoral"
In other words, Jim's argument is, I (Jim Phillips, a Berean) will "attribute all kinds of evil motive towards you (though I don't actually know you)..."

Jim would quote the Bible against me if I said he or his Fellowship were arrogant. But Jim is a Berean and Bereans are allowed to charge others with arrogance.

Jim would, justly, I might add, tell me that we should not personally judge people's motives or their hearts. In fact, isn't that his core complaint against my article? He has had no personal interview with me so how would he know, as a matter of fact (as he asserts in terms void of stereotype) that arrogance was behind the comment? Jim bases his judgment on the fact that I wrote,

"Incidentally, if the reader is a liberal, he will probably assess the author of this document as a reactionary conservative. If the reader is a reactionary conservative, he will probably assess the author of this document as a liberal. If that is your assessment then I close with this thought: having exposed both deceptions, I lay this last evidence at your feet and rest my case."

Those are the closing words of my article. They were written with a little humor which went right over Jim's head, because he was angry. First, I do not say, have never said and have never even thought that "all individuals who disagree with the positions taken in the article are functionally immoral". This is an absurd claim. It's not even a logical conclusion much less a thought I've ever had. What it is, is another shameful claim by Jim that plays to his audience. It was not my argument at all. It is the product of Jim's creative imagination. Jim does not like to be challenged. He gets emotional when he is challenged. He gets angry. He starts thinking and writing things that are not true. But Jim is a Berean. Everything a Berean leader writes is justifiable, moral and Scriptural (like, "this is not a new basis of fellowship").

Next, the idea expressed in the words (and to a great degree the actual words) came from someone else who had read my article! I thought it was a humorous suggestion which I believed, and still believe, to basically be true. So the "arrogance" Jim accuses me of are an idea and words that came from someone else. I endorse the words I wrote. I completely reject Jim Phillips' self-serving construction and interpretation of them.

Finally, what I was saying is based on the idea of "projection" where people may judge you guilty of the very tendencies or faults of their own character.

Now, oddly, Jim Phillips believes in the very thing he is attacking for in one of his own recent articles Jim wrote,

"I was once warned, when still a young man, to be very wary of the way men attack you. They are often accusing you of the tendencies of their own characters."

Perhaps I should just phrase things in the exact same terms that Jim uses without my verbose description, and then he won't attack what I am saying? Or do I need to carry a Berean Fellowship Card to be exempt from unjust and false criticisms?

"So the writer's argument is essentially, I will psychoanalyze you, and attribute all kinds of evil motive towards you (though I don't actually know you,) and if you dare disagree with my conclusions of what is in your mind that makes you do what you do, that will prove I'm right!"
Jim then starts taking a slant where he claims the article is "personal" psychoanalysis. Jim really is upset to find personality characteristics of his own in the reactionary conservative column. He see's himself (as he admitted) and he's angry.

Jim judges himself by impersonal stereotypes and then blames me for the judgment he makes on himself? Did I create a mirror that has scared Jim when he looks into it?

"His web site at www.Genusa.com/Truth/index.html is second to none as regards giving Christadelphians the information they need to know about the Central group and its history. "
Jim leaves out in this case that he's written articles, published in The Berean Ecclesial News, in which he accuses me of holding open door fellowship policies, accusing me of being in sympathy with clean-flesh (if not holding it), of being an anti-pioneer, of being of those who nearly "scream" at the Bereans for quoting John Thomas and other such things.

I have found that people who spend too much time in professional sales have the tendency of blurring the line between fact and fiction when they are trying to "sell" an idea. They don't seem to know that the Law of Christ forbids such dishonesty.

"But how can the writer make such a judgment about a fellow brother or sister? "
In other words, Jim's argument is, I (Jim Phillips, a Berean) will "attribute all kinds of evil motive towards you (though I don't actually know you)..."

The article does not personally judge individuals. Nor does it suggest brethren go out and do so. It lays out a template or pattern of personality characteristics and manifestations (as the article states). "If the shoe fits" would be my policy. I have no reason to individually judge brothers and sisters in these regards.

