On Berean Representations Concerning Fellowship

Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 04:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Phillips
To: Steve Genusa
Subject: 12 Questions, Answered

I was reading on your website and came across a new article called Questions on Fellowship. I thought I would take the time to answer them for you.

I also saw your Christadelphian Time Line, and it is quite helpful. Thank you for your effort. I was interested that I was included in it in the errorist colors, when that little booklet was is simply a collection of the writings of the early Christadelphians, all of them with context included I believe. Even the excerpts all have the full context somewhere in the booklet. At least that is the way I remember it.

I understand that you do not like our fellowship position, and I accept that. We will both go to the judgment seat, satisfied with the correctness of our individual position, and soon I hope. Then we will let Christ judge. But I am at least a little surprised that the irony of the situation seems to be lost on you, that your fellowship position has just branded 100 plus pages of writings by the pioneer brethren, in full context, as error.

Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Genusa
To: Jim Phillips
Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

> I am at least a little surprised that the irony of the situation seems
> to be lost on you

I wonder what it is in your mind that criticism so mentally chafes you? Well, on second thought, no I understand, but it would be nice if you did too. Then we could have productive conversations.

But I am not surprised you see the criticism the way you do. It is a purely self-serving to claim that I am criticizing the pioneer writings rather than you and J.S. It is hardly possible for you to consider it any other way than you do because to even begin to challenge your beliefs would require you to accept the possibility -- the remote possibility -- that your lifetime investment has been under false preconceptions. Most men's egos won't allow that.

Your booklet proved that its possible to provide context to a quote while presenting them in a way that misrepresents the quotes. I fully endorse the quotes... but not YOUR ATTEMPT TO CLAIM JT OR RR WOULD BEHAVE THE WAY YOU DO. IT IS OBVIOUS, BY THEIR HISTORY, THEY DIDN'T. But if you choose to soothe your conscience with lies that's your responsibility.

Sent: Wed, August 9, 2006 1:56 pm
From: Jim Phillips
To: Stephen Genusa
Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

I really don't mean to upset you when I write, like it looks like I have, again. That just isn't my goal. And I'm not threatened, or chaffed, or have any such feelings when I'm told I am wrong. By this time, I assure you, I'm quite used to it.

I am all in favor of productive discussion, but I'm not sure how we are going to do that. You seem to be coming from the position that I am egocentric, etc. and so I don't know if you will be willing to explain yourself, feeling that it is useless. And if I disagree with what you write, regardless of how legitimate my disagreement may be, will you not just brush it off as part of the character flaw you deem me to have?

For instance, you write: "Your booklet proved that its possible to provide context to a quote while presenting them in a way that misrepresents the quotes." Now, that is a tough idea for me to accept. If I (or anyone) quoted the matter correctly, and quoted them in their proper context, then how could the quotes be misrepresented? I could see you saying that those quotes in their context must be understood in harmony with other quotes. That would seem to be reasonable. I could see you going and establishing a more full context. That would also seem reasonable. But if I ask you to explain why quotes in their context don't mean what they say, will you answer, or will you get upset again, and lodge more complaints about my lack of character?

I would think a real simple way for you to make your point, is just if you can explain me how fellowship matters should be handled in your own words, and then show me the places where bro. Roberts or bro. Thomas agree with you. If you could maybe explain to me how to go about withdrawal from error. If you could maybe explain to me what you think withdrawal means. If you could explain to me what we do if another ecclesia, or another individual refuses to honor your withdrawal.

You say that the history proves that they didn't believe what I say they believed. Is there some place on your web site where you show us just exactly what their history proves they did believe and practice? When you say "by their history" certain things are obvious, are you sure you have put the only possible explanation on the histories, that a person could understand? Some folks, as I'm sure you are aware, use histories to disprove the Bible. They can do this, because the Bible does not always give us details necessary to explain events in history outside its purview. So certain things can appear to be contradictory, when all we really need is more information. And some third hand "histories" in the world are politically motivated. Are you sure that the motive of those historians you are reading, are so pure that you discount the things bre. Thomas and Roberts plainly say, and accept things others say about them?

Again, I'm not trying to upset you. I'm just trying to explore whether or not there is some basis we can find, for a productive discussion.

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 03:54:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Genusa
To: Jim Phillips
Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

You have a pattern of contacting me with some criticism, getting one response from me, and then -every time- afterward responding with something about you "not meaning to upset" me. This has proved to be habitual behavior on your part which I do find troubling. This last email expresses your incorrect assertion no less than three times. If you had seen me this morning when I replied "upset", or any word variation thereof, would not have been accurate. I believe I raised this issue with you last time but you've done it again.

Perhaps you are unable to discern between forthright comments and anger? Based on your past behavior, I cannot help but wonder if you are not just writing for me, but you are posturing and characterizing for your Berean friends who you share your email with? If you have shared, or currently plan to share, any of my emails on this current topic, I ask you to send them my responses in full, not just the convenient parts where you are the disinterested and rueful inquirer.

You can quote a man (or men) in context and yet you may not accurately represent that man's position. There are a number of reasons why that might be. This is not a comprehensive list but one factor alone, listed below, can account for the disagreement between the works of the man and some people's perception of his position:

A) The man's works may not comprehensively deal with a specific topic.
B) The man's works may have been selectively quoted from.
C) The man's works may be misinterpreted.
D) The man's works may be misrepresented.
E) The man's works are colored by other factors associated with the reproduction of them.

