A Conflict of Visions: More About the Bereans and the Separatist Fellowship Position

A Conflict of Visions: More About the Bereans and the Separatist Fellowship Position

"'Purity of fellowship' is a laudable cry, but it requires to be carried out with the discriminations of wisdom. A brother on the plea of 'purity' once called upon me to subscribe to a particular date for the ending of the 1260 years of Daniel and John as a condition of fellowship, and some other similarly outrageous demands in matters of detail. The present contention is not so absurd as that: still, the case shows that 'purity of fellowship' may be carried too far, and that as a watch word it is in itself too vague unless it is supported by justifiable applications in detail." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1898, p. i-129; advocating restraint, prudence and constraints)

[This document is a work in process.]

A recent 36+ hour road trip to the East Coast and back provided a lot of time to listen, talk and read. During part of the trip we listened to the audio edition of Ethnic America by Thomas Sowell. In listening to the stories of different peoples, it was striking to me how, in earlier years of America's history, peoples of different ethnicities who came to America were "downtrodden" and viewed as mentally inferior to "Americans". Yet, invariably, they were, as a people, able to rise above the circumstances they were handed and they ultimately created for themselves respect as peers rather than inferiors. This is not to argue, absurdly, that racism does not exist. But rather, that the condition, for example of the Chinese, or the Irish, has vastly improved since the time they originally came to America. What intrigued me the most was the similarity, and a few differences, shown in the behavior (an expression of human nature) behind each of the ethnic groups discussed.

I stopped by a number of bookstores looking for the paper copy of the book but could not find it. I was able to find a few other books by Thomas Sowell so I picked them up. The first book I started reading, "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles" sounded interesting. The book is not about political struggles but, as the title indicates, the origins of political struggles. As such, it deals with the root in differing visions of life and its possibilities rather than the fruit (eg. political parties and their differences).

"Vision" Dr. Sowell defines as "a sense of causation. It is more like a hunch or a 'gut feeling' than it is like an exercise in logic or factual verification. These things come later and feed on the raw material provided by the vision. If causation proceeds as our vision conceives it to, then certain other consequences follow, and theory is the working out of what those consequences are" (p. 6). In other words, we each have a "sense" of how the world works (specifically, how people 'work'), what the possibilities and limitations are. We acquire this "sense" through many sources including our upbringing, education, experiences, hopes, fears and prejudices. Sowell states "Ultimately there are as many visions as there are humans beings, if not more, and more than one vision may be consistent with given fact."

There are many variables that make up any individual person's "social vision" and Sowell states that "rather than attempt the impossible task of following all these ramifications in each of the myriad of social visions, the discussion here will group these visions into two broad categories -- the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision". Dr. Sowell goes on to give characteristics and outlooks of these two classes. Some of the key differences are as follows:

The Unconstrained Vision

The Constrained Vision

"Intention" is "the essence of virtue" (p. 15) "Prudence" is "the first of all virtues" (p. 17)

Believe in solutions rather than tradeoffs. (p. 17-20) Acceptance of any tradeoffs is viewed as a harmful crutch which only prolong the problem which is to be solved.
Solutions are viewed as probably unrealistic given the constraints. Life does not offer perfect solutions but only a set of tradeoffs so you must work within the given constraints. (p. 17-20)

The "solution" is more important than the "process costs" which would be required to implement a given solution. Process costs are a secondary consideration, if considered at all. "You can't make omelets without breaking eggs". (p. 29)
"Ideals are weighed against the cost of achieving them" (p. 28)

"While believers in the unconstrained vision seek the special causes of war, poverty, and crime..." (p. 25) "believers in the constrained vision seek the special causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society".(p. 25)

"In the unconstrained society vision, there are no intractable reasons for social evils and therefore no reason why they cannot be solved, with sufficient moral commitment." (p. 25) "But in the constrained vision, whatever artifices or strategies restrain or ameliorate inherent human evils will themselves have costs, some in the form of other social ills created by those civilizing institutions, so that all that is possible is a prudent trade-off." (p. 25)

