014 Sep 2 2006   Fourth response from Stephen

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 taking 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.

> I put the book out. No one bothered to respond to it, or to me about it.

> Therefore I personally feel I was quite justified in believing that Central wanted no part

> of this discussion, and Central yielded the point.

> ...

> I take note of the notable position/authority granted bro. George Booker in being placed

> in charge of the most prominent North American Christadelphian publication. Bro. Booker,

> as you know, produced a booklet which reached exactly the opposite conclusions that my

> booklet established. I presume this was his reward for successfully altering the foundation

> Christadelphian position on the doctrine of fellowship.

I don't think it would be profitable for me to comment on how you "personally feel" or what you "presume" about someone else, including Central ecclesias in North America. It took 280 years for the serpent's seed, conceived in Ananias, to be ejected so I wouldn't take too much comfort in 20 or 30 years. But it is very wrong to represent the private actions of a private enterprise (The Tidings magazine) as if they were the collective endorsement of North American Central ecclesias. No one in Central, including the specific parties involved, would view it the way you describe because no one other than private individuals had any say in the matter. It is another demonstration of the reactionary conservative. The Lord had something to say about this in Luke 6:45.

> Had I had knowledge of your situation at that time, certainly our ecclesia (Lampasas)

> would have intervened to clarify our position. But since we knew nothing of these

> particular issues, there was nothing we could have done.

Yes, Daniel and I were warned that Lampasas had its own way of doing some things. In retrospect, you were a fellowship within your Berean fellowship and since you have had yet another division amongst yourselves time has borne this out.

> Had you approached an ecclesia, instead of certain brethren at a gathering, perhaps the matter would have

> been handled more in harmony with the true Berean position.

That's an interesting way to word it. Since the Canton meeting was, as far as we knew, the closest meeting of brethren, we approached them. I now believe it was God's hand. I was ripe for accepting the Berean claims without challenging them and proving them for myself. In leaving the Unamended, the Berean position was a perfect fit for my preconceived ideas of fellowship. I was zealous, and of a sensitive conscience who would not have any black sheep, or spotted heifers in my card-carrying Fellowship. Instead I effectively got isolation letting me know by experience the logical result of schismatic views on fellowship. And instead of being engaged in efforts which would have distracted me from the topic, my mind was frequently drawn to thinking about how fellowship actually worked in the Bible. The conclusion I came to was not what I wanted personally -- and in joining Central it was not because I found it agreeable -- I did it because I saw no Scriptural alternative. It was a matter of obeying God or obeying that which was agreeable to men (who one the one hand know the Gospel, and have a smattering of the pioneer spirit, and on the other do not submit to God's exclusive prerogatives concerning fellowship). In the process I came to terms with your misrepresentation of the pioneer position on fellowship. Others, sadly, have fallen in the same trap.

> I was given a very vague answer, mostly surrounding their representation that you and bro. Carroll

> objected to the fact that "some Bereans" (by which they meant me) used some dates pertaining to

> the prophecies, that bro. Thomas did not use, in some public lectures.

> I was led to believe that you were insisting that only bro. Thomas’ dates could be used, and this

> was a barrier to fellowship.

I don't think... now I could be wrong... but I really (really) do not think we knew anything about certain people using certain dates and Daniel and I making them a matter of fellowship! It is a remarkable story, even entertaining!

> We did not solve this problem through a division. We had a division, because we solved this problem.

You say the glass is half-full and I say it is half-empty. I'd be happy to meet half-way and say that there is something to be said both ways since the two are inseparable.

> Now, you have spent a large amount of time to this point, explaining what fellowship is not.

No, my objection is to your assertion that "Fellowship" = "fellowship". I believe everything else is answered here and in the material on my web site.

Fraternally,

stephen