HOME | MAGAZINE | BOOKS | SITE MAP | EMAIL A Matter of Fellowship Why We Withdrew From the Berean Fellowship See also the following articles: "Fellowship" by Bro. John Thomas, written in 1847; and Bro. Thomas' compares his work towards the Campbellites with that of the Apostle Paul 389 Vanderbilt Drive Oxnard, California 93030 U.S.A. (805) 988-1184 March 23, 1990 Dear (Berean) Brethren, Warm and Loving Greetings in The Hope of Israel. It has been asked why we have felt it necessary to withdraw from The Bereans. Therefore, we have reconstructed a letter which was originally written in April of 1984 to help explain our stand. We feel that the following items must be scripturally and soundly dealt with and the correct doctrinal stand taken by the Bereans before we can resume fellowship. In the meantime, we invite fellowship by all who agree with this stand and will manifest their agreement publicly and in practice. The following is a listing of some of the things that must be dealt with: 1. A very poor and negative attitude towards the use of the Name and Titles of the Deity must be corrected. We believe that the use of the Yahweh Name and His Titles is a very important matter. Therefore to prohibit the use of such at any of our gatherings, as has been done in the past, is wrong. Consider the following quotation from the forward by Brother H.P. Mansfield to the Logos edition of Phanerosis: World events, particularly those associated with the revival of Israel, and the increasing interest of Russia in Europe and the Middle East, indicate that the time is not far distant when the prophetic import of the Memorial Name will be apocalypsed in the earth. Then will the words of Jeremiah 16:21 have their fulfillment: "I will cause them to know Mine hand and My might; and they shall know that My name is Yahweh." Meanwhile, God is "taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name" (Acts 15:14). As a people called out of their contemporaries for such a purpose, those who constitute the true Ecclesia of God should manifest an interest in the Name which has been named upon them (John 17:26), and thus learn to be able to pray with greater meaning and intensity: "Hallowed be Thy name." That Name is described as a strong tower (Prov. 18:10), a protection (Ps. 124:8), a heritage (Ps. 61:5,8), a source of confidence (Ps. 9:10); a means of elevation (Ps. 91:14). We are told to despise not the Name (Mal. 1:6); but to exalt (Ps. 34:3-4), extol (Ps. 68:4), remember (Ps. 20:7), fear (Ps. 86:11-12), praise (Ps. 113:1-3), love (Isa. 56:6), bless (Ps. 11:4), know (Isa. 52:6), publish (Deut. 32:3; Isa. 12:4), sing (Ps. 61:8), and pray (Ps. 140:13) in regard to the name. Malachi declared: "They that feared Yahweh spake often one to another: and Yahweh hearkened and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared Yahweh, and that thought upon His Name. And they shall be mine, saith Yahweh of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him" (Mal. 3:16- 17). These words of the prophet surely emphasize the importance of the subject that engages our attention, and should provide sufficient encouragement to cause the student of the Word to refuse to hearken to those who would "despise the name" (Mal. 1:6) by deprecating the consideration of this important theme. It will enable us with understanding to fulfill the exhortation of Psalm 68:4: "Extol him ... by His name Yah." [We are pleased to acknowledge in regards to this problem which was originally manifested at a Hye Gathering during the early 1980s, that the problem has been solved. We have in our possession the "Hye Gathering Closed Rules for 1993", and rule No. 26 which states the following: "The original names and titles of the Deity be allowed to be used during the reading of the daily Bible readings." We thank the brethren for adding this very scriptural and commendable addition to their rules.] 2. The unwillingness to put into practice the principles regulating the doctrine of fellowship when dealing with those sisters who refuse to wear a head covering at The Memorial Service or other official Ecclesial functions, as well as those who by their teaching are denying the commandment governing such conduct. We feel that the covering of the hair, which symbolizes the placing of the woman under the subjection of the man by the Elohim as a result of her creation and leading role in the introduction of sin into the world (Gen. 2:18-25; 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:7-10) and the glory of the man being covered over by association with the sacrifice of Christ in order to come into the presence of Yahweh, is quite vital. To permit such conduct by an erroneous interpretation of 1 Cor. 11 should not be tolerated by the Berean fellowship. Those who refuse to submit to the will of the majority on this issue are walking disorderly and should be withdrawn from. Those who refuse to accept the correct understanding of this section of the Word of Yahweh should likewise be withdrawn from. A policy of hiding and/or ignoring the situation is unscriptural and should not be tolerated. Declarations such as it is no one else's business for Ecclesias are autonomous is the type of rubbish that comes forth from the lips of those in Central. To follow such a policy is to find oneself in the same predicament that Central now finds itself under, with no one able to deal with those who are in error for they are always in someone else's Ecclesia (church), where nothing is being done about their beliefs or conduct that are erroneous. Also, to refuse to take action because it is not a first principle is itself scripturally unsound for the Scriptures command us to withdraw from any who are walking disorderly concerning "the tradition which" was "received" of the apostles (2 Thess. 3:6). "Ordinances" in 1 Cor. 11:2 and "tradition" in 2 Thess. 3:6 is the same word in the Greek, namely, PARADOSIS. Therefore, the action taken with respect to the violation of the ordinances in both cases must be identical for the same word is used to describe both categories. Furthermore, we clearly withdraw over issues other than those teachings commonly referred to as first principles for we withdraw from those guilty of improper conduct of which this clearly is a case in point. May it also be said at this point that the Scriptures make no such distinction. Any distinction that we make in this area should only be to facilitate instruction and not reduce the importance of the one under the other. Furthermore, Brother Roberts and those brethren with him who authored the Statement of Faith incorporated the commandments in clause sixteen which says: 16. That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the Gospel they preached, and to take on the Name and service of Christ, by being thereupon immersed in water, and continuing patiently in the observance of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do what he has commanded. In this manner, our pioneer brethren treated them as part of our essential first principles of the Statement of Faith. The separate section entitled "The Commandments of Christ" was only to expound in detail the reference to them in Clause Sixteen. 