Open Brethren: Are Their Principles And Practices In Accord With Scripture?
Stanley Bruce Anstey
Table of Contents
A Prefatory Note
Originally, the material covered in this book was given in a series of short addresses in Richmond, BC (July-August 1999). At that time there were some who had come to us from the Open Brethren with questions about the principles and practices of that group of Christians. Since there have been more who have come out of the Open Brethren with the same questions, I have felt led of the Lord to put the material into this written form for a wider distribution.
This publication has afforded me the opportunity to expand on my remarks that were given in the addresses, and thus treat the subject more fully. In doing so, I have freely borrowed from those who have previously documented the origin and history of the Open Brethren, as well as their principles and practices. I am, therefore, indebted to their insight on this subject.
December 2010
Introduction
This book is an examination of the principles and practices of an evangelical group of Christians known as “The Open Brethren.” The Open Brethren are quite widespread, having assemblies on almost every continent. In some countries their assembly gatherings are in the hundreds. They are particularly known for their missionary efforts in the gospel and Sunday School work, for which they are to be commended. The examination in this book, however, does not pertain to their excellent gospel ministry, or to their personal piety and devotedness, but to their principles and practices regarding assembly order. Our inquiry is simple: “Is the ecclesiology (Church doctrine and practice) of the Open Brethren according to the Word of God?” Our intention is to answer this from Scripture.
We want to make it clear that in putting forth this book we have no quarrel with the Open Brethren. We have no “bone to pick,” no “axe to grind,” or any personal issue with individuals among this group of Christians. Since we are to have “love unto all the saints” (Eph. 1:15; Col. 1:4; 1 Peter 1:22), we genuinely love these dear Christians. However, it is our belief that the principles on which the Open Brethren meet are not in accord with Scripture, and that their position of being professedly gathered to the Lord’s name is false. Since love desires the best for its objects, we sincerely desire the good and blessing of our brethren in this fellowship. It is love that compels us to point out the errors of their unscriptural church position, and we trust that it will be a help to all who are exercised about it. Therefore, it is not the people, but the principles on which the Open Brethren meet for worship and ministry that we take issue within this book.
Our prayer is that this publication will be used of the Lord to teach the truth of God in respect to the assembly. In doing so, we have no intention of trying to “steal sheep” from the Open Brethren. If those in that church position are happy in that fellowship, we leave them with the Lord. The Bible says, “To subvert a man in his cause, the LORD approveth not” (Lam. 3:36). Therefore, we do not wish to coerce anyone against their conscience who do not have the faith or the conviction for such a path.
Nor do we have any intention of comparing the Open Brethren with the so-called “Exclusive” Brethren and pit them against one another. Our object, rather, is to examine their assembly principles and practices in the light of Scripture, and let it be used of the Lord, if He pleases, to help any who are honestly seeking the truth. We pray that it will be a beacon of light to all who want the truth (Psa. 112:4).
Two Main Branches of the Open Brethren
It should be noted at the outset that there are two main branches of the Open Brethren. They are not to be confused. These two branches gradually separated from one another over a period of about 20 years, around 1910-1930. One branch is marked by being more liberal and is sometimes spoken of as the “loose” Open Brethren. These assemblies have a very open reception principle. In North America this branch is generally identified by their meeting places being called a “Chapel,” though it is not always the case. The other branch, which is sometimes known as the “tight” Open Brethren, is marked by having a closed reception principle. In North America these are generally identified by their meeting places being called a “Hall.” (A few looser Open Brethren assemblies still bear the name of a “Hall” on their buildings, which is a carry over from the days when both branches were in practical fellowship). Numerically, the “loose” arm is by far the larger of the two.
We point out this distinction because some of the things we touch on in this book will only apply to one of the branches, and not the other. It would not be fair, or accurate, to accuse them of something that belongs only to the other branch. Since there is a wide diversity of assemblies with varying principles of practice, it is somewhat difficult to write an article on the Open Brethren without, at times, “painting them all with the same brush.” We will try to avoid this as much as possible by mentioning which branch we are referring to, so as not to create offence.