I would rule out A based on knowledge I have from reading the Pioneer works -- and surely you agree. I have not researched your selections of the Pioneer works vs the totality of their writings on fellowship to be able to comment on B. You are guilty of C, D and E. But before I elaborate on those items let me add two other factors into the discussion of your book:

1) One of the biggest problems your position has is that there is an obvious disconnect in what you claim is the Pioneer position and what we know they actually did both in their local ecclesial settings and worldwide travel. All you have to do is read the writings of JT and RR, read their own historical accounts -- where they went, who they broke bread with, under varied circumstances, how they handled heresies etc. The Berean slant (C, D & E) you put on their doctrinal expositions does not match what they actually did. There is no inconsistency with their words and works but rather with your interpretation of their words vs. their works.

For example, take any example of error you like from brother Robert Roberts' days. Brother Roberts never dictated to the community what position to take, though he could have tried to assert his "authority" (and brother John Thomas declined to dictate as well). He did exercise his influence as far he thought appropriate but not as Berean leaders do today. Brother Roberts knew it was not his, or even a select group (eg. the Berean "Trinity") of brothers' place to dictate to worldwide ecclesias what position to take. Not so with the Bereans -- they demand effective authority over any ecclesia claiming to be "Berean". Brother Roberts would only exercise responsibility within his own ecclesia to influence it, and through his magazine and labors, to try to influence others as to the right position to take. But there was no worldwide dictate, not on Dowie, not on clean-flesh, not even on the responsibility matter. Birmingham amended their SOF and others who agreed followed. This is clearly not how Bereans operate. You've got a disconnect in Christadelphian history and Berean practice that you can't talk yourself out of. What you need to do is show how Berean practice is even remotely similar to John Thomas' or Robert Roberts' practices in the matters raised.

What a reading of their own histories shows is that they never had the kind of control over the Christadelphian community as the Bereans assert over their's. By the Pioneer's own words you will find they viewed real Christadelphians as a minority in the Christadelphian community of their own day, though they were under no delusions, even in the midst of serious heresies, about starting new "fellowships" or a worldwide pure fellowship table. You will not find them practicing the fellowship position the Bereans/Old Paths/&c/&c have taken. Period. You cannot get around that disconnect.

2) You produced the book with Julio Scaramastro. Now some time after you two had laid out the "Pioneer" -- in reality what you saw as the Berean -- position on fellowship, he came to the conclusion that the Bereans WERE NOT PRACTICING THE PIONEER FELLOWSHIP POSITION. This was part of his own argument in leaving the Bereans. So he left the Bereans and went to another sect. So here is evidence, evidence of the very highest quality, from your own co-compiler no less, that the problem is not with the Pioneer quotations but with the INTERPRETATION of the quotations. You MUST AGREE WITH ME that the brother who co-compiled the book with you misinterpreted the quotes (quotes he had co-compiled with you), or else you admit he was right to leave the Bereans (and I wonder why you haven't left yourself!). Perhaps he didn't nuance the right passage on some page of the book but whatever the case, he left the Bereans and went to, according to his action, a (more) pure fellowship. So the quotes don't just speak for themselves as you would like to pretend they do.

Now, point #2 seals the case against your representation of the quotes -- as self-explaining inconvertible positions on fellowship -- but let me now speak to C, D and E, which are important issues to raise as well:

C) There is nothing written in the book that requires the reader come to the conclusion that the Berean or other sectarian fellowship view is correct. There are two basic ways to view the quotes. The difference in how the quotes are interpreted is due to this: If you START with the assumption of fellowship working, as say the Berean or Old Paths see it, a worldwide fellowship table that must be controlled, the quotes logically lead to worldwide controlled sectarian fellowship. The quotes never have a chance for a fair understanding since the way to interpret them is predetermined.

Berean control is maintained worldwide. Local control is the result of the worldwide control. For Bereans it is the strong leadership of a few over the many. Central has no "Trinity" as some Bereans have labeled their own leadership in the recent past! You assume that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered are Christ's table of fellowship without exception. That's how the Berean's treat it by practice. And you treat fellowship as such to control it so that "the Lord's table" as you see it is not polluted... based on that assumption. Once again this leads back to the fact that the Berean practices are not the pioneer practices and not the Scripture's practices.

Your's is an unscriptural position as Epistles to early brethren demonstrate, by their practices and problems and Paul's treatment of them shows. I compare your practices with what I see in the Scriptures and like others must conclude that the early ecclesias of Scripture would not have been welcome in the Berean community. Protest this as you like. It can only be Berean hopes of how they are perceived vs. the reality of your heavy-handed practices.

If on the other hand you apply the Scriptural principles and precedents (such as Paul with the Corinthians) which are consistent with the Pioneer practices, then the quotations do not support the Berean/sectarian fellowship position. They lead to strong local ecclesias who try and let the light of the truth shine as far and wide as possible.

It is true that errorists can use ecclesial autonomy to hide behind. But the other extreme is that ecclesial autonomy is a shadow, or an empty phrase, under Berean practices.

D & E) You claim that you have merely assembled a book of quotes and the quotes speak for themselves but they don't. What colors the quotations is that the book has been produced by individuals and is now used by (ironically) multiple sectarian communities (all claiming to be the "ONE true fellowship"!) who use the book to support their unique fellowship position. That colors the quotes and leads readers in a direction that the quotes themselves do not naturally lead. I know this because when I first read the book I interpreted the quotes in a sectarian manner. I did this because I knew where the book came from (like the majority of its owners) and ASSUMED they led to your position. But later, I sat down to convince another brother he was wrong on fellowship -- using your book -- and he answered my arguments quote by quote, showing me that the (sectarian) interpretation I was giving it was not what the quote was saying -- that I was reading into them assumptions -- I could not argue with him because the text did not say what I interpreted it to say -- it [did not say] what I assumed it said -- undoubtedly the same or similar assumptions to those you had when you assembled the book!

What's worse for your position is that if you were held to your own standards your "fellowship" would come up more polluted than those you criticize. (do you really know all you should know to argue against this point?)