3. We are gravely concerned about the developments particularly in South Wales and in general amongst the Bereans concerning The Doctrine of Fellowship. As some might be aware, we were in complete disagreement with the stand of a certain Brother in South Wales on this most vital subject for he only viewed it as a commandment that was not necessary to know prior to baptism. We wrote him concerning this and only ceased to continue our opposition when we were told that we misunderstood what he was saying and that he really believed like us. It is quite obvious that this is not true or the situation that has developed in respect to Brother David Hopper would not have taken place. We agree that Brother David Hopper's former stand with respect to other Christadelphian groups was too radical. However, we agree with him when he states that the doctrine of fellowship is a vital doctrine, a first principle, that needs to be known prior to baptism in order to have a valid baptism. We challenge anyone to demonstrate from the Scriptures of The Truth that Brother David Hopper's reasonings, showing how vitally important this doctrine is, to be untrue, unscriptural, and illogical! To go to a biography on Brother Thomas' life and utilize a comment made by someone else other than Brother Thomas to establish what they would like to be a fact, that Brother Thomas did not know fellowship prior to his baptism in 1847 is not a very sound procedure. Before commenting on this line of reasoning, let us quote what has been said: To affirm statements 1, 4 and 6 would be to say that our beloved Bro. Thomas is outside the "pale of salvation." For in the book Dr. Thomas His Life And Works by Bro. Roberts we read, "At the interview, he was asked "whether, when in the States, he refused to fellowship those Christians who had not been baptised while possessing the opinions which he held?" To this the doctor answered in the negative, which was the fact, for he had not, at that time, arrived at the conviction he afterwards reached, that duty required separation at the breaking of bread from all who had not been immersed upon a faith in the hope of Israel... "He denied having refused the fellowship of the Campbellites in America, which was in accordance with fact, for wherever they received him, he met with them, not having yet reached the conviction which afterwards led him to separate from all who did not understand, believe, and obey the hope of Israel. From the book, third edition pages 164 and 165. Consider the following objections to this line of reasoning: (a) The Scriptures are our ultimate source of The Truth and not the writings of a man. Everything we believe should be founded upon the Scriptures of the Truth and these alone. The writings of an uninspired man are good as long as they can be shown to be in complete agreement with the Scriptures of the Truth. (b) It is wrong to water down a principle which can be clearly demonstrated to be vital and important because we are afraid of what will happen to someone who is greatly respected by us. For example, we greatly respect Brother H.P. Mansfield's knowledge of the Scriptures of the Truth, but we are also certain that his stand in regards to the Doctrine of Fellowship is incorrect. We will not change our views to accommodate Brother H.P. Mansfield's stand. Therefore, why should we alter our stand on fellowship because of what we think Brother Thomas' position was initially? (c) The information that is being utilized is at least second hand information and is the author's interpretation of what he felt Brother Thomas' understanding on the subject was. It is not based upon a direct and undisputable statement from the pen of Brother Thomas. No one should base their eternal salvation on such a dubious documentation. (d) It is quite obvious from the letters, that I have received copies of, that no one has refuted Brother David Hopper's stand. Can anyone show that Brother Thomas was not acting like the Apostle Paul, who went first to the Jew (even though the Jews were in error) and preached in their synagogues in an effort to enlighten them and establish an ecclesia in that area, when he went to the Campbellites in an effort to establish an exclusive body of believers amongst the reform movement, which contained many people who were in complete (or almost complete) agreement with Brother Thomas as a result of his labors in the various magazines that he had edited? It is quite clear from the writings of Brother Thomas, as contained in his biography, that he saw himself in a role comparable to that of the Apostle Paul (page 146, paragraph 2; page 148, paragraph 4; page 149, letter of James Beadman; page 150, next to last paragraph; page 155, second paragraph from the bottom thru top of page 156; page 157, paragraph 1; page 166, paragraph 1; pages 167- 169, letter of Brother Thomas). It is also quite clear that he did not consider himself a member of the Campbellite sect (page 134, footnote). He even went as far as declaring before his baptism in 1847 that he was acting with respect to the Campbellite group the same way that Alexander Campbell did with respect to the Baptists (page 117). Was Alexander Campbell a Baptist? It Is a fact that he withdrew from the Baptists and his activities led to the formation of the Campbellites, To us it would seem that Brother Thomas' main purpose by the time we get near to the year in which he was baptized was to properly educate those people with whom his search for truth started. To take the stand that he did not understand fellowship prior to his baptism in 1847 and therefore no one needs to understand fellowship before their baptism would be to effectively destroy the hedge protecting the Truth and the Ecclesia from error. If it is stated that this is not what is being done, then it will have to be shown how such a position is any better than that which currently exists in Central. The letters that I have seen written in the name of certain brethren over here in which their position on fellowship is stated because of their fear of being out of fellowship with Brother Thomas puts them in the same position as the Logos Brethren in Central. They indicate that all you have to know before baptism is that you must remain separate from the world and take care of the problems in your own Ecclesia. As you well know this is the famous line of reasoning of Brother H.P. Mansfield and all Logos brethren who are unable and unwilling to do anything about error in other Ecclesias. To take such a stand is to open the flood gates to error in the Berean Brotherhood. It is permitting the same forces to exist here that has utterly demolished the Truth in Central. If it is stated that this will not take place because these people will be educated afterwards, then why should they believe any more than what has been stated is necessary prior to baptism? How can it be proved to them that it is vital for them to know it after baptism when it wasn't vital for them to know it before? If it is now proved to them that it is now necessary for them to know it, then what has now been done is to prove to them that it was necessary to know it from the very start. A vital doctrine is always a vital doctrine! Furthermore, in support of the view that Brother Thomas and Brother Roberts were acting as theApostle Paul, as mentioned above, and for which view of their activities we have been called into question, we offer the following quotation from the pen of none other than that of Brother Roberts himself. It is found in an article entitled, "Parting Words From Campbellism" in Volume One, issue number seven, page 110 of the January 1865 copy of the Ambassador of the Coming Age. "We are bound to say in passing, however, that there is a degree more of spiritual independence and scriptural intelligence among them, than there is among their benighted brethren of the systems around them. This is why we have gone a little out of our way in Birmingham to influence them for the truth after the policy of Paul, who always went to the synagogue of the Jews first wherever he went to preach the