"The unconstrained vision is a moral vision of human intentions, which are viewed as ultimately decisive." (p. 27) "The constrained vision is a tragic vision of the human condition." (p. 27)

The base of knowledge and experience acquired by past generations, including history and historical precedent, is viewed as overrated. "We must bring everything to the standard of Reason". "Everything that bears the imprint of time must inspire distrust more than respect". (p. 40)
"Cultural distillations of knowledge were not considered infallible or immutable -- which would have been a solution instead of a trade-off -- but rather as a tested body of experience that worked, and which was to be changed only after the most circumspect, and perhaps even reluctant, examination" (p. 38).

Those who share the unconstrained view believe they have "cultivated minds" while those who do not are "persons of narrow views and observation". (p. 41)

"Sincerity is so central to the unconstrained vision that it is not readily conceded to adversaries, who are often depicted as apologists, if not venal. It is not uncommon in this tradition to find references to their adversaries' 'real' reasons, which must be 'unmasked'. Even where sincerity is conceded to adversaries, it is often accompanied by references to those adversaries' 'blindness', 'prejudice,' or narrow inability to transcend the status quo. Within the unconstrained vision, sincerity is a great concession to make..."(p. 60) "while those with the constrained vision can more readily make that concession, since it means so much less to them. Nor need adversaries be depicted as stupid by those with the constrained vision, for they conceive of the social process as so complex that is easy, even for wise and moral individuals, to be mistaken -- and dangerously so." (p. 60).

These are, of course, just excerpts from the "two broad categories". Dr. Sowell gives a detailed discussion of these ideas and provides historical examples that are fascinating to read such as Adam Smith and Edmund Burke vs. Thomas Paine, Rousseau, William Godwin, and Voltaire. He notes that the French Revolution followed the unconstrained vision while the American Revolution more closely followed the constrained vision. The unconstrained vision, in the case of the French Revolution, was destined to fail since it more than "threw caution to the wind". The American "experiment" has lasted because of the constrained piers it was built upon. Nevertheless, those with the unconstrained vision have worked in the succeeding years to destroy that foundation.

An article I wrote, "Understanding Self and the World We Live In: What are the Causes, Results and Cures for Cultural, Political and Religious Liberalism and Reactionary Conservativism?" divided the world into three stereotypical classes of people: Liberals (left), Conservatives (center) and Reactionary Conservatives (right). Jim Phillips, a Berean, voluntarily identified Bereans by saying I "targeted" the Bereans as Reactionary Conservatives. While I did not target Bereans, I agree with Jim that the stereotype fits on a group basis, though I would not blindly apply it to individuals which I don't have any particular knowledge of. When you factor in facts such as spouses being tied (not in a derogatory sense) to their husband or wife, and children inheriting a group, not knowing anything other than what they are told, it would be foolish to label everyone in a group with a stereotype.

Reactionary Conservatives are unusual in that while they are on the opposite end of the spectrum they share characteristics of their arch-enemy, Liberalism. This cross-over is explained by Dr. Sowell's division into two groups, "the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision".

Dr. Sowell writes, "The two visions conflict in law, as well as in economics and religion" (p. 50). It is not difficult to translate Dr. Sowell's classifications into terms of Fellowship. Whereas he concentrates on "social visions" of "human nature", you simply substitute "social visions" of Fellowship.

Separatists Fellowships exhibit the characteristics of "the unconstrained vision".

The Separatist Fellowship
The Unconstrained Vision

The Non-Separatist Fellowship
The Constrained Vision

In these Fellowships, the intent to create a better fellowship is far more highly valued than prudence. If prudence was highly valued then the Scriptural commands on how we are to treat our brethren would be given precedence over intentions of having purer fellowship. Actions such as large block disfellowships elevate intent over prudence. God has given a large number of clear commands on how we are to treat our brethren. He never commanded brethren to start new Fellowship Institutions, specially of the worldwide kind. Prudence in the form of following God's Word is a far wiser course to follow than good intentions.