And while this does not prove which way the quotes are to be interpreted, it is no surprise they were compiled by two people who had already decided how the quotes were to be understood.

I thank you for raising this issue. I will be posting, God willing, this matter in a new article on my web site. If I need to refine my arguments further I welcome any added criticisms you have. I do not have a problem with posting our full exchanges to the web for public view if you want to share them with others. I had an email exchange with your co-compiler, Julio S., on fellowship, some years back. It was enlightening (in a certain way). He resorted to hiding behind denunciations of "apostate" when my arguments were set before him. Your exchange, with his, would be useful.

Thank you for asking me to write about something I've wanted to write about for years,

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Phillips
To: Stephen Genusa
Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

I am very happy that you are going to undertake this.
I am excited to see where this exercise takes us.
Perhaps you were quite blessed that you had someone to explain to you how the writings in the Fellowship Booklet are harmonious with the practices of Central.
I have never had anyone do that for me. I can't remember the Central brother who even has mentioned it to me. I am quite anxious to see what it is that persuaded you, that has escaped me.

I am visiting my mother in California, right now, as she is quite sick with a cancer. She is sis. Themla Phillips of the Santa Barbara, Central meeting.

The reason I bring this up is that I do not know how much time I will be able to devote to this at this moment, but I will be back in Austin on Tuesday, and will be back to my normal schedule.

Just a little bit about the booklet since I have a little time, and how it came to be. Bro. Julio desired to do something about educating ones concerning the doctrine of fellowship, and I was quite willing to help. What I did was to go through my collection of Berean Magazines, cut out the articles on fellowship, paste them up, and produce it off of a copier in my garage. (I work in copier sales and repair, so it was easy to do.) I sent the copies to bro. Julio, who spiral bound it and distributed it.

I bring this up just to clarify that bro. Julio was not a co-compiler, not did he have any input into the booklet at all. It is entirely my responsibility.
Bro. Julio did provided some funding.

I will address the more relevant portions of your last email as time allows this weekend.

And one other quick thing: I'm not writing with the motive you suggest. It matters nothing to me if our correspondance goes beyond our emails, but I have no objection whatsoever, to your posting them, if you feel they will be instructive to others struggling with this question.

I do not remember if I forwarded our last emails or
not. I usually won't, even when requested,
without asking permission. I rather think I didn't.
If I did, it would only have been to bro. Freddie Higham, but as I say, I don't think I did.

Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Phillips
To: Stephen Genusa
Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

Dear bro. Genusa,

Greetings in Christ our Lord,
I have now had the time to check out some of the things I discussed in the last email.
I did not forward any of our correspondence to anyone, and I can’t find where I quoted from it to anyone in private email. The discussion I had with bro. Freddie Higham at that time, (which was in my mind,) centered on the article you wrote about "Understanding Self etc."

I agree with you on your numbers A and B. Those are the conditions under which the full context of articles, may not truly exhibit the writers thoughts. I believe that is what I was trying to say when I wrote to you: "I could see you saying that those quotes in their context must be understood in harmony with other quotes. That would seem to be reasonable. I could see you going and establishing a more full context. That would also seem reasonable."

I see that as the challenge for the article you will write. You will have to provide additional context, either from their direct writings or from historical sources, which will prove that they did not mean or practice the things they are quoted as saying in the articles I have assembled on fellowship.

The early Christadelphians consistently taught that you cannot walk in light, and fellowship with darkness. I think you and I agree on that, but please correct me if I am wrong. Where we disagree, I think, is whether or not they teach that you are in fellowship with an ecclesia, even though you do not receive a visit from them as bro. Roberts writes in the Christadelphian, 1887, pg 328. And, whether or not you can receive into your fellowship the brother who is personally sound, but receives into fellowship those who are not as bro. Roberts writes in the Christadelphian, 1885, pg 387. Your challenge in defending Central will to do one of these, or the other:
1). You might prove you can follow these teachings while in Central
2). You might be able to supply the context (actual or historical) that explains how they can say all these things I have quoted, while refusing to separate themselves from such a fellowship where this routinely happens.
Your last three points, C, D, and E would seem to me to not be the function of the compiler, but rather the reader. If the works are quoted in their complete context, and they are misinterpreted by the reader, how is that the fault of the compiler? If the works are quoted in their complete context, how can they be said to be misrepresented, particularly, when the compiler offers no comments to represent things (beyond isolating small portions for emphasis)? I suppose I could allow that the works could be colored by other factors not included in the work itself, but again the reader has to permit that to happen. And in a collection such as I presented, where the coloring is exclusively by the writings of early Christadelphians, it is hard to see how that happened.
* * * * *
Concerning your suggestion in "C" that nothing in the book suggests that the Berean view is correct: this really falls into two areas. First, what is the Berean position? If the things you wrote about the Berean position were the correct and actual representation of the Berean position, then no, the Berean position would not be correct. Secondly, I believe that there are principles elucidated in these writings which make the point quite clearly that we cannot fellowship error, neither can we fellowship those brethren who will fellowship error. The two quotes that I referenced earlier, should suffice. That is the true Berean position on fellowship. This is a position that I see as impossible to maintain in Central.

You make the argument in "C" that the Berean position is different than the examples we have in the first century ecclesias, known by Paul’s writings to the first century ecclesias. Clearly those ecclesias had error in them, and clearly Paul fellowshiped them. For whatever reason, you think the Bereans find this an impossible situation. I don’t think it is, and this is why.