gospel. Paul, like a skilful husbandman, always selected the soil which was most likely to yield a return: and on this principle, we have thought it not unwise to bestow the preferential attention upon the Campbellites of which Mr. King complains. We do not expect Mr. King to appreciate this view of the case, but we do nevertheless assure him that our sincere conviction of the truth of what we believe, and of its importance to him, and those whom he is leading to destruction, is the only motive which prompts us to the course we have pursued. But there are some who, unwittingly it may be, judge themselves unworthy of eternal life. It would seem that this class is pretty numerous among the Campbellites, which leaves us no alternative, but to turn to the more untutored of the Gentiles." (e) If all you have to know before baptism is that you must remain separate from the world and take care of the troubles in your own Ecclesia, then why are we remaining separate from Central? After all, aren't we stating that those things necessary for salvation are set out prior to a person's baptism so that his baptism might be valid? Obviously this is the case! Since this is clearly the case, then fellowship can not become important after baptism if it is not important prior to baptism. As a result of this, we can remain in fellowship in any group as long as our own Ecclesia is sound. Furthermore, if the reason we are taking this stand is because we fear we will be out of fellowship with Brother Thomas because we believe he did not understand fellowship prior to his baptism and violated it after his baptism then the position of the Bereans says too much. Because if we look at it from the angle that Brother Thomas was fellowshipping errorists and not trying to convert them in a role comparable to the Apostle Paul, (Our quotation from the pen of Brother Roberts satisfies and supports our belief concerning the activities of our pioneers at the beginnings of our community.) then he is not remaining separate from the world for it is quite clear that Alexander Campbell and his followers are part of the world. This conclusion forces us to state that even with the watered down version of fellowship set out in the letters of certain Brethren referred to above, Brother Thomas would clearly he out of fellowship with them. Thus such an effort proves worthless and the necessity of either accepting all of the doctrine of fellowship or abandoning it completely becomes clear. It would seem to make the greatest degree of sense to accept all of the doctrine of fellowship and not water it down in any way. In this case, we would either accept that Brother Thomas did indeed understand the doctrine of fellowship prior to baptism in 1847 or that he was baptized again at a later date when his understanding had matured to that which is clearly represented by his stand in the Dowieite controversy, Of course, we have heard it stated that Brother Thomas was baptized three times. However, we have not been able to verify this. In any event, one of these two cases must be true of Brother Thomas. It is the duty of those who disagree, with such as ourselves and Brother David Hopper on this issue to demonstrate, that neither of these two cases are true in regards to Brother Thomas, Of course, if this can be demonstrated, then we had better abandon our position as Bereans and/or Christadelphians and return to the churches for there is no other alternative to this conclusion based upon such an interpretation of Brother Thomas' conduct after his baptism in 1847. (f) It has been stated that none of our pioneer writings give any support to the necessity of understanding the doctrine of fellowship prior to baptism. Such a statement is clearly FALSE! In the booklet entitled "The Good Confession Elaborated in A Conversation between a Christadelphian and a Believing Stranger Desiring to be Immersed into The Name of Christ" by Brother Robert Roberts, we find the following: 171. Should they on such or any occasion fellowship those who deny the truth in any of its material particulars or who, professing the truth, walk disobediently in their daily life? No; I believe they should have no fellowship with those who either reject the truth, or behave in opposition to the commandments of Christ. It is quite clear that the whole of the doctrine of fellowship is understood in this question and answer. There is no artificial limiting of this to just separation from the world and taking care of problems in your own local Ecclesia. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the title of the booklet that we are looking at an imaginary examination of a candidate for baptism. Thus, a very safe conclusion is that Brother Roberts and the brethren of his day and age considered the doctrine of fellowship something that had to be properly understood prior to baptism. What better evidence can be offered in regards to the vital importance of this subject than the fact that Brother Roberts has put on record for all times that we must question all candidates for baptism on this subject? Obviously, no better evidence can be provided on this subject than that of an imaginary examination of a candidate for baptism. We should have expected to have found it this way from the degree of importance that the pioneer brethren have placed upon this subject in their other writings. Can we find similar evidence amongst the writings of noted Bereans? We most certainly can. In the December 1980 issue of The Berean Christadelphian Magazine, Brother Growcott has included a section entitled "Christadelphian Baptismal Interview." In this section, on page 415 we find the following questions being asked: 81. What is our duty in relation to any among us who deny first principles of the Truth, or who persist in conduct contrary to the commandments of Christ? 82. What is our duty as to association with the world? 83. You realize, then, that Christ's brethren and sisters are entirely separate from the world and must keep this position clear at all times as their first duty? CHECKLIST: Fellowship, Separation World It is quite clear that Brother Growcott and the Bereans in agreement with him believed that both Fellowship and, under a separate category, Separation From the World were vital topics that needed to be discussed during a candidate's interview for baptism. It is also quite obvious that there were no limitations placed upon the question concerning fellowship. The "us" represents the whole body of believers and not a local ecclesial grouping as clearly demonstrated by the opening questions of the interview. They are as follows: 1. Do you believe that the Christadelphians hold the true teachings of the Bible? 