Separatist Fellowships do not want to recognize the tradeoff between how high we raise our paper walls and how many of Christ's brethren we separate from.

There is a potential tradeoff between how high we raise our paper walls and how many of Christ's brethren we separate ourselves from. The higher the wall the more isolated we become.

If Separatist Fellowships admitted it was a tradeoff they would concede that it was a matter of judgment rather than a plain Scriptural command (to take the position they have taken).

And if it is a matter of judgment then why should men be blamed if they value prudence in the form of obedience to Scriptural commands over Separatist intentions? This admission would not serve their recruiting needs.

Separatists Fellowships claim to have a solution to the problems that vex non-separatist Fellowships. Separatists Fellowships offer as close to a "solution" as one could get to solving the problems of fellowship that a Fellowship may experience. Every time you experience a new threat you legislate against it with new "Fellowship defining" documents. You raise the walls against the new threat. This is what the Bereans have repeatedly done, with no consideration of the "costs".
There is no "solution" to the problems outside of local faithfulness to the Word of God and extending our influence as far as we can, without destroying ecclesial autonomy and creating a man-made worldwide Institution.

We have various commands which involve tradeoffs. Self-circumcision, manifesting love and patience and having the courage to face local ecclesial and personal troubles -- that is, to follow the Scriptures -- the examples of Christ, the Apostle's and prophets -- is more prudent than attempting to create the closest thing to a Utopian / Pure Fellowship that is humanly possible.

While the "unconstrained vision" seeks the special causes of war, poverty and crime, the separatist Fellowship seeks to understand the special cause of division (that which is atypical or abnormal to their society) within their Institution. On the other hand, the "constrained vision" sees "peace, wealth and a law-abiding society" as abnormal and seeks to understand the reasons why these things may exist. So, the non-separatist Fellowship would see "peace", strength and health as atypical.

Finally, Separatist Fellowships claim to respect Christadelphian history and Christadelphian precedent. This is the banner under which they have recruited for years. Yet, Christadelphian history and precedent are, sadly, just props held in front of their modern ecclesial organization. My recent discussions with Bereans who are unwilling to face the historical facts I've raised demonstrates that. What really matters to Separatists are their modern documents: the Common Statements of Faith, Restatements, and Common Constitutions by which the community separates itself from the rest of Christ's brethren.
The pioneer Christadelphians did not have a Common Statement of Faith; Brother Roberts rejected a Common Statement of Faith when proposed to him; None of the early Christadelphians viewed fellowship as the worldwide institution as presented by the Bereans; The pioneers did not believe that breaking bread was always equivalent to having fellowship etc.

We have an Ecclesial Statement of Faith, an Ecclesial Constitution, and uphold Doctrines to Be Rejected -- consistent with the practices of the early and founding Christadelphians and the original "Bereans".

"Even where sincerity is conceded to adversaries, it is often accompanied by references to those adversaries' 'blindness', 'prejudice,' or narrow inability to transcend the status quo." (p. 60):

"Nor would I agree that the status quo of Central today is something we should be striving to 'conserve'." (Jim Phillips, Berean, divining my motives)

Solutions to What?

Let me say one thing about "solutions". I'm sure separatists Fellowships would be happy to receive the description of "Believe in solutions rather than tradeoffs". After all, who would not want to be seen as offering "Solutions"? Life is filled with trouble so 'solutions' and 'answers' are like gold to the wise.

The question is, what problem does the doctrinal position of Separatist Fellowships solve? We might think of a number of answers, such as "(our ability to see) we are having worldwide fellowship" or "preventing troubles from traveling to a new ecclesia", answers which, when taken to the extremes which the Separatists Fellowship take them, are nice, but not Scriptural answers. Is it a Scriptural "solution" to invent an ecclesiastical order by which they so handily silence from within their community the mouths of vain talkers, a feat not even accomplished by the Spirit filled Apostles? So the solution or solutions offered "solve" immediate problems by unlawful means. The "solution" is not only unscriptural but against Scripture commands.