What I do find helpful is to understand what motivates human nature to behave in the different ways that it does. It's part of the self-examination process though I have taken it into a larger domain by cataloging characteristics which are beyond my personal experience. I want to know why I and others think the way I/we do and why other people think differently than I/we do. This article was part of working out and documenting those issues.

"The apostle Paul is quite clear that we have no authority to make such judgments."
In regards to making certain judgments about individuals yes, Jim is totally 100% correct. That is forbidden.

Jim is incorrect to say that we have no authority to catalog personality characteristics, motivations etc on a non-personal basis. It is when I start putting individual names of brothers or sisters in another column that I have gone too far. I have not done so. Nor have I concluded that all persons in a Fellowship belong to one category. That is Jim's assertion which he transposes onto the article.

Because Jim in examining himself finds his own traits listed, Jim concludes I have done a psychoanalysis on him without the courtesy of actually interviewing him. In fact that was one of his first complaints to me, which frankly, at the time I did not really understand. Now I see. Well, what can I say but " Let a man examine himself"? Jim doesn't like what he see's in my mirror. Nothing prevents him from using one of his own choosing as he has done his entire life.

"Whether a man is a liberal, conservative, or reactionary is not the least bit relevant to us."
Not particularly relevant, though the personality traits that go along with these labels are relevant, especially in understanding human nature.

If in fact it "is not the least bit relevant to us" "Whether a man is a liberal, conservative, or reactionary", perhaps Bereans will change their fellowship policy to be a little less restrictive? There are "liberals" who I am sure would like to see action, not hollow words crafted for the sake of argument.

"why bother responding to this at all? I'm doing so because at its core, this article is an attack on the Christadelphian's foundation doctrine of fellowship." "The main point in this article, as I see it, is to try and lay a foundation for this point, as made by the author."
This would be funny if it weren't serious. Jim you are judging motives. And that blindly. Apparently its OK when you engage in judging motives. I have openly denied that this was my motive. The quote you pull "That there is only one Fellowship, while there are many 'Fellowships' (1Joh 1:7) " is from a totally different page on my web site. Jim conveniently left that fact out. It came from a page that is about fellowship. My motive I will state plainly:

TO UNDERSTAND SELF AND THE WORLD WE LIVE IN BY CATALOGING CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN NATURE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR .

Jim might consult the article title next time he starts trying to divine my motive. Using the entrails of sheep might be more successful than his current method of getting angry. It is Jim's propensities to see some dark conspiracy behind the article that has driven Jim to view it as he does and to respond.

Curiously Jim had good reasons not to believe his own argument. He says later,

"Curiously, the article makes no effort to define a reactionary. The entire inclusion of the reactionary in this article appears as an after thought. Clearly, the article first and foremost desired to express an opinion about the "liberal element" among its body."

Jim is correct in some respects. You see, if the article was designed as an attack on the Bereans then the Reactionary Conservative (who as a matter of reality share traits of those in Separatist Fellowships) would have been the leading figure in the document. The reactionary conservative was totally an after thought. It was after I had come to terms with liberalism that I began to mentally deal with the other and rarer extreme, the reactionary conservative. I began to quickly realize that the characteristics of the reactionary conservative were often the same as liberalism while the manifestations of the reactionary conservative were quite different.

"I also decided for myself that the article is so chalked full of stereotypes and caricatures of the Berean Christadelphians "
I prefer digital over the older analog forms of writing so I believe Jim meant to say "chock full".

The article is not directed at Bereans as Jim helped show above. True, it is LOADED WITH STEREOTYPES. I CONFESS. It would be nice to think that every person in the world might fit somewhere within the stereotypes I laid out but I'll settle for 95%.

STEREOTYPES acquire their life through the rule, not through the exception. That is what the article is dealing with.

"First, the problems with the definitions. These words have no static meanings."
In the world of politics that is true. But I am not writing about cigarettes in the 17th century without warning. The definitions I provided "have meaning" and the time we live in provides context. Jim wants to generalize everything so that no meaning can be derived by the terms used. What kind of argument is that?

