The Berean Ecclesial News
September 2007 Claims

 

The Berean Ecclesial News (BEN), September 2007 edition has published an editorial on "The Berean Constitution". After reading it, the expression "May you live in interesting times" comes to mind. I recommend that before reading my comments you read the editorial on pages 294-296 keeping in mind the fact that the editorial is a walking contradiction to itself and to historical facts.

For 27 years Bereans have published the following as "Our Basis of Fellowship":


The Berean 1980, p. 1; 1986, p. 11; 1996, p. 11

Not only have Bereans published the above documents as "Our Basis of Fellowship" in the Berean magazine, they have taken the exact same material and published it in the form of a pamphlet, which they have made available to interested outsiders. I have TWO editions of this in pamphlet form, one of which I was given by a Berean some years ago (after the death of bro. GVG) to let me know what the Bereans would expect of me if I joined the Berean Fellowship. The pamphlet did not come with any disclaimers.


The Berean Basis of Fellowship in pamphlet form, 1984

"Reader! If you have found 'The Berean Basis of Fellowship' interesting and
would like more information concerning it,
then please feel free to write to the publisher or to the address in the box below.
The issues that are involved are vital and
we would be only too happy
to further your understanding of
our position
so that you can come to an objective and
enlightened decision concerning it."

 

Part of what I have pointed out from my research on the Bereans is that there was no "Common Constitution" in the published Berean basis of fellowship until 1980. In response, The Berean Ecclesial News makes some remarkable claims.

I would ask the reader to notice the images above, the top taken from the 1980 front cover of The Berean magazine and the second set from the front and back cover of one edition of the pamphlet. The same basis of fellowship was published in the January 1986 (p. 11) and 1996 (p. 11) issues of the magazine, as well as in at least two editions in pamphlet form. Notice that on page 16, part of "Our Basis of Fellowship" is "The Common Constitution", of which this publication states, the Common Constitution contains "matters vital to fellowship" (p. 11).

Brother JP commenting on the Common Constitution in the September 2007 BEN article says, "It was very well done, and passed among us unquestioned for some years." (p. 295). By "some years" brother JP means twenty-seven years which brother FH confirms in point #5 on page 296.

Brother JP then, in a complete reversal, claims, "There never was such a thing as a Common Constitution for Berean Ecclesias." (p. 295). I am not sure how a thing at once is "very well done" and "passed among us unquestioned" for 27 years yet "never" existed even though published at least five times. What I believe bro. JP means to say is that some Berean ecclesias continued to have their own ecclesial constitutions. That is really not the point. The point is that the five time published Berean basis of fellowship contains a Common Constitution with "matters vital to fellowship" which has been published at least four times AFTER GVG's death. Either Bereans follow their published Basis of Fellowship or they do not.


Berean Ecclesial News, September 2007, p. 295

Brother JP claims, "The Common Constitution was an article in a publication, not an attempt at unilateral legislation." (p. 295). I would ask brethren to view the January 1980 issue of the Berean magazine and tell me if the published statement is merely "an article in a publication". Does the "Our Basis of Fellowship" section, which can be "extracted for permanent reference" (top right corner of p. 11), present itself as an opinion piece? Why would one need a "permanent reference" if the publication is merely an opinion piece? Would the four subsequent publications of it, and distributions by other Bereans -- including Jim Phillips himself, leave it as "opinion", or "suggestion"?

The Introductory material itself states,

"What local decisions an ecclesia makes (in the interests of preserving its local harmony and soundness) are far better kept entirely separate from, and secondary to, this basic body of fellowship-defining material we ALL have, and subscribe to, in common" (Our Basis of Fellowship, p. 11; emphasis on 'ALL' found in original).

and

"The ideal is that all ecclesias have exactly the same Constitution, as far as concerns matters of fellowship. There seems to be no reason for sacrificing this ideal for the sake of numbers. To so do would in time mean a multitude of varying bases, instead of our present common and uniform one." (Our Basis of Fellowship, p. 11 )

Now, either brother Growcott was correct or he was not when he called the published basis "this basic body of fellowship-defining material we ALL have, and subscribe to, in common" (Our Basis of Fellowship, p. 11). BEN, JP and FH suggest this was merely GVG's opinion. If it was his opinion, it was a misinformed opinion according to BEN, though that is hard to understand since "it was very well done" and "passed among us unquestioned" for 27 years. One can only imagine GVG's response if an individual Berean, in 1980, had said GVG's "opinion" was false and that not ALL Berean ecclesias subscribed to the "basic body of fellowship-defining material"!