So Separatists are "solution" oriented but the return of Christ is the only real solution to the real problem, a problem created purposely by God to give His children an environment to be tried in and to grow in.

"This manifestation of the approved after this process is one reason why Yahweh keeps silence, and permits Satan to continue their operations among the Sons of the Deity, without any present judicial interference." (Eureka, vol 5, p. 81)

And then, at what cost does their solution come? The "costs" involved are high not to mention unscriptural. In a perfect world in which costs were not a concern, I would demand a solution as well. But Christ plainly tells us that "the least of these my brethren" is an important factor in his mind and his judgment:

even so, "ye have done it unto me" (Matt 25:40)

It is manifest that others do not share the Lord's mind on the matter but rather, elevate their solution over the costs. Costs they could not begin to pay if called to account. Yet, the day of account approaches. To whom much is given, much will be required. Light makes responsible. Today is the day of salvation.

Liberalism and Reactionary Conservativism really have a lot more in common than appears at first blush. There are other similarities but these will suffice for the time. Dr. Sowell's book confirms, in an interesting way, the comparison I've made with Liberalism and Reactionary Conservatism. I could not have known at the time it was written that these two groups share "the unconstrained vision". It explains why their outlook and the actions they take are so similar.

Last Update: August 7, 2007

The Unconstrained Vision	The Constrained Vision
"Intention" is "the essence of virtue" (p. 15)	"Prudence" is "the first of all virtues" (p. 17)
Believe in solutions rather than tradeoffs. (p. 17-20) Acceptance of any tradeoffs is viewed as a harmful crutch which only prolong the problem which is to be solved.	Solutions are viewed as probably unrealistic given the constraints. Life does not offer perfect solutions but only a set of tradeoffs so you must work within the given constraints. (p. 17-20)
The "solution" is more important than the "process costs" which would be required to implement a given solution. Process costs are a secondary consideration, if considered at all. "You can't make omelets without breaking eggs". (p. 29)	"Ideals are weighed against the cost of achieving them" (p. 28)
"While believers in the unconstrained vision seek the special causes of war, poverty, and crime..." (p. 25)	"believers in the constrained vision seek the special causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society".(p. 25)
"In the unconstrained society vision, there are no intractable reasons for social evils and therefore no reason why they cannot be solved, with sufficient moral commitment." (p. 25)	"But in the constrained vision, whatever artifices or strategies restrain or ameliorate inherent human evils will themselves have costs, some in the form of other social ills created by those civilizing institutions, so that all that is possible is a prudent trade-off." (p. 25)
"The unconstrained vision is a moral vision of human intentions, which are viewed as ultimately decisive." (p. 27)	"The constrained vision is a tragic vision of the human condition." (p. 27)
The base of knowledge and experience acquired by past generations, including history and historical precedent, is viewed as overrated. "We must bring everything to the standard of Reason". "Everything that bears the imprint of time must inspire distrust more than respect". (p. 40)	"Cultural distillations of knowledge were not considered infallible or immutable -- which would have been a solution instead of a trade-off -- but rather as a tested body of experience that worked, and which was to be changed only after the most circumspect, and perhaps even reluctant, examination" (p. 38).
Those who share the unconstrained view believe they have "cultivated minds" while those who do not are "persons of narrow views and observation". (p. 41)
"Sincerity is so central to the unconstrained vision that it is not readily conceded to adversaries, who are often depicted as apologists, if not venal. It is not uncommon in this tradition to find references to their adversaries' 'real' reasons, which must be 'unmasked'. Even where sincerity is conceded to adversaries, it is often accompanied by references to those adversaries' 'blindness', 'prejudice,' or narrow inability to transcend the status quo. Within the unconstrained vision, sincerity is a great concession to make..."(p. 60)	"while those with the constrained vision can more readily make that concession, since it means so much less to them. Nor need adversaries be depicted as stupid by those with the constrained vision, for they conceive of the social process as so complex that is easy, even for wise and moral individuals, to be mistaken -- and dangerously so." (p. 60).