We do not believe that a man is walking in darkness when fellowshiping error, when
(1) the error is being identified as such,
(2) the error is being combated,
(3) and when the withdrawal from that error, if not repented of, is inevitable.
In 1885, pg. 38 of the Chdn. in dealing with the "Partial Inspiration" error, the meeting in Birmingham records this exchange. A brother wanted to call a meeting very early on in the controversy, to "avert division." Bro. Roberts warned them that calling this sort of meeting was just the thing that would guarantee division. Time was needed so that emotions could subside, quiet reason take over, and then every man can be called on to be responsible for his own behavior. "How much time," bro. Roberts was asked? "Three or four months, at least" answered bro. Roberts. The brother who wanted the special meeting asked bro. Roberts, "What then?" Bro. Roberts answered, "Speaking for myself, I shall refuse to remain associated with any assembly that tolerates the doctrine in their midst that any part of the Bible is not divine."

Can you show me that this was not the identical situation for the first century ecclesias? Paul told them, "you have problems, and you need to have them resolved." He was relying on the star presbyter to know how long to allow this condition to exist, just as bro. Roberts left these kinds of decisions to the local ecclesias. This would be measured in months and maybe in that age of slow communication, years. But certainly not decades. And the one thing that was sure, was that it could not go on indefinitely. Hence the Spirit’s warning to the ecclesias, "repent."

In the Bereans, we have problems come up from time to time. Each ecclesia handles its own problems, as best as it sees fit, and then we move on. We sometimes get pressure in the form of criticism from Central which makes some members desirous of moving faster than is wise, remembering that the goal is always the securing of all members of the body. "What will Central say?" we often hear. "Same things they always say!" is my consistent response. What we have to do is act in the best interests of all our members. And if that means we take some more abuse from Central brethren mocking us for not being "pure" enough, so be it.

You made contact with the Bereans at a time when we were suffering from brethren who perceived themselves as "leaders." We had to work through that, and we did. The brethren you refer to as "the Berean ‘trinity’" are no longer with us, as they tied to lead, but found very few willing to follow. I had quite a public impromptu discussion at the Hye gathering of 1988, with one of them, which is still referred to as "the picnic table debate," where I exhibited to them from the "Ecclesial Guide" exactly how our ecclesias work, under their very heavy cross examination.

God has promised that we will have problems arise in our ecclesias, both from without and from within. The difference between Central and Berean fellowships is that the ultimate conclusion of the matter in the Bereans has always been settled on the side of the Truth as defined in the BASF; while in Central, even if the matter is correctly settled by one ecclesia, the errorist will simply move to the next door ecclesia, so that the channel for erroneous principles to influence the body for ill, is continued.
* * * * *
D&E: I stand by my earlier statement that if you have allowed yourself to have your understanding "colored" by those making the presentation, the responsibility is on the reader, not the writer/compiler. When writing, or assembling a document, the writer has full responsibility to understand that he will be scrutinized quite closely, particularly in those areas where disagreement is apt to exist. He cannot generally presume the luxury you had granted me. I certainly compiled it with this in mind.

I presumed the lack of discussion on this from Central brethren relevant to our booklet indicated that we had done a fairly decent job in the area of establishing the early Christadelphian teaching, and Central brethren yielded the point. I figured, apparently incorrectly, that Central went away from the early Christadelphian’s teachings, in favor of bro. George Booker’s treatment of the doctrine of fellowship. In fact, I thought his recent appointment to editor of the Tidings magazine was his reward for "educating" Central brethren away from the teachings of the early Christadelphians. But now I learn from you that our booklet was being discussed and debated by Central brethren, but without including me in the discussion.

But under any circumstances, whether or not the format I used "colored" the discussion away from their true teachings will be decided by our discussion pertaining to A&B. If there is a fuller way to explain these things in their context, surely you will be able to show us what the brother you referenced showed you. Then we can all benefit by a fuller and more complete understanding.
* * * * *
1) Now on the two points you raise concerning the Berean position, I find nothing in your number one that I disagree with, except for your applying it to the Bereans. We have no central authority. We have no "trinity" of brethren who demand world wide control.

We agree that each ecclesia is responsible for handling its own problems. If an ecclesia entered into a position of error, it would be the responsibility of the next closest ecclesia to resolve the matter, and so on. We agree with the teachings of bro. Roberts you referenced, that within our ecclesias, it is probably but a small group who are truly walking faithfully, a point we exhort each other about constantly.

So again, I have no problems with the points of criticism pertaining to fellowship you bring up. I just deny your application of those principles to the Bereans. If we had a central power base (clergy) that interfered with the workings of ecclesias, that would be wrong. If we believed we had to be "pure" in the sense you mean, then that would be wrong. But we don’t believe or practice any of those things, so it is beside the point.

2) The separation between myself and bro. Julio was not over the doctrine of fellowship itself, but rather over his desire to expand the basis of fellowship which would have had the result of withdrawal from bre. Thomas and Roberts. Bro. Julio even posted on his website, evidence that in his opinion, bro. Roberts was wrong, concerning one of the things he separated from us over.

As Berean Christadelphians, we meet on the BASF. We have resisted all efforts to add to the BASF. We resisted bro. Julio’s efforts to add to the BASF. He ultimately decided that the things in question were so important–though outside the BASF-- that they couldn’t be left to individual conscience, so he withdrew from us.

Bro. Julio acted in harmony with his and my views of the doctrine of fellowship, itself. He withdrew from what he supposed to be error, and those who were refusing to withdraw from what he supposed to be error. He just decided to expand the Statement of Faith to include things, historically Christadelphians had not done.

Sincerely,

Jim Phillips
8/13/06

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:56 CDT
From: Stephen Genusa
To: Jim Phillips
Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

Brother Phillips,

I've read your latest response and, consistent with our exchanges in the past, you are not addressing the important arguments I set before you. You are talking around them. You say you want to have productive communications with me, but how can they be productive when you avoid arguments I am making against your position? I would have thought that if my arguments were not valid that you would directly show them to be wrong.