I suppose this means Berean ecclesias are now free to reject the Common Constitution and to adopt their own Constitution though "Our Basis" states, this would be "sacrificing this ideal for the sake of numbers." Will The Berean Ecclesial News please publish its position whether or not Berean ecclesias may reject the Common Constitution altogether? Will the Bereans now publish "Our Basis" without the Common Consititution and will the Introduction remove the text shown in the above image? In other words, will the Berean Basis of Fellowship be changed once again?

The BEN article then says, "The Berean Magazine in 1980 was the personal responsibility of Bro. Growcott. He was free to write in it what he wished. Individuals were free to disagree with what they didn't like..." (p. 296) . Brother Growcott died April 17th, 1981. Who republished the same "Our Basis of Fellowship" in the January 1986 and 1996 issues of the magazine? Who published the two pamphet editions of the Basis the second edition appearing in 1984 other than Bereans? Do the Bereans think someone in Central or the Unamended community republished them? I know brother JP may see these questions as "irrelevant minutia", but I do believe the question of timing is quite relevant. And if it "passed among us unquestioned for some" twenty-seven years, why should I have questioned the Berean position either? Mark this reader: some Bereans, would have us believe that for nearly 30 years, the Bereans have been publishing a Basis of Fellowship which they never really believed in or put into practice. Was it not unfaithfulness to the published Birmingham basis of fellowship which led some brethren to withdraw from the Birmingham Christadelphian ecclesia in 1923?

And I do find it strange that Bereans quote bro. Roberts' position or opinion anywhere in The Christadelphian as if it were an unquestioned dictate of the entire Fellowship, but when GVG publishes, by every appearance, an official Berean position on fellowship, it becomes the mere opinion of GVG.

BEN claims, "The Common Constitution was an article in a publication, not an attempt at unilateral legislation." (p. 295). It was unilateral legislation if Bereans accepted it as "very well done, and passed among us unquestioned for" twenty seven years unless other Berean leading brethren were involved in the action in which case they were a delegation who were legislating. Either way, one wonders if Bereans are serious about Clause 4 of their own Restatement which prohibits brethren from legislating rules on behalf of other ecclesias.

Bro. FH, adds at the bottom of the JP article, "There is no demand that all Ecclesias endorse the Bro. Growcott emphasized version of The Constitution under threat of disfellowship." I never claimed otherwise. The published Berean Basis of Fellowship says it contains matters "vital to fellowship" and that they are placed in bold lettering, and that Berean ecclesias are free to alter the Common Constitution on matters which are not vital to fellowship.

BEN states, "It has not been the policy of this publication to alter the 'old landmarks' provided us by those who have fallen asleep in the Lord, nor are we likely to do so in the future." (FH, p. 296)

Far be it from Bereans to alter the 'old landmarks'. But perhaps brother FH will explain these latest alterations, even if alterations are not BEN's policy:

  1. How can it be reconciled that on the one hand the Bereans publish Our Basis of Fellowship with a "Common Constitution" five times over a period of 27 years, but the BEN comes along and suggests it was the opinion of GVG? (p. 295)? Do Bereans require "matters vital to fellowship" in the Common Consititution or not as a basis of their fellowship?
  2. How is it that clause 10 of the Berean Restatement (as published by GVG in 1980, and republished "unquestioned" in 1986 and 1996) has been removed from the online edition? So "policy" or not, BEN has altered an "old landmark" provided by "those who have fallen asleep in the Lord".

 

In closing:

  1. The September 2007 BEN article confirms just what I have argued: that no published Berean basis of fellowship prior to 1980 included the Common Constitution. I thank BEN for the admission.
  2. Therefore, prior to 1980, there could have been no "matters vital to fellowship" in a Constitution because there was no Common Constitution which was collectively held.
  3. It is a great irony that Bereans, those who claim to be faithful to "the doctrine of fellowship" cannot figure out what their real basis of fellowship is. They publish one thing, use it without question and pass it around to outsiders for 27 years as if it were what Bereans have always stood for and then, only when challenged by an outsider, try and disown it. This is a kind of "loose fellowship" practice they would condemn in anyone else.
  4. Instead of truth, BEN creates new platitudes about its "policy" of not altering the works of dead brethren — works which they, at the same time, incidentally, disown!
  5. One would suppose when Bereans publish to the world Our Basis of Fellowship that they would stand behind it. Not so. Now a dead brother is blamed for the changes, even though he was not around to republish them in 1984, 1986 and 1996 and that they "passed unquestioned" amongst the Bereans for twenty-seven years.

Indeed, we do live in "interesting times". No wonder the Bereans declined to debate.

Last Update: October 19, 2007