Errata

Many brethren, expecially those older brethren who had been Berean Christadelphians before the division of 1952 opposed his teachings. Thus, in the course of making his defense and his arguments to the Central brotherhood, Richard Stone found it necessary to attack the Bereans as unsound. This he did in the Tidings Magazine of August/September 1978:

"When John Carter involved himself in the reunion efforts in Austrailia in 1958 [Shield Reunion] he met with many difficulties. Not the least of these was the influence of the teachings of certain in the Berean fellowship on the brotherhood. These teachings, in combating the ideas of clean flesh had swung too far and were using Unamended arguments. Bro. Carter also recognized that the same problem was being experienced in the United States. But let us hear him,

"'A feature of the 'Berean' fellowship has been a leaning towards the teaching of J.J. Andrew which was controverted in the 1890's; not, be is said, to his views on resurrectional responsibility, but to those doctrines of condemnation and inherited sin and alienation which were the basis upon which he built the denial of resurrectional responsibility. This tendency was evident years ago in the U.S.A. and was pointed out in a 'Message to all Christadelphians:' which was sent to a conference convened in October, 1947, when Detroit was chosen as the meeting place. In that 'Message' we sought to meet some questions to which answers were demanded by a brother in the Berean group, and who has again separated himself since reunion in England. In our reply we showed there was not only identiy of thought but identity of language with that of J. J. Andrew.'--John Carter"

The criticism of John Carter was not truthful at all. The man in question in the USA in 1947 was bro. Harry Deacon of the Jersey City, New Jersey Berean ecclesia. Bro. Deacon was accepted by Central in the 1952 division, showing that John Carter knew these accusations were false. He left Central again in 1956 unwilling to fellowship the true Andrewites who were brought into the Central group via the "Final Statement" of Suffolk Street Reunion of 1956. He never again joined the Bereans after he left us in 1952, so even if bro. Deacon had such leanings (which he did not, and of which he gave a beautiful defense at the Detroit conference in 1947) how could the Bereans be blamed?

In Australia in 1958 the man to whom John Carter had reference is bro. P. O. Barnard. Bro. Barnard never had been a Berean, and never became a Berean.

When Richard Stone repeated these fundamentally false, though vague charges of the past against the Bereans, bro. Growcott went straight to the battle. The end result was the collection called the "Purifying of the Heavenly". As we were living in California at the time, we found ourselves answering questions to Central brethren related to these matters.

Our contact began with bro. Ellis Higham of the Long Beach Central Meeting. Bro. Higham had asked questions in a public setting of Richard Stone on Nov. 11, 1979. Dissatisfied with his answers, Richard Stone was invited to discuss his views on the Atonement with the Long Beach Central meeting.

The three meetings, the transcripts of which can be found on this site, (Class One, -- Class Two, -- Class Three,) clearly identified the teaching of Richard Stone to be "clean flesh".

Around Christmas time in 1979, we were invited to the home of bro. Lee Freeburg (at that time, Escondido, CA. Central) to meet with bro. J. B. Scaramastro, (at that time, Chicago Ill. Central). Bro. Scaramastro defended the positions of Richard Stone to us, but was clearly not very familiar with them. As we read him bro. Ellis Higham's questions and Richard Stone's answers to those questions from the month before, we could tell bro. Scaramastro was incredulous. Bro. Scaramastro promised to look further into the matter. In January 1981 we received from bro. Scaramastro a "solution" that had been developed by certain Central brethren in California, concerning the teachings of Richard Stone. Bro. Scaramastro represented this to us a correctly defining the position of Richard Stone and the Truth.

We responded to bro. Scaramastro, showing what Richard Stone meant by his expressions. We showed the way he used certain Christadelphian phrases, but did not mean the same thing by them that the pioneer brethren meant. As a courtesy, and to be sure that we weren't ourselves guilty of any misunderstanding, we sent a copy of our letter to Richard Stone. Richard Stone confirmed that we understood his teaching correctly, called our beliefs "error," and challenged us on the matter concerning certain writings of the pioneer brethren.

We asked for help in answering his letter from bro. Growcott. The letter from bro. Growcott is included here, as it is very instructive. It is also very helpful in answering modern history revisionists who claim that bro. Growcott didn't really support the Berean position, but only stayed with the Bereans through a sense of loyalty.

We answered Richard Stone accordingly, and asked him to explain how he can believe he is in harmony with the Pioneer brethren, when every single verse related to this subject is understood differently by him, than by the pioneer brethren? It would seem that if two are agreed on a Scriptural subject, then the two would understand the verses identically.

Rather than answer our questions, Richard Stone challenged us to debate the matter publicly with him. While not anxious for this, we agreed. We were shortly thereafter contacted by the Los Angeles Central meeting who said they would be forthcoming with arrangements. We never heard from any of them again. As we said, we were not anxious for this debate--questioning what good could come from it that can't come from quiet, meditative study--so we never pushed for the debate ourselves.

We did receive one further letter from bro. Growcott on the matter, mailed one day before he died. We also contacted Richard Stone one more time sending him the transcripts from his class that we did, so he could make any corrections to them, or clarify any point where we may have misunderstood him. We received no response.

We have been criticized, both then and now, for referring to the teaching of the now late Richard Stone as "clean flesh." We have only to refer to the published diary of one of the most widely beloved of all Central brethren, the late H. P. Mansfield to show the accuracy of our charges.

We have no sympathy with the actions of bro. Mansfield in this. We have no idea how he could so comfortably wink at this error in his "fellowship". He simply believed things pertaining to fellowship that we do not. But we post this quote from his diary as proof that even sound Central brethren referred to Richard Stone's teaching as "clean flesh" long before we.

It is simply more proof that the Bereans do not lean towards "Andrewism" as Richard Stone claims, but that he himself taught "clean flesh" and that even wise and sound Central brethren knew it, albeit were willing to do nothing about it do to their own peculiar and unscriptural ideas pertaining to fellowship.

The facts are that all true Advocates will view the Berean position as "clean flesh" and all true "clean flesh teachers" will view the Berean position as "Andrewism." This is because our views fall directly between the two. In fact, we too have been accused in writing of teaching "clean flesh" by an editor of an American Advocate magazine, and of "Andrewism" by prominent figures in Southern California Central."