Specifically, we want to examine in the light of Scripture four salient principles on which the Open Brethren assemblies are based.
Principle #1: Association With an Evil Teacher Does Not Defile a Person
The first principle we wish to examine, which the Open Brethren hold and practice, is: association with an evil teacher does not defile a person; only imbibing and defending his evil teaching constitutes a person defiled by it. Our inquiry is simple: Is this principle according to Scripture?
We must affirm at the outset of this examination that we do not believe that this principle is according to the Word of God. However, in order to see the error of this false principle, we believe that it is necessary to understand something of the history of how the Open Brethren came into existence in the first place, for their whole ecclesiological position is founded on the denial that association with an evil teacher defiles a person.
In Plymouth, England in the 1840s there was an influential teacher (B. W. Newton) among the brethren who introduced divergent views in doctrine from what was commonly held and taught—some of which were of a very serious nature. Satan used the situation to divide the brethren through their misunderstanding of principles as to how the Church should handle a teacher of evil doctrines and those associated with him.
Mr. Newton began with teaching certain divergent views concerning prophecy and the hopes of the Church. Included in his erroneous mix of doctrines was the idea that the Old Testament saints were part of the Church, which is Reformed (Covenant) Theology. The imminence of the Lord's coming for His saints (the Rapture), one of the great truths which had been recovered to the Church in those days—which the brethren were very much living in the good of—was denied and replaced with the expectation of certain events which were to take place on earth before the Lord would come. To have this introduced in the midst of the saints living in view of the imminent return of the Lord was, needless to say, a deadening thing. His divergence in interpretation on various Biblical topics was in many ways the very opposite of what brethren had just recovered and were living in the enjoyment of in those days. Mr. Darby reported, “The one undeviating object seemed to be to teach differently from what brethren had taught, no matter what, so that it set their teaching aside.” It was an obvious attempt of the enemy to nullify the truth that was just then being recovered.
At the same time, little by little, Mr. Newton introduced clerical principles into the meetings. This was done to suit his personal objectives of presiding over the assembly in Plymouth. J. N. Darby reported that the oppression was so great that occasionally a poor brother would give out a hymn, and nobody would raise the tune. The simple became disheartened and feared to give out one thereafter. On one occasion, at a prayer meeting, Mr. Newton went over to a young brother who had given out a hymn and laid hold of his book! In the Bible readings, if one were to pitch in by simply reading a few verses that were connected with the subject in discussion, he would be told he could read his Bible at home and that he was hindering the ministry. It became all but impossible for “unallowed” brethren to minister in the assembly. Other servants of the Lord were dissuaded from participating, because (as Mr. Newton said) it was not good for those being taught to hear the authority of the teacher being called in question if a little different thought was advanced by someone; such might cast doubt on the credibility of the teacher. This was his way of stopping any who would challenge his divergent ideas in the meetings.
In administrative matters of the assembly, he became a regular Diotrephes (3 John 9-10); he controlled everything. Others of weight and gift in the assembly left and found other places to labour. (In those days there was interest in the recovered truths everywhere, and the needs for teaching far exceeded the number of labourers – Matt. 9:37; John 4:35-38). This opened the door for Mr. Newton to gain the ascendancy over the brethren in Plymouth, and thus to lord over the flock (1 Peter 5:3). He also had a coterie of women that surrounded him, who eulogized him and did much to promote his ministry—sending out letters and circulating his tracts around the country. The result was that a condition existed in the assembly in which assembly had no power to deal with his disorderly conduct, since he controlled everything.
A Separation of Brethren in Plymouth
After waiting on the Lord for about 8 or 9 months, and not without remonstration in hopes of awakening the consciences of brethren at Ebrington Street hall (where Mr. Newton presided), about 50 or 60 persons withdrew from fellowship and began to meet apart, first in a hired room and then in the Raleigh Street hall. This quickly grew to 100 persons. Hence, a sad condition of division among brethren resulted in Plymouth.