2. Do you know of any other religious body than the Christadelphians who teach the true Gospel? Thus, any attempt to say that Brother Growcott only had in mind a local ecclesia falls to the ground. Again, it is quite obvious that Brother Growcott, and the Bereans in agreement with him, believed that fellowship was something which was necessary to be understood, prior to baptism. We feel from the above documentation that all true Christadelphians and all true Bereans believe and teach that the doctrine of fellowship is A FIRST PRINCIPLE DOCTRINE that must be understood prior to baptism in order to have a valid baptism. Otherwise, why did they find it necessary to provide guidelines for the examination of all candidates which included determining whether said candidates understood it or not? We feel that an unbiased and unprejudiced answer can only lead to the same position that we are maintaining to be true. At this point it might be asked that if it is so important why is it not in our Statement of Faith Forming Our Basis Of Fellowship? However, in regards to those who ask such a question, has the true significance of the title of this sect ion been considered? In other words, in this title, we have expressed a definition of the teachings we are to believe which produces the relationship known as fellowship amongst those who have believed them. Hence, a thoughtful consideration of the meaning of the title of this section of the Basis answers such a question. Besides this point the importance of this doctrine is brought to our attention in clause sixteen of this section. It says: 16. That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the Gospel they preached, and to take on the Name and service of Christ, by being thereupon immersed in water, and continuing patiently in the observance of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do what he has commanded. How many times have we read this clause and not really paid attention to the significance of the last part? It is a pity that what Brother Roberts and those brethren with him wrote has gone unnoticed by so many for so long. In fact, if its true significance had been realized, then this document would not have been needed to be written. May its true meaning put an end to this controversy from this point on for its forming a part of clause sixteen elevates it to first principle status. As has been noticed in the above discussion that the section entitled "The Commandments of Christ" expounded further what was meant by the commandments in this clause even so the section entitled "The Common Constitution of Berean Ecclesias" expounds in detail the implementation of the first principle of fellowship mentioned in this clause. It is very interesting to note Brother Growcott's introductory comments in The Berean Basis of Fellowship. He says: "Fellowship is a very serious relationship. It is profitable only when it is wholesome and sound. There are many clear scriptural commands concerning it, and no amount of specious reasoning, or invention of such strawman, bogey-terms as "bloc disfellowship" can get rid of them. They deal with facts and conditions, not technicalities to hide behind. Properly applied, they produce a sound and harmonious fellowship. Evaded, they produce hand-wringing, increasinglydegenerative chaos. "By their fruits ye shall know them." "Each ecclesia is responsible for sound doctrine and conduct among its members. But when known error in its membership hides behind the shield of an ecclesia's professed allegiance to the Statement of Faith, and that ecclesia does not take the proper action, then it is unfaithfulness for other ecclesias to merely 'deplore' the situation, and profess to have no ability, or responsibility, to do anything about it. "Fellowship is not merely breaking bread together, tho that is its most visible and solemn manifestation, and they are inseparable. But fellowship is far more. We are in fellowship with those 10,000 miles away to just as great a degree as those with whom we meet weekly. Here is its beauty and power: it has no limits of time and space. "Fellowship is the total oneness of the whole Body, based on THE TRUTH, believed and practiced, and preserved soundly among us according to the commands God has given us. "Fellowship is a beautiful, inspiring thing. It is a high responsibility, a glorious privilege, a joyful and unearthy relationship of minds and hearts united by and in THE TRUTH. ANY GROUP THAT CHEAPENS ITS CONCEPTIONS OF FELLOWSHIP, CHEAPENS AND COMMONIZES ITSELF. ANY GROUP THAT IS CARELESS ABOUT FELLOWSHIP HAS LOST THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS. ANY GROUP THAT SETS ITSELF BUSILY AND MISGUIDEDLY TO BRUSH AWAY AS INCONVENIENT THE SOLEMN OBLIGATIONS OF FELLOWSHIP, IS DOOMED TO DIASTER." From this quotation consider the following: 1. How can anyone maintain that fellowship is a very serious relationship and then teach that you do not have to know it prior to baptism? Obviously they can not! If a matter is a very serious matter, it is always a very serious matter. Note, Brother Growcott did not just say a serious matter, but he said a very serious matter demonstrating its utmost importance. His emphasis, and therefore ours as Bereans, is that the doctrine of fellowship is an emphatically very essential and important matter. 2. If fellowship is only profitable when it is wholesome and sound, then, how can a watering down of this doctrine and/or maintaining that it is not necessary prior to baptism constitute a wholesome and sound understanding of it? Obviously it can not! Therefore, such a view of fellowship can not be profitable. If it can not be profitable, then of what value is it to us as a body of believers? Obviously none! In that case, then, why not forget fellowship altogether and return to the churches! 3. If the facts and conditions of fellowship properly applied produce a sound and harmonious fellowship, then, how is it possible to produce a sound and harmonious fellowship where some or all of the facts and conditions of fellowship are denied? Obviously it can not! If it is maintained that they are not being denied but the point at which they have to be understood is being delayed, then, how is it possible to have sound and harmonious fellowship produced when those who are joining us do not have a proper understanding of all of the facts and conditions of fellowship which produce it? Obviously we can not! 4. Brother Growcott maintains that if we evade the facts and conditions which produce a sound and harmonious fellowship, then this evasion would produce hand-wringing, and increasingly degenerating chaos. It is quite clear that those who are advocating a watered down version and/or nullification of the doctrine of fellowship are failing victim to the very state of things thus described. 5. Brother Growcott maintains that it is necessary to deal with error in another ecclesia if that ecclesia does not take the proper action. Furthermore, it would be unfaithfulness not to. How is it possible to maintain such a position and state that it is not necessary to understand this prior to baptism? How would anyone who was newly baptized understand what he was supposed to do if he was never taught that it was necessary to deal with error in another ecclesia? How could he now be convinced that the doctrine is important and vital to his personal salvation when it wasn't before? If it is asked, how does it affect my salvation, then our opponents would probably go to 2 John verses 10 and 11 and indicate that if we continued to fellowship those who permit error in our midst, we would become culpable and consequently could be rejected at the Judgment Seat of The Lord Jesus Christ for willful disobedience (Heb. 10:26-27). We are sure that this would be at least one of the arguments of those who are seeking to water down or nullify the doctrine of fellowship. But, doesn't this establish that disobedience to the doctrine of fellowship makes you accountable at the Judgment Seat of The Lord Jesus Christ? Obviously it does! If it is something that we will be held accountable for at the Judgment Seat of The Lord Jesus Christ, then isn't it something that we must know prior to baptism so that we can maintain it faithfully from that moment on? Obviously it is! Therefore, again, we see how vitally important it is to know the doctrine of fellowship prior to baptism. 