> I did not forward any of our correspondence to anyone

When other Bereans (that would be more than one) are aware of our personal email conversations, going so far as to make points to me associated with discussion between the two of us, I naturally conclude that you've forwarded, in whole or in part, our email. Again, I do not have a problem with it, if you aren't being selective in what you send.

> I agree with you on your numbers A and B.

Following my last email to you I found that the quotes in your book not only have been cut, but that in one case (only one of two I've looked at so far) in a decisive way as to brother Roberts behavior on fellowship. I have also found some quotes from brother Thomas on fellowship that were not included in your book -- very important quotes that are contrary to Berean practice and portrayal. I will post those as well.

> I see that as the challenge for the article you will write.

I would like to do a full examination of the quotes to see what else has been cut and plan to do this and document what I find. As I find it, it will be posted to the Web, God willing.

> The early Christadelphians consistently taught that you cannot walk in light, and fellowship with darkness.

This point is not disputed. You will find that exact point on my Web page on fellowship.

> Where we disagree, I think, is whether or not they teach that you are in fellowship with an ecclesia, even though you do not
> receive a visit from them as bro. Roberts writes in the Christadelphian

No, Jim. This is typical of how all our conversations work and why, frankly, I do not like corresponding with you. I plainly put before you a principle and you ignore it. In this case, in place of the principle I stated, you substitute an argument of your own liking, a pioneer quote you can portray yourself as upholding and portray me as violating. The principle I stated was "You assume that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered are Christ's table of fellowship without exception. That's how the Berean's treat it by practice. And you treat fellowship as such to control it so that 'the Lord's table' as you see it is not polluted... based on that assumption."

Let me restate the principle in even more explicit terms:

You assume that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered, also known as a Fellowship (institution) is Christ's table of fellowship without exception. That's how the Berean's treat it by practice. And you treat fellowship as such to control it so that 'the Lord's table' as you see it is not polluted... based on that assumption.

> Your last three points, C, D, and E would seem to me to not be the function of the compiler, but rather the reader

I acknowledge you'd like to claim you have no responsibility in how they are represented or interpreted, or colored, but your role, and the role the Bereans play cannot be dismissed.

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Phillips
To: Stephen Genusa
Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:52 (CDT)
From: Stephen Genusa
To: Jim Phillips
Subject: RE: 12 Questions, Answered

Dear brother Phillips,

As I stated my time is now limited. With this email and the others already sent, I believe my case is set before you, to an extent that you can examine the issues and judge rightly if you really, as you have claimed, are desirous of seeing whether my arguments have any value or not. If you only want to uphold the Berean misrepresentation of the pioneer position, a thing I have shown to be misrepresentation on my web site, I respectfully request that we close our discussion. Discussing everything and settling nothing is most disagreeable and I am mindful of avoiding that manifestation of the flesh which is described as "with our tongue will we prevail". I am sure you agree and do not suggest otherwise but I am of a mind to end our discussion and spend my remaining time and energy where I believe it will be valued.

I wrote,

>> “The principle I stated "You assume that the local tables of fellowship collectively gathered, also known as a Fellowship (institution) is Christ's table of fellowship without exception. .”

To which you responded,

> We do believe the table is the Lord’s.

To that point, as a generality, we agree. What I challenge is the Berean practice and belief that everyone who sits down to it are in fellowship without exception. You reworded my statement saying,

> All the ecclesias which constitute the Berean Fellowship believe this, and consequently, we are collectively gathered to Christ’s table, without exception.

Then you wrote,
> We do believe that all Berean Christadelphians are in fellowship with each other, without exception.

I note that point and ask you to note it as well -- I will return to it since this is my very argument about the unscriptural and non-pioneer Berean position and practice.

You continued,
> If you mean that we believe that these are the only people in fellowship with Christ, without exception; then no, this is not what we believe. We leave that question to Christ at his coming.

Having read through some of the comments in the Berean magazine, and being privy to a few conversations of Bereans I am not so sure that all Bereans believe that, but it is not something I'd spend much time arguing.

But I should state that for Bereans to talk of burning books, like burning H.P. Mansfield's books, sounds like some are not leaving things to Christ's return. That's the talk of a zealous radical. And to talk of HPM or other specific Central brethren as "traitors" because they didn't join the Bereans is not just leaving "that question to Christ at his coming". So which way will you have it? And will you share your position with Bereans who say things like that?

> To be clear, we do not believe that we “fellowship the table,” as the expression in the past was so used.

That was not a term I used or applied so we can, I believe, safely ignore it.

> We do believe we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems.

That is exactly the point I have been making about the Bereans! You claim: "WE ARE IN FELLOWSHIP WITH ALL IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO SHARE THE EMBLEMS."

There is your doctrinal error. And so by your own admission you leave me with no alternative then but to accept that -- according to your own views on fellowship -- that all Bereans, 'without exception', are now in fellowship with a person who who was withdrawn from by his Central ecclesia for an adulterous relationship. If you want fellowship "without exception," and I know you do because this is the complaint you lodge against Central ecclesias, then you must bear the consequences of it in practice.

You "are in fellowship", with all who come to the table "without exception" and so, as I previously argued, you believe Christ and Belial can be joined. You claim, with words, you do not believe this. But when you tell me your beliefs and practices, I see that you do believe it. You whitewash -- and I am sorry to put it in such strong terms but how else can sin be covered over with a false covering -- you whitewash Belial till you no longer share the emblems! Achan or an incestuous Corinthian who (for how long is irrelevant to this argument) breaks bread -- it matters not -- you believe you "are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems". You are making the same argument I have been making concerning Berean views and practices. There is agreement here in principle... just a lack of awareness, on your part, where the consequences of your beliefs lead you. So therefore I think you will have to amend your views and admit that fellowship, as brother Thomas believed and wrote, is not always equivalent to breaking bread.