Jim can talk about political parties and the latin word for liberal. That's all very nice but not relevant. If I were writing an essay on the development of political thought I might find his 'research' useful. As it turns out, I chose to deal with human nature.

As I explain elsewhere:

Jim Phillips, a Berean, has objected to the label "liberal" arguing, for example, that the term "liberal" means something totally different in the politics of England. Jim has missed the point. I am not cataloging Political Institutions under whatever name or label they use and discussing positions of those Institutions. England, like much of Europe, has over the last 200 years, had a lot of political instability. The so-called "conservatives" in England, have in recent years, taken positions that were more liberal than the "Liberals" and the "Liberals" have acted as if they were conservatives. Politicians and Political Parties often have one set of rhetoric when they are out of power, when they can afford to nay-say the ruling party, and they have a different set of rhetoric when they are actually in power and have to try and solve problems. I am not dealing with specific Political Groups in this article. I am defining personality characteristics and those personality characteristics manifest themselves in politics, in religion and in every other area of life.

Jim wrote...	My response is...
"The people who make up the political parties of the world, have as their core motivation, wealth and power in this world. Christadelphians should have no such motivation whatsoever, focusing entirely on the next world."	Whence come wars and fightings Jim? The Bible is quite clear about the source of ecclesial problems. And while Jim is right in saying, "Christadelphians should have no such motivation whatsoever", Jim is wrong in arguing that Christadelphians are exempt from the same problems as the rest of the world. Ecclesiastical history and the apostasy (if Jim will recall what that word actually means) demonstrate that human nature does not change. What may change is whether a person manifests that fleshly nature or not. Now Jim, a Berean, who flies a banner on Fellowship which is based on how corrupt all the rest of Christadelphia is, suddenly begins to lecture us about how different Christadelphians are from the world? There is something that just doesn't add up logically in Jim's argument in relation to the position he holds as a Berean who does not want to be defiled by fellowship with the rest of the unclean Christadelphian community.
"drawing from the world's motives, and transposing it on brethren, strikes me as most unusual "	The article deals with personality characteristics. And motives may be intentional or they may be unintentional. Neither of these things are lost in the waters of baptism. Hopefully a person learns enough of the truth prior to the waters that his motives have changed prior to baptism. And hopefully that growth will continue after baptism. But the fact is, human nature is human nature. It is only controlled in so far as a person has 1) the light of the Bible in their minds 2) faith in that Word and 3) the essential element of self-inspection. Missing any of these is fatal. What strikes me as most unusual is a champion of modern Bereanism arguing that Christadelphians are not made of the same nature as their blood relatives. Apparently bad apples are a minority in Christadelphia. I would have never known that based on Jim's fellowship position though.
"The article is also rare for the arrogance it displays. Essentially, the argument of the author is that all individuals who disagree with the positions taken in the article are functionally immoral"	In other words, Jim's argument is, I (Jim Phillips, a Berean) will "attribute all kinds of evil motive towards you (though I don't actually know you)..." Jim would quote the Bible against me if I said he or his Fellowship were arrogant. But Jim is a Berean and Bereans are allowed to charge others with arrogance. Jim would, justly, I might add, tell me that we should not personally judge people's motives or their hearts. In fact, isn't that his core complaint against my article? He has had no personal interview with me so how would he know, as a matter of fact (as he asserts in terms void of stereotype) that arrogance was behind the comment? Jim bases his judgment on the fact that I wrote, "Incidentally, if the reader is a liberal, he will probably assess the author of this document as a reactionary conservative. If the reader is a reactionary conservative, he will probably assess the author of this document as a liberal. If that is your assessment then I close with this thought: having exposed both deceptions, I lay this last evidence at your feet and rest my case." Those are the closing words of my article. They were written with a little humor which went right over Jim's head, because he was angry. First, I do not say, have never said and have never even thought that "all individuals who disagree with the positions taken in the article are functionally immoral". This is an absurd claim. It's not