6. Brother Growcott maintains that fellowship exists with those 10,000 miles away in just as great a degree as those with whom we meet weekly. He points out that in this fact we have fellowship's beauty and power: it has no limits of time and space. If this is fellowship's beauty and power, then, how can we limit what a candidate for baptism must know to that of just taking care of the problems in his own ecclesia? Obviously we can not! Such a limiting of the doctrine of fellowship would be to rob it of its beauty and power. Is this what we want to be guilty of doing? Hopefully not! 7. Since fellowship is the total oneness of the Body, how can we water down what we teach concerning it and maintain that it is not important to know prior to baptism? Certainly we can not! Since the total oneness of our Body is based upon it, then how can we have a total oneness of our Body if those who are newly joining us do not understand it properly? Obviously, we can not! Since this total oneness of the whole Body is based on The Truth believed and practiced, and preserved soundly among us according to the commands God has given us, then, how is it possible to have this total oneness where The Truth in all its wholeness is not believed (because it is not known) at baptism so that it can be practiced and preserved soundly among us? Obviously it is not possible! The watering down of the doctrine of fellowship destroys our ability to preserve The Truth soundly among us according to the commands that God has given us. 8. Brother Growcott maintains that fellowship is a beautiful and inspiring thing. Is this only of value after baptism? Doesn't the prospect of this beautiful and inspiring thing called "fellowship" motivate the candidate for baptism to desire baptism? It most certainly does! 9. Brother Growcott maintains that fellowship is a high responsibility, a glorious privilege, a joyful and unearthly relationship of minds and hearts united by and in The Truth. Is this only of value after baptism? Isn't this capable of motivating a candidate for baptism to desire such a relationship? It most certainly will! How can we relegate the teachings concerning fellowship to that of unimportant or not necessary to be known prior to baptism when this relationship starts at baptism and is such a high responsibility, a glorious privilege, a joyful and unearthly relationship of minds and hearts united by and in The Truth? Obviously we can not! To treat it in such a manner would be to nullify these facts. 10. For those who would water down the doctrine of fellowship or gut it of its vitality, they should keep in mind Brother Growcott's admonition concerning this when he says: "Any group that cheapens its conceptions of fellowship, cheapens and commonizes itself. Any group that is careless about fellowship has lost the Beauty of Holiness, Any group that sets itself busily and misguidedly to brush away as inconvenient the solemn obligations of fellowship, is doomed to disaster." Do we want to be guilty of cheapening and commonizing our fellowship? Are we being careless about our fellowship? Are we losing or have we already lost the Beauty of Holiness? Are we dooming ourselves to disaster? We feel that this result is the expected end of the course of action on the part of those who are either watering down the doctrine of fellowship or nullifying its importance. (g) In the July 1869 issue of The Christadelphian Magazine on page 228, we have a statement by Bro. Roberts to the effect that Bro. Thomas understood fellowship in the same manner in 1848 as he did in 1869. The only difference was that he had a better perception of an individual's responsibility towards a religious system holding error. To quote him precisely, Bro. Roberts says: Dr. Thomas, while thinking not differently now, has come more clearIy to perceive individual duty in relation to hostile systems of faith, or hostile doctrines held by those claiming fellowship on the basis of the one faith, viz., the duty of dissociation. That duty does not involve "judgment" upon others, but judgment as to one's own course. Dissociation from all and sundry who reject the truth, is the natural and apostolically- prescribed-means of self-protection against complicity with evil, and, at the same time, protection of that which is good from the power of evil, so far as our acts may affect the one or the other. [Our emphasis.] The discrepancy between Dr. Thomas' views on this point in 1848 and 1869 gives Mr. King scope for cavil; but the fact is not unintelligible to those who have to thank God that Dr. Thomas, brought up in error, was not a standstill man, but gradually progressed in the path of scriptural study, in spite of the slander and bitter opposition by which the Campbellities tried to obstruct his way. This quotation is a footnote to an article by Bro. Thomas. In this article, we find Bro. Thomas making the following statement concerning fellowship: "We believe that God has admitted us into His fellowship through faith in the gospel of the kingdom in the name of Jesus. Having obeyed this gospel by immersion into the name of the Holy One, and continuing to walk in the truth, we have 'fellowship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ,' and the apostles of the Lord. If others do this, then 'we have fellowship one with another'; not else. We do not regard the breaking of bread at the same table as a test of fellowship, but the walking in the light as God is in the light." It is quite clear from this that Bro. Thomas understood the doctrine of fellowship. He acknowledges that it is "walking in the light as God is in the light," that is the basis of having fellowship with others and no other basis. Bro. Thomas goes on to indicate in this article the reason for which he fellowshipped those in the Campbellite movement. He says: "That we do not 'refuse' those who are immersed on Campbellite and Baptist principles, is manifest from the fact that the churches we visit are principally composed of such. We desire to enlighten and save them, not to anathematize and proscribe them, while, at the same time, we testify that no immersion is worth a stiver which is not predicated on faith in the things of the kingdom and the name of Jesus." Though this statement can be interpreted in various ways, we prefer to look at it in light of what has been said above concerning Bro. Thomas' comparing of himself to that of the Apostle Paul. In other words, Bro. Thomas was attempting to draw to the truth as many people as possible from the Campbellite movement. (h) Another point worth noting, is that Bro. Thomas had a duty to those with whom he was associated to clearly demonstrate the reasons why he felt they were wrong and he was right. Such well known passages as Matthew 18:15-17 and Titus 3:10 required him to go and demonstrate the errors of their ways unto them and try to set their feet in the path of truth. (i) It is quite clear from the Scriptures that the doctrine of fellowship and the atonement are inextricably connected. 1 John chapter 1 clearly establishes this point beyond a shadow of a doubt. Only a biased and prejudiced view would permit any other interpretation of this passage. Let us consider this first chapter of the First Epistle of John in a little detail to prove our point. In 1 John 1:1-3, it is established that the purpose of the Apostles in testifying to the Word of Life is that all who believe these things might have fellowship with them and the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. In other words, the Word of Life rightly believed and maintained is what produces the mutually shared relationship known as fellowship. In verse 4, we are told that in addition to the purpose already mentioned, the Apostles wrote so that those who believe might have their joy complete or rendered perfect in every particular. In other words, a right understanding of the Word of Life was necessary to complete the "joy of the faith." (The definite article is present in the Greek in Phil. 1:25.) This is no place for a dissertation on the "joy of the faith" shared by all true believers for space does not permit. However, briefly consider the implications of the following passages: 1. At the birth of The Messiah, the angels proclaimed a joyous message of great joy. Luke 2:10 2. At the crucifixion, we are told that The Messiah endured the stake and despised the shame for the joy that was set before him. Heb. 12:2. 