While errorists can travel to a new ecclesia (within Central), they can also travel to a new fellowship and the Bereans are not immune from that particular problem. I would think that with the ideas you have on fellowship that you would be more careful in vetting which former Central brothers and sisters you accept into fellowship whether you treat them as newly "baptised" or you act according to the letter of the law by re-labeling them as "rebaptised".

Again, some of the principles you state are not contested. For example you write,

> Yes, our practice is to only fellowship those who are walking in light.

That's our practice also. More importantly, we do NOT consider ourselves to be in fellowship with anyone who shares the emblems just because they carry, as it were, a fellowship card marked "Central". That's the difference between schismatic fellowships and Central.

Before the development of all the schismatic "Fellowships" there were "Christadelphians". During that time brother Thomas never thought himself to be in fellowship with everyone who called himself a Christadelphian. He declared he was not in The Christadelphian, 1870 page 155: "My fellowship is with the apostles; they had many brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth." Now, I don't think, and I don't think you would think, that Paul would have said anything different. Paul didn't view himself as "in fellowship" with an incestuous Corinthian even though they "shared" the emblems by being the in same "Fellowship" or because they would have "shared the emblems" (or was Paul in a different Fellowship from the Corinthians? Or did he ever recommend creating a new Fellowship to any of the troubled ecclesias or individuals he wrote?). So we can categorically state that the "pioneer" practice of fellowship was NEVER stated in these terms: "we are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems". NO, THIS IS NOT A PIONEER VIEW OF FELLOWSHIP. It is the schismatic view which developed following the death of Robert Roberts. The quotes on my web site from brother John Thomas and brother Roberts explicitly show that this was not their view.

You say who are only in fellowship with those who walk in the light. But, ironically, it was the "not walking in the light" side of things which caused a Central ecclesia to withdraw from one brother, of some 20 or 25 years in the truth, who had an adulterous relationship. Bereans have, according to your own publication, taken, "baptised" and given "the right hand of fellowship" to said person who was withdrawn from. Do Berean waters wash adultery away from someone whose baptism was never questioned until they were "out of fellowship"? Truly, I would like to be more genteel with your argument but I put it to the test and it does not stand the test of your own practices!

I wrote,

> > “And you treat fellowship as such to control it so that 'the Lord's table' as you see it is not polluted... based on that assumption."

You responded,

> The notion that we control, or even could control each other’s ecclesia, or even our own ecclesia is wrong. We can only control ourselves.

You say we can only control ourselves. You are applying it to an individual level which is clearly not what I was dealing with. Your own argument was that by mutual assent to "the doctrine of fellowship" Bereans are in fellowship with one another. This is, in essence, what I was saying, though coming at it from a slightly different angle. This is not a matter of individual control but mutual assent to a doctrine which is a controlling principle. I am speaking with an abstraction that I think anyone would understand. But if I may, let me correct you... I did not say you control each other's ecclesias -- at least not in the way you represent it. There is control but not of a day-to-day, week-to-week or month-to-month hands-on (direct) kind. I said "you treat fellowship as such to control it..." The specific control is control over fellowship. Now I do not dispute that this works itself out indirectly by the actions of the individual ecclesias which is, without dispute, composed of individuals who (on the whole) voluntarily assent to the Fellowship's doctrine. But this is a diversion. My point was that you view the table as Christ's table (a point you admit) and all who share it, without exception, are in fellowship (a point you admit), and you control it as such so that "'the Lord's table' as you see it is not polluted" (a point that only logically follows). You do not disagree with this point so let's move on to the next point...

You wrote,

> And our standing aside is not a condemnation of those who do not agree with us.

Here is a difference that seems subtle but it is really significant. Bereans do not merely stand aside. You claim you simply stand aside. In fact, you excommunicate, not in word but in practice. You admitted this difference when you wrote, "while in Central, even if the matter is correctly settled by one ecclesia, the errorist will simply move to the next door ecclesia, so that the channel for erroneous principles to influence the body for ill, is continued."

Now this is quite simple... If an errorist is to be prevented from moving "to the next door ecclesia" he must be removed from the community or institution. Removing or cutting off a person from a religious society or community is by definition the act of 'excommunication'. I understand that because of the pioneer quotes on the "arrogant attitude of excommunication" you and all Bereans will verbally deny that you excommunicate. But what matters is what you effectively practice.

Now, that the Berean practice is synthetic is further demonstrated again by your own argument. When Bereans 'withdraw' from someone if they are prevented from moving "to the next door ecclesia" then Bereans must ignore brother Roberts comments found in the Ecclesial Guide #41 (and go against your own constitution at that). In that point RR admits the possibility of another ecclesia admitting someone who has been unjustly withdrawn from. Now who, unassociated with the original action, can determine if an individual has been unjustly withdrawn from, except by some process of examination? And such a process admits the possibility that different individuals and different ecclesias can differ in the resulting judgment of such cases. Now, if you admit the possibility of this occurring then your objection to Central practices must be synthetic or Berean practices must be synthetic. Or rather, both are synthetic.

1) You fault Central's practice by saying nothing prevents the errorist from simply moving "to the next door ecclesia". In reality if the Bereans operated according to #41, there would be nothing preventing this from occurring in the Bereans. Ergo, Bereans must "withdraw" in a way that effectively denies the errorist from doing the same thing he can do in Central: errorists must be removed from the Berean community (which is a nice way of saying that your 'withdrawal' is really excommunication)

2) You say that "we [Bereans] are in fellowship with all in our community who share the emblems". It is only logical therefore to say that because you view fellowship to work as such, Bereans are required to "excommunicate" so that any persons you judge as "errorists" are prevented from doing the same thing they can do in Central.