even a logical conclusion much less a thought I've ever had. What it is, is another shameful claim by Jim that plays to his audience. It was not my argument at all. It is the product of Jim's creative imagination. Jim does not like to be challenged. He gets emotional when he is challenged. He gets angry. He starts thinking and writing things that are not true. But Jim is a Berean. Everything a Berean leader writes is justifiable, moral and Scriptural (like, "this is not a new basis of fellowship"). Next, the idea expressed in the words (and to a great degree the actual words) came from someone else who had read my article! I thought it was a humorous suggestion which I believed, and still believe, to basically be true. So the "arrogance" Jim accuses me of are an idea and words that came from someone else. I endorse the words I wrote. I completely reject Jim Phillips' self-serving construction and interpretation of them. Finally, what I was saying is based on the idea of "projection" where people may judge you guilty of the very tendencies or faults of their own character. Now, oddly, Jim Phillips believes in the very thing he is attacking for in one of his own recent articles Jim wrote, "I was once warned, when still a young man, to be very wary of the way men attack you. They are often accusing you of the tendencies of their own characters." Perhaps I should just phrase things in the exact same terms that Jim uses without my verbose description, and then he won't attack what I am saying? Or do I need to carry a Berean Fellowship Card to be exempt from unjust and false criticisms?
"So the writer's argument is essentially, I will psychoanalyze you, and attribute all kinds of evil motive towards you (though I don't actually know you,) and if you dare disagree with my conclusions of what is in your mind that makes you do what you do, that will prove I'm right!"	Jim then starts taking a slant where he claims the article is "personal" psychoanalysis. Jim really is upset to find personality characteristics of his own in the reactionary conservative column. He see's himself (as he admitted) and he's angry. Jim judges himself by impersonal stereotypes and then blames me for the judgment he makes on himself? Did I create a mirror that has scared Jim when he looks into it?
"His web site at www.Genusa.com/Truth/index.html is second to none as regards giving Christadelphians the information they need to know about the Central group and its history. "	Jim leaves out in this case that he's written articles, published in The Berean Ecclesial News, in which he accuses me of holding open door fellowship policies, accusing me of being in sympathy with clean-flesh (if not holding it), of being an anti-pioneer, of being of those who nearly "scream" at the Bereans for quoting John Thomas and other such things. I have found that people who spend too much time in professional sales have the tendency of blurring the line between fact and fiction when they are trying to "sell" an idea. They don't seem to know that the Law of Christ forbids such dishonesty.
"But how can the writer make such a judgment about a fellow brother or sister? "	In other words, Jim's argument is, I (Jim Phillips, a Berean) will "attribute all kinds of evil motive towards you (though I don't actually know you)..." The article does not personally judge individuals. Nor does it suggest brethren go out and do so. It lays out a template or pattern of personality characteristics and manifestations (as the article states). "If the shoe fits" would be my policy. I have no reason to individually judge brothers and sisters in these regards. What I do find helpful is to understand what motivates human nature to behave in the different ways that it does. It's part of the self-examination process though I have taken it into a larger domain by cataloging characteristics which are beyond my personal experience. I want to know why I and others think the way I/we do and why other people think differently than I/we do. This article was part of working out and documenting those issues.
"The apostle Paul is quite clear that we have no authority to make such judgments."	In regards to making certain judgments about individuals yes, Jim is totally 100% correct. That is forbidden. Jim is incorrect to say that we have no authority to catalog personality characteristics, motivations etc on a non-personal basis. It is when I start putting individual names of brothers or sisters in another column that I have gone too far. I have not done so. Nor have I concluded that all persons in a Fellowship belong to one category. That is Jim's assertion which he transposes onto the article. Because Jim in examining himself finds his own traits listed, Jim concludes I have done a psychoanalysis on him without the courtesy of actually interviewing him. In fact that was one of his first complaints to me, which frankly, at the time I did not really understand. Now I see. Well, what can I say but " Let a man examine himself"? Jim doesn't like what he see's in my mirror. Nothing prevents him from using one of his own choosing as he has done his entire life.