3. The Messiah spoke the things that he did so that his joy might abide in them and so that their joy might be full or made complete or rendered perfect in every particular. (The Greek word translated "might be full," and "fulfilled" here is the same word rendered "full" in 1 John 1:4, namely, PLEROO.) John 15:11; 17:13. 4. At the Messiah's return, those who have been faithful and productive in The Truth are invited to enter into the joy of their Lord. (The definite article is present in the Greek - "the joy.") Matt. 25:21, 23. The word for "joy" in the Greek is CHARA and it comes from the Greek word CHAIRO which is rendered "God speed" in 2 John 10 and 11. Here we are warned not to extend the joy established by the Gospel properly received, believed and maintained to errorists for to do so would make us fellowshippers of their evil actions. There is no way that the perfected joy, only available to those in Christ, can be extended or shared with someone who by his error is no longer abiding in Christ. Thus the perfected joy is available only to those who are in fellowship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. The message that John has been discussing which he calls "the Word of Life" in verse one and upon which their fellowship with each other and the Father and Jesus Christ is based (verse 3) and which perfects their joy is: El is light and in him is no darkness at all. (verse 5) This passage succinctly expresses the doctrine of fellowship in one line. Everything else is an elaboration of this fundamental doctrine. James refers to this point in 1:17 where he says: The Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Note, it is clear from these two passages that the Deity is the only source of light in existence He is "the Father of lights," and, that light is an inherent characteristic of the Deity. This side of these passages is the positive side of the equation. In order to emphasize the positive side, we are told that there is absolutely no darkness in nor associated with the Deity. Since He is THE FATHER of lights, it is obvious that He has "commanded the light to shine out of darKness, and "hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6). James expresses this fact as, "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth" (James 1: 18). Hence, those who have been begotten by the Father of lights "are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." Note, just as in the case of the Deity, so with His children: the positive is emphasized by a negative. The children of light are not of the night nor of darkness. To the children of light Yahweh's "word is a lamp unto their (my) feet, and a light unto their (my) path." (Psa. 119:105). Paul exhorts this class of people in Eph. 5:8, "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light." The Diaglott translates this as, "You were, indeed, formerly Darkness, but you are now Light in the Lord; walk as Children of Light." It is not that sometimes they were darkness, or every now and then, but that prior to being begotten by the Father of light with the word of truth they were all in darkness. Yes, the children of light were once darkness themselves and were "called out of darkness into His marvellous light." (2 Peter 2:9). The Greek word translated "walk" in Eph. 5:8 is PERIPATEITE which is the second person plural present tense indicative and imperative moods of the verb PERIPATEO. The present tense is indicating that the children of light's walk in the narrow way that leads to life is ongoing and continuous. It is in the imperative mood because this is a command to all children of light from the Father of lights. They have no other choice if they want to be the children of light but to continue to walk in the light as He is in the light. The Father of lights can not be found in darkness for there is absolutely no darkness in Him, nor variableness nor shadow of turning. If you want to be found walking with Him as Enoch did (Gen. 5:22, 24), then you must walk in the light as He is in the light for that is where He is found. Fellowship with Him is only possible under these conditions. Putting it another way, since there is absolutely no darkness in Him, then someone claiming to be one of His children but who is fellowshipping darkness is deluding himself if he thinks that he is in fellowship with the Deity who is Light. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE IN FELLOWSHIP WITH BOTH LIGHT AND DARKNESS. As the result of these facts, the children of light are exhorted by Paul in Eph. 5:11, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." In this passage, Paul issues two commands to the children of light, namely, 1. "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness." The word in the Greek translated "have... fellowship" is SUGKOINONEITE which is the second person plural present tense imperative mood of the verb SUGKOINONEO which means "to be a joint-partaker with others, to share with others in anything." Bullinger, E.W., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance To The English and Greek New Testament, page 282. The present tense is the continuous tense of the verb and through the use of this tense we are being told that this is an ongoing charge that can never be let up. The imperative mood is the mood of command and through it we are being told that we have no other option but to carry out what has been commanded. Thus the children of light are being commanded by the Father of lights that they must not be joint-partakers or sharers with the unfruitful works of darkness. Such fellowshipping is not permitted! Note too that the emphasis is on works and not people. In other words, it is not restricted to the world which lieth in darkness but extends even to the ecclesia where these works of darkness can be introduced by an errant member. Such a command should be expected for the Deity is light and in Him is absolutely no darkness. He can not tolerate the presence of anything that is the opposite of Himself. Every child that He has begotten must manifest Him in their life for that is the purpose behind this creation in the first place. There can be no darkness in fellowship with Him or His children. Hence, the necessity of remaining separate from and separating oneself from darkness wherever and whenever it is found. If we do not remain faithful to this command, then we will be found fellowshipping or being joint-partakers with the unfruitful works of darkness which essentially means that we have extinguished our light and are in darkness once again. 