Both these arguments demonstrate that Bereans practice excommunication and not merely withdrawal.

Perhaps you believe that specific cases where people have been accepted in another ecclesia do not meet with your approval. I very much doubt they would meet with my personal approval. This, agreeably, is not the question.

You may say they do not meet with the standards set forth in Scripture. In many of the cases that would probably be true. But the Ecclesial Guide and the Scriptures never so much as suggest, much less justify, the idea of setting up a new Fellowship to uphold one principle to the violation of so many other principles -- and to the net result that you forsake the assembling of yourselves with faithful brethren. Never. End of argument as far as I am concerned.

You quote RR when he wrote,

> “You may believe Paul’s statement [Paul’s statement on the inspiration of the Scriptures–JP] equally
> with ourselves, but if you make yourselves one with those who nullify it by the doctrines they hold,
> you erect the same barrier between us and you that exists between us and them.

We do not either by our words or by our practices "make" ourselves "one with those who nullify" Paul's statement. You have my ecclesia confused with another, or rather, your assertion is based on your self-hurtful ideas on what constitutes fellowship. You are trying to impose your wrong ideas which confuse Fellowship and fellowship on all Central ecclesias. That is neither just nor justifiable.

You wrote,

> It is not a question of some group of brethren deciding to start a church.

But in fact I believe that it is:

1) A decision was made to start a new (rival) Fellowship and to forsake the established assembling of brethren.

2) There are brethren in many Fellowships who unwittingly view fellowship in a churchy way -- reactionary conservatives being only one-side of a two-sided coin!

3) Worse you've adopted a view of fellowship that as I say, fellowships or "imputes the sins of all members to each individual person who claims, whether justly or unjustly, a place at the 'table,' irrespective of where in the world they may be."

4) Then to compound the problem you have altered, selectively quoted and misrepresented the works of John Thomas and Robert Roberts to justify your practices.

These are the views and behaviors of schismatics which is another word for, if I may be painfully forthright, "church".

You say,

> It is the case of individual brethren deciding that they cannot with good conscience fellowship

> with those who will not accept the teachings of the BASF, or with those who while individually
> sound, are willing to identify themselves in a community with those who are not.

"Good conscience" is very very very important, but sometimes people can mistakenly elevate their conscience over Biblical practices. Brother Thomas, a wiser brother wrote, "Beloved brethren, human nature is always tending to extremes, and transcending what is written. As the saying is, it will strain out gnats, and swallow camels by the herd. It set up the Inquisition, and is essentially and always inquisitorial, and incessantly prying into matters beyond its jurisdiction. It is very fond of playing the judge, and of executing its own decrees. It has a zeal, but not according to knowledge, and therefore, its zeal is intemperate, and not the zeal of wisdom, or knowledge rightly used. It professes great zeal for the purity of the church, and would purge out everything that offends its sensitive imagination. But is it not a good thing to have a church without tares, without a black sheep, or spotted heifer? Yea, verily, it is an excellent thing. But, then, it is a thing the Holy Spirit has never yet developed; and cannot now be developed by any human judiciary in the administration of spiritual affairs. There are certain things that must be left to the Lord’s own adjudication when he comes; as it is written, 'He that judgeth is the Lord. Therefore, judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come; who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise of the Deity'—(1 Cor., 4:5. Apoc. 11:18)—'every man,' whose hidden things and heart-counsels when brought to light will be accounted worthy much of praise. Does not this teach us how more important it is that brethren be more diligent in examining themselves than in examining other brethren; and that the Lord expects them to leave something for him to do in the way of judging, condemning, excommunicating, cutting off, and casting out, in 'the time of the dead that they should be judged?' 'Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit, in malice be ye children, but in understanding be teleia perfect.'—(1 Cor., 14:20.)" (John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 92)

We, and I know that most Central ecclesias agree, we do not fellowship those who do not accept the teachings of the BASF. No doubt there are some who are not honest (like those who tell stories about Dr. Thomas' dates being made a matter of fellowship). But as to the further Berean claim of not identifying with others (by fellowship card or name), brother Thomas said, "'My fellowship is with the apostles; they had many brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth.' I understand the Bereans in "good conscience" do not want to have brethren who are bewitched and disgrace the truth. Central brethren, as a rule I think, do not want these either, as a matter of conscience. "But, then, it is a thing the Holy Spirit has never yet developed; and cannot now be developed by any human judiciary in the administration of spiritual affairs." Even with the synthetic practices of the Bereans you are still spotted, even now by one withdrawn from by a Central ecclesia. So I suppose that "without exception" can be excepted even by Bereans!

Or maybe you don't really believe you are in fellowship with Belial. And if you don't really believe it then you lose the false foundation on which Berean "fellowship" is based.

> The second most important item I felt was your suggestion that we have added to the BASF
> in the form of the Berean Re-statement. We do not really believe this to be true. The Re-statement
> was intended to be exactly what the name suggests, a re-statement of the teachings and doctrines of the BASF.

I am sure you wouldn't.

1) A "re-statement" is not a "restatement". There is a big difference in these two words. Look at the definition of "restatement" in the dictionary. It is not a retelling or stating again but "a REVISED statement". The 1960's statement claimed it was a 'restatement', though they also claimed there was nothing new. Whether that is true or not is considered below. I do see that it has been called a restatement and a re-statement in Berean publications at different times.

2) Bereans have according to these documents a Common Constitution "WITH MATTERS INVOLVING FELLOWSHIP PRINTED IN BOLDFACE". Central ecclesias never were required to have a common constitution, "with matters involving fellowship," and I know many Central ecclesias have different Constitutions. So the Bereans on this point alone clearly have added to the original basis of fellowship. In examining the Common Constitution you will notice that not all the items listed can be interpreted as items of the BASF (though some may, and some may with a stretch) in some other form. Therefore, during this self-described "consolidation", opportunity was taken to add new matters to the basis of fellowship whether it is admitted or not.