The Separatist Fellowship The Unconstrained Vision	The Non-Separatist Fellowship The Constrained Vision
In these Fellowships, the intent to create a better fellowship is far more highly valued than prudence. If prudence was highly valued then the Scriptural commands on how we are to treat our brethren would be given precedence over intentions of having purer fellowship. Actions such as large block disfellowships elevate intent over prudence.	God has given a large number of clear commands on how we are to treat our brethren. He never commanded brethren to start new Fellowship Institutions, specially of the worldwide kind. Prudence in the form of following God's Word is a far wiser course to follow than good intentions.
Separatist Fellowships do not want to recognize the tradeoff between how high we raise our paper walls and how many of Christ's brethren we separate from.	There is a potential tradeoff between how high we raise our paper walls and how many of Christ's brethren we separate ourselves from. The higher the wall the more isolated we become. If Separatist Fellowships admitted it was a tradeoff they would concede that it was a matter of judgment rather than a plain Scriptural command (to take the position they have taken). And if it is a matter of judgment then why should men be blamed if they value prudence in the form of obedience to Scriptural commands over Separatist intentions? This admission would not serve their recruiting needs.
Separatists Fellowships claim to have a solution to the problems that vex non-separatist Fellowships. Separatists Fellowships offer as close to a "solution" as one could get to solving the problems of fellowship that a Fellowship may experience. Every time you experience a new threat you legislate against it with new "Fellowship defining" documents. You raise the walls against the new threat. This is what the Bereans have repeatedly done, with no consideration of the "costs".	There is no "solution" to the problems outside of local faithfulness to the Word of God and extending our influence as far as we can, without destroying ecclesial autonomy and creating a man-made worldwide Institution. We have various commands which involve tradeoffs. Self-circumcision, manifesting love and patience and having the courage to face local ecclesial and personal troubles -- that is, to follow the Scriptures -- the examples of Christ, the Apostle's and prophets -- is more prudent than attempting to create the closest thing to a Utopian / Pure Fellowship that is humanly possible.
While the "unconstrained vision" seeks the special causes of war, poverty and crime, the separatist Fellowship seeks to understand the special cause of division (that which is atypical or abnormal to their society) within their Institution.	On the other hand, the "constrained vision" sees "peace, wealth and a law-abiding society" as abnormal and seeks to understand the reasons why these things may exist. So, the non-separatist Fellowship would see "peace", strength and health as atypical.
Finally, Separatist Fellowships claim to respect Christadelphian history and Christadelphian precedent. This is the banner under which they have recruited for years. Yet, Christadelphian history and precedent are, sadly, just props held in front of their modern ecclesial organization. My recent discussions with Bereans who are unwilling to face the historical facts I've raised demonstrates that. What really matters to Separatists are their modern documents: the Common Statements of Faith, Restatements, and Common Constitutions by which the community separates itself from the rest of Christ's brethren.	The pioneer Christadelphians did not have a Common Statement of Faith; Brother Roberts rejected a Common Statement of Faith when proposed to him; None of the early Christadelphians viewed fellowship as the worldwide institution as presented by the Bereans; The pioneers did not believe that breaking bread was always equivalent to having fellowship etc. We have an Ecclesial Statement of Faith, an Ecclesial Constitution, and uphold Doctrines to Be Rejected -- consistent with the practices of the early and founding Christadelphians and the original "Bereans".
"Even where sincerity is conceded to adversaries, it is often accompanied by references to those adversaries' 'blindness', 'prejudice,' or narrow inability to transcend the status quo." (p. 60): "Nor would I agree that the status quo of Central today is something we should be striving to 'conserve'." (Jim Phillips, Berean, divining my motives)