2. The children of light are commanded to "reprove" the unfruitful works of darkness. The Greek word translated "reprove" is ELEGCHETE which is the second person plural present tense imperative mood active voice of the verb ELEGCHO which means, "to shame, put to shame: to do so by proving one in the wrong." Buliinger, E.W., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance To The English and Greek New Testament, page 640. It is in the present tense because the action on the part of the children of light is ongoing and continuous. They must be unrelenting in this area. It is in the imperative mood for we are not being offered any alternative. This activity is a must! It is in the active voice because it is what the children of light must be doing to the unfruitful works of darkness. Hence, we must not only not fellowship it, but we must manifest the darkness for what it really is from the perspective of the Father of lights. Of course, this is exactly what Paul goes on to say in verse 13: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatever doth make manifest is light." (Also, see John 3:19-20.) Since John's statement in 1 John 1:5, namely, "El is light, and in Him is no darkness at all" is the fundamental starting point it then follows that, 1. If we claim to be in fellowship with El and are actually walking in darkness, then we are liars and are absolutely not performing or accomplishing (The Greek word translated "doing" is in the present tense thus indicating that what is being done is continuing or ongoing action.) The Truth. (The definite article is there. It is "The Truth." Hence, being in fellowship with El requires walking in The Light which is accomplishing or performing The Truth (verse 6). 2. In contrast to verse 6 ("But" is the translation of the Greek conjunction of contrast DE.) in verse 7 we are told that if we are walking (present tense) in (Greek EN which means an abiding in) the light (The definite article is present in the Greek. It is "The Light,"), then we are having (The Greek word translated "have" is in the present tense thus indicating that this is an ongoing or continuing action.) or holding on to that special relationship called fellowship with one another. Futhermore, if we are walking in the light, as the Deity is in the light, then the blood of Jesus Christ is cleansing us from all sin. Thus walking in the light establishes fellowship and permits the working of the atonement in our lives. Apart from this principle of sound fellowship of walking in the light as He is in the light, there is no way to experience the effects of Christ's atoning sacrifice. They are inextricably connected! How important to rightly understand this undeniable fact and to put it into practice in our lives. Our salvation is dependent on walking in the light as He is in the light. In other words, we must be in fellowship with the Deity in order to benefit from Christ's sacrifice. Is this a startling conclusion? It should not be for the atonement (at-one- ment) is the means whereby we are reconciled unto the Deity and therefore brought back into fellowship with Him. (Rom. 3:21-26; 4:23; 5:2, 6-21; 8:14-17; 2 Cor. 5:17-20; Eph. 2:11-22.) From this reasoning, and a proper consideration of the full import of the whole of "The Holy Scriptures," it certainly seems obvious that the doctrine of fellowship is probably the single most important doctrine in the whole of the Bible (I say "probably" because such a rating is really impossible with any degree of certainty.) because this is what the Bible is all about. The Bible tells us that we were created to be in fellowship with God (God- manifestation), how it was broken (Sin and Death), and how it is regained ("the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ"). Therefore, how can we relegate it to second class status and say we really do not have to properly understand it prior to baptism, or properly maintain it afterwards? In all honesty, WE CAN NOT! 3. It is quite obvious from what John has said and from a scientific consideration of actual light that it is impossible to have light where darkness is or to have darkness where light exists. Darkness is where light is not present! Light dispels darkness! These two terms represent two mutually exclusive natural properties, and, hence, two mutually exclusive spiritual properties. An individual can not be found walking in both darkness and light at the same time. This observation of an actual natural fact demands a spiritual application as well. He is either walking in darkness or he is walking in the light! Quite frankly, it follows from the above, that, if a person is walking, or fellowshipping with, someone who is walking in darkness because of error, then he, himself, also, likewise must be in darkness. The full force of 2 John 8-11 is thus brought home. Paul further emphasizes this point when he says in 2 Cor. 6:14, 17- 18, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and touch not the unclean; and I will receive you, and will be a Father (1 John 1:3) unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." Note the Greek words translated "come out" and "be ye separate" and "touch" are all in the imperative mood which means that we are looking at commands. The children of light have no choice but to separate themselves completely from that which is "darkness" and must not defile themselves again with it. It is quite clear that light separates from darkness and demands continuing separation from darkness to be considered a son or daughter of the Deity. It is quite obvious from this that the relationship called "fellowship" is nothing other than the relationship known as "family." An individual is either a member of His spiritual family, and, therefore, in fellowship with Him or they are not. Also, consider the following passages: Gen. 1:18; Is. 9:2; Jer. 31:35; Matt. 4:16; Luke 1:79; 2:32; 11:33; John 1:5; 3:19-21; Acts 26:18. Note, what we have been discussing is not the doctrine of fellowship but the logical extension or elaboration of the doctrine of fellowship. In other words, to claim that separation from the world and the churches ("The churches" are just a subset of "the world" and not two separate and distinct classes.) is the proper understanding of the doctrine of fellowship is erroneous. This statement does not represent the doctrine of fellowship, but a consequence of it. The doctrine of fellowship states that El is light and in Him is no darkness at all. Therefore, we only have fellowship with Him when we are walking in The Light and remaining separate from darkness. It matters not whether that darkness of the world is properly outside our protective hedge of The Truth or has been introduced inside by someone who has adopted the darkness of the world after joining the body of believers. Thus to teach this watered down and erroneous view of the doctrine of fellowship is to undermine The Truth in this area and to eventually permit the undermining of The Truth in other areas. This situation is absolutely not permissible! It is time to purge ourselves of this wrong understanding so that we might be found watching and waiting and with our lights burning at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. After all, we want to bear the family name of Yahweh for eternity! (j) To support their erroneous view of fellowship, a misuse is made of Brother Roberts' autobiography. It is felt that a detailed refutation of this misuse should not be needed, for any fair reading of what Brother Roberts has to say about the Dowieite controversy will establish quite clearly that the quote offered by these supporters of a watered down version of fellowship has nothing to do with a proper understanding of the doctrine of fellowship. The quotation that is being offered is on page 125 of My Days and My Ways and reads, "Time went on and I came to see that duty required my separation from a doubtful fellowship." When the context is consulted, Brother Roberts clearly indicates that his hesitancy to act was due to his lack of knowledge of what was exactly being maintained by those in Edinburgh, and his personal