3) In addition to the Common Constitution, in looking at your revised statement anyone can see that your basis of fellowship includes issues not included in the BASF. These were things that were made a matter of fellowship by Bereans in 1960. Since JT and RR had not made them matters of fellowship the Bereans have added to the original basis of fellowship. In fact we know from JT's writings that he would not have agreed with item X in the original addendum. In reading items in the addendum, like the statement against evolution, I notice there is not a single mention of the BASF. If the restatement was specifically designed to restate particular points in the BASF it is remarkable that the BASF merited no mention on each the of the points added by Bereans in 1960!

I also know that JT would not have viewed teaching a Bible class as fellowship, in the sense Bereans understand it, though Bereans since the last major North American split have been careful not to contaminate themselves by participating in Bible classes with non-Berean Christadelphians. Once again, such was not the practice of the pioneers, specially John Thomas.

You wrote,

> I may have created some confusion by not keeping the fact clear that when we use the term “BASF”
> we do intend that to include the Common Constitution, the Commandments of Christ, and the Doctrines
> to be Rejected. In other words, all the same things the early brethren used to order their ecclesias, are the things we use to order ours.

No, no confusion on this point, not in my mind anyway. As I have pointed out Bereans include issues (as outlined in the revised statement) which "the early brethren" did NOT use to "order their ecclesias." Therefore, it logically follows, the Berean basis is not the pioneer basis period and I do not see how you can, in honesty, claim that it is.

> It must be clear from this, though much more can be added should you wish, that these things are
> not new additions to the BASF as held by the early Christadelphians. These are simply areas where
> Central had compromised or redefined the BASF

Please! If you wish to allow yourselves such freedom in interpreting the BASF (evolution, conferences &c) I marvel that you object to errorists giving it a wider latitude when it suits their argument! Further, I know you point to certain persons who, for example, supported evolution like Lovelock, but where specifically did Central "redefine the BASF". Can you righteously (and without self-serving comments), define the difference in having certain brethren who were bewitched and disgraced the truth vs. an official redefinition of the BASF by Central? If you cannot tell the difference then I take it as one of the marks of a reactionary conservative.

> I think it far more likely that they are quoting from personal discussions I might of had with them, than anything I may have written or emailed.

That is worse than I first supposed. If you can claim Central redefined the BASF, and that all the Berean positions of fellowship were made matters of fellowship by JT and RR, then I cannot think you did my arguments any justice (never mind me).

> On the question of A&B from your last email, I very much look forward to this information of how I cut the material up, to alter the intended meaning.

I do not blame you in an isolated manner for cutting up pioneer quotes &c. But collectively, those who altered and reproduced the quotes bear responsibility.

> If you can demonstrate from their writings, that we have been misled into believing that the things we
> practice are the teachings and practice of the early Christadelphians-- well!-- that will send shockwaves
> through all the protestant fellowships. If you can show us how the articles we have been using have been
> altered somehow, that will seriously give question to our entire foundation.

I have, subsequent to this particular email from you, received your acknowledgement that I've started posting material to my web site. So it should no longer, to your mind, be a question of "altered somehow". The shockwaves may not be "through all the protestant fellowships" but I know it is a cause of concern to have your book publicly exposed as unfaithful to that which it claims to represent. I think it is a sad thing to make light of the point, while the truth is that you have betrayed the pioneer practices and principles on fellowship: http://www.genusa.com/Truth/TheDoctrineOfFellowship.html

> There is no doubt that when I assembled that booklet, it was to say, as you say “read this, it is the Berean position.
> This is what we practice.” Certainly that is not denied. In fact, it is still affirmed, at least till you give me reason to change.

I thank you for the admission. See some of the pioneer quotes you left out of the book on my web site. I notice the book has hardly anything in it by brother Thomas. If you've looked at his quotes on fellowship I think we both understand why.

> My comments about Central brethren debating the matter, was drawn from your statements that you
> tried to show another brother that the position represented in my booklet was correct, and he demonstrated to
> you that it was not. Maybe I presumed improperly that you were Central at that time.

You keep trying to redefine your own words and arguments. Your original comment was "But now I learn from you that OUR booklet was being discussed and debated by Central brethren, but without including ME in the discussion." 1) A private and informal discussion about the contents of the book between two brethren does not justify a response of "now I learn from you that our booklet was being discussed and debated by Central brethren, but without including me in the discussion". If the focus of the discussion was whether or not YOU or the Bereans had misrepresented the pioneer quotes your self-defensive response would be understandable, but since the focus of the discussion was what pioneer practice actually was -- how the quotes were to be understood -- and not as to your personal culpability in the matter -- your presence was not justifiable -- though no doubt would have been interesting. 2) Since you raised the point, for the record, I was not in Central at the time -- not that I was making that an issue. I was in another schismatic fellowship partly due to the misrepresentative nature of your book.

> In any case, the way he showed you it was wrong has my attention, should you wish to share it. I presume that will be forth coming in A&B above.

I already stated but will do so again: "The difference in how the quotes are interpreted is due to this: If you START with the assumption of fellowship working, as say the Berean or Old Paths see it, a worldwide fellowship table that must be controlled, the quotes logically lead to worldwide controlled sectarian fellowship. The quotes never have a chance for a fair understanding since the way to interpret them is predetermined." If you will take this point to the reading of the quotes you will see how some of the quotes can be interpreted two different ways. If you want specific examples I can do this but I think it would just be a waste of time since anyone can sit down with both the book and this principle in mind and self-examine.

> No Central brother ever told me that the point made in the book was granted by Central.