"Whether a man is a liberal, conservative, or reactionary is not the least bit relevant to us."	Not particularly relevant, though the personality traits that go along with these labels are relevant, especially in understanding human nature. If in fact it "is not the least bit relevant to us" "Whether a man is a liberal, conservative, or reactionary", perhaps Bereans will change their fellowship policy to be a little less restrictive? There are "liberals" who I am sure would like to see action, not hollow words crafted for the sake of argument.
"why bother responding to this at all? I'm doing so because at its core, this article is an attack on the Christadelphian's foundation doctrine of fellowship." "The main point in this article, as I see it, is to try and lay a foundation for this point, as made by the author."	This would be funny if it weren't serious. Jim you are judging motives. And that blindly. Apparently its OK when you engage in judging motives. I have openly denied that this was my motive. The quote you pull "That there is only one Fellowship, while there are many 'Fellowships' (1Joh 1:7) " is from a totally different page on my web site. Jim conveniently left that fact out. It came from a page that is about fellowship. My motive I will state plainly: TO UNDERSTAND SELF AND THE WORLD WE LIVE IN BY CATALOGING CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN NATURE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR . Jim might consult the article title next time he starts trying to divine my motive. Using the entrails of sheep might be more successful than his current method of getting angry. It is Jim's propensities to see some dark conspiracy behind the article that has driven Jim to view it as he does and to respond. Curiously Jim had good reasons not to believe his own argument. He says later, "Curiously, the article makes no effort to define a reactionary. The entire inclusion of the reactionary in this article appears as an after thought. Clearly, the article first and foremost desired to express an opinion about the "liberal element" among its body." Jim is correct in some respects. You see, if the article was designed as an attack on the Bereans then the Reactionary Conservative (who as a matter of reality share traits of those in Separatist Fellowships) would have been the leading figure in the document. The reactionary conservative was totally an after thought. It was after I had come to terms with liberalism that I began to mentally deal with the other and rarer extreme, the reactionary conservative. I began to quickly realize that the characteristics of the reactionary conservative were often the same as liberalism while the manifestations of the reactionary conservative were quite different.
"I also decided for myself that the article is so chalked full of stereotypes and caricatures of the Berean Christadelphians "	I prefer digital over the older analog forms of writing so I believe Jim meant to say "chock full". The article is not directed at Bereans as Jim helped show above. True, it is LOADED WITH STEREOTYPES. I CONFESS. It would be nice to think that every person in the world might fit somewhere within the stereotypes I laid out but I'll settle for 95%. STEREOTYPES acquire their life through the rule, not through the exception. That is what the article is dealing with.
"First, the problems with the definitions. These words have no static meanings."	In the world of politics that is true. But I am not writing about cigarettes in the 17th century without warning. The definitions I provided "have meaning" and the time we live in provides context. Jim wants to generalize everything so that no meaning can be derived by the terms used. What kind of argument is that? Jim can talk about political parties and the latin word for liberal. That's all very nice but not relevant. If I were writing an essay on the development of political thought I might find his 'research' useful. As it turns out, I chose to deal with human nature. As I explain elsewhere: Jim Phillips, a Berean, has objected to the label "liberal" arguing, for example, that the term "liberal" means something totally different in the politics of England. Jim has missed the point. I am not cataloging Political Institutions under whatever name or label they use and discussing positions of those Institutions. England, like much of Europe, has over the last 200 years, had a lot of political instability. The so-called "conservatives" in England, have in recent years, taken positions that were more liberal than the "Liberals" and the "Liberals" have acted as if they were conservatives. Politicians and Political Parties often have one set of rhetoric when they are out of power, when they can afford to nay-say the ruling party, and they have a different set of rhetoric when they are actually in power and have to try and solve problems. I am not dealing with specific Political Groups in this article. I am defining personality characteristics and those personality characteristics manifest themselves in politics, in religion and in every other area of life.