association with them, and concern that the utmost care was exercised in making sure that the situation was handled properly, and not because he did not yet understand the doctrine of fellowship. Note what he says on page 125: "I did not know at that time how partial was their allegiance and how limited was their apprehension of scriptural things, and how uncertain was their repudiation of the established fables of the day which so thoroughly make void the Word of God. They were professing brethren, and I felt called on to give them the benefit of all doubts. (Here we have an explanation of his use of the term "doubtful fellowship" as mentioned above.) I was indeed much afraid of doing them a wrong in apparently proscribing them. I had before my eyes the fear of the words of Christ about offending one of the little ones believing in him, which has, in fact, been one of the chiefest sources of my distress in all wranglings and divisions that have since arisen in connection with the truth, and I had not attained that libery that comes from clearer sight and a greater breadth of view in all matters affecting the relations of God and man." (Note, it is not that he did not understand the basic doctrine of fellowship, but that he came to a clearer understanding of its application "in all matters." I am sure that everyone agrees that there is a maturation process in the Truth which requires a begettal by the word of truth, a new birth, a feeding on the milk of the word, a childhood and eventually adulthood and a feeding on the meat of the word. We do not expect a babe to know what the child or the adult in the Truth knows, but we do expect him to know the first principles of the Truth which will produce his birth. Brother Roberts is obviously claiming no more here than that! It is obvious from this quotation that Brother Roberts is stating that he was ignorant of how serious the problem really was and that he was guilty of giving these people the benefit of the doubt until the exact nature of the problem was established. Furthermore, this view is exactly that of Brother Thomas concerning Brother Roberts for in a letter to him he writes, "When the truth is in question, the benefit of all doubts should be given to it, not to those whose influence with respect to it is only evil and that continually. You erred in giving them any benefit of doubt in the premises; but I rejoice that you have seen the error, and will no more send inquirers after the truth to inquire at such Gospel nullifers as they." Page 126 of My Days and My Ways. Note, Brother Thomas states that Brother Roberts' error was not that he did not understand the doctrine of fellowship properly, but that he had given these people the benefit of the doubt. Brother Roberts' mental battle is set out on pages 201- 205 of his autobiography. Allow me to quote part of it to demonstrate what was also behind Brother Roberts' reluctance to act. He says: "It was a real trouble of mind to me to have to break with the professors of the truth in Edinburgh. A number of circumstances had combined to give them a large place in my affections. It was in connection with them that I had made my first acquaintance with active life; and association in such a case is always powerful. It was from their midst that I obtained the best of God's mortal gifts to man - an excellent wife. Among them I got my first lessons in ecclesial and literary work. Themselves, one and all, I esteemed and loved as a company of excellent people. The very city, with historical associations that fascinated youthful rawness, and with a topography and architecture that charmed youthful eyes unaccustomed to beauty, and with learned men and institutions of European reputation that invested the place with a lustre of glory in the view of one who had just broken the shell of aboriginal darkness, exerted a powerful spell. "It was no weak influence that broke through all these attractions; and the process was a very painful one, and protracted..." From the above, it is quite obvious that Brother Roberts is telling us that he had very strong personal ties to these people that had to be overcome before he could carry out the responsibilities associated with the doctrine of fellowship. I am sure that we all can relate to these feelings. Just imagine the effort that would be involved if you were confronted with the possibility of having to withdraw from someone you loved and respected. It has not been uncommon for families to be paralyzed when faced with a required withdrawal from one of their family members. Does this mean that they do not understand the doctrine of fellowship theoretically. Not necessarily! For they could have proved themselves very strong in defense of the truth until a problem struck close to home. To a certain extent this is what Brother Roberts is telling us about his reluctance to take action against those in Edinburgh. That it was these kind of things that were behind his reluctance to act and not that he did not understand the doctrine of fellowship is made clear in the following passage just a little further down from the above mentioned quotation (In this passage about to be quoted, Brother Roberts makes it clear that he did properly understand the doctrine of fellowship.): "This was the first of a series of cataclysms in the little world of the truth which caused me more distress of mind towards God and man than would be believed by any but the closest intimates. The distress arose from the struggle between the fear of doing wrong to man and the fear of acting unfaithfully by the truth. The recovery of the truth in an age of universal worldliness and superstition was an event of such unutterable consequence, in my estimation, and the having been allowed to become acquainted with it after the horrors of sectarian theology, was a privilege of such incomputable magnitude, to my judgment, that the duty of resisting the corruption and slack handling of it seemed self-evident. (Does this sound like someone who did not understand the doctrine of fellowship? Obviously not! How could anyone who did not properly understand the doctrine of fellowship say that it was their self- evident duty to resist the corruption and slack handling of the truth? Obviously, they could not! This attitude is that of someone who properly and rightly respects the truth which attitude is a manifestation of the doctrine of fellowship.) Yet those precepts of Christ that prescribe care as to stumbling blocks in the path of the little ones believing in him, and that enjoin abstention from judgment and condemnation of others lest we ourselves be judged exercised a deterrent effect, which almost paralyzed decision." The above passage supports what is an obvious fact that the original quotation by those trying to prove that Brother Roberts did not properly understand the doctrine of fellowship prior to baptism because he did not understand it at the time of the Dowieite controversy are quite wrong. He knew it and reluctantly applied it even when it involved very close personal ties. We hope these comments will help you understand our current position with respect to the Berean Christadelphian Fellowship. If more information is needed on any of these subjects, then please do not hesitate to call or write us. A Brother and Sisters in The Lord Jesus Christ Julio B. and Kim Scaramastro Ann Scaramastro

See also the following articles: "Fellowship" by Bro. John Thomas, written in 1847; and Bro. Thomas' compares his work towards the Campbellites with that of the Apostle Paul TOP | HOME | BACK TO MAGAZINE | SITE MAP | EMAIL http://www.antipas.org | email: wm@antipas.org