Evil Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ
The clericalism in Plymouth was but the crust on the surface of B. W. Newton’s evil teaching. Not long after the split, it came to light that he had been teaching serious evil doctrines concerning the Person of Christ. These had been put in tracts and circulated. He taught that, because the Lord was born of a woman, He partook of certain consequences of the fall of man. One was mortality! Like all other persons in Adam’s fallen race, the Lord became an heir of death, being born into a race that was under death as a penalty for sin (Gen. 2:17). Hence, when He came into the world, he was in a place of distance from God and had to find His way back to God through obedience to the Mosaic Law. By fulfilling every requirement of the Law, God at last met Him and gave His public approval of Him at His baptism, saying, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:16-17). Until that time, the Lord is said to have had the experiences of a man (an elect Israelite) in his unconverted state, and that God had to rebuke and chasten Him in His anger and hot displeasure! But in extricating Himself from this condition through obedience to the Mosaic Law, the Lord became qualified to be our Saviour, and to go to the cross to make expiation for sin. These unholy ideas, needless to say, are blasphemous and touch on the impeccability of the Lord’s Person.
A Judgment Made in Connection With the Evil Doctrine
Regrettably, quite a number of persons in Plymouth adhered to Mr. Newton, being impressed by his air of godliness, though at the same time, they put forth a written declaration that they did not hold his doctrine. The question then arose among brethren generally: “Could assemblies of the Lord’s people in other places receive a person coming from those who met with Mr. Newton at Plymouth?” A meeting was convened at Bath (May 1848), where well over a hundred brethren from different parts of the country came together to discuss this. “The Narrative of Facts” (by J. N. Darby) concerning all that had transpired in Plymouth was looked into and accepted as being factual. Men of spiritual judgment and teaching concluded that in the light of 2 John 7-11, those in association with Mr. Newton, even though they said that they refused his doctrine, were, according to Scripture, “partakers of his evil deeds.” Such, therefore, could not be received until they had cleared themselves of their wrong associations. Thus, in result of this judgment, they recognized the position of those at Raleigh Street and disowned Ebrington Street. This was publicly stated and was the general opinion of brethren at large. (We mention this to show that it was not “done in a corner,” nor was it the opinion of a few.)
Neutrality in Bethesda
Not long after this, while brethren from all parts of England were holding meetings for prayer and humiliation on account of the sad work of the enemy in Plymouth, the brethren in Bristol (Bethesda Chapel) received to the Lord’s Supper several of Mr. Newton’s devoted friends and partisans! Some of these persons were known to hold his evil doctrines, and a couple of them had been circulating Mr. Newton’s tracts containing the false teaching! One (Mr. H. Woodfall) had been an elder in the Ebrington Street Hall in Plymouth, who also kept contact with Mr. Newton by letter after moving to Bristol. Having examined these persons, the leaders at Bethesda stated that they were free of his false teachings, and therefore, received them. This bold step of the assembly in Bristol manifested a serious misunderstanding of assembly principles, and the consequence proved to be disastrous.
The receiving of Mr. Newton’s friends was done but not without a godly protest from approximately 50 brethren in Bethesda. But when their remonstrances were unheeded, they were obliged to withdraw from Bethesda Chapel in order to avoid fellowship with what they knew was wrong. One of them (Mr. G. Alexander) printed up a letter for private circulation explaining his reasons for seceding. This brought forth a statement, signed by the ten chief brethren at Bethesda, defending and vindicating their conduct in receiving Mr. Newton’s friends. This document spells out in detail the false principle that they acted on and is sort of a public statement of their sin—though they would not see it as such. It is now infamously known as “The Letter of the Ten.”
Why the leaders at Bethesda acted in this way is difficult to state for certain, for they knew about the public judgment of the brethren who convened in Bath—being that it was only 10 miles away! Some have thought that it was because those who composed the assembly in Bethesda (including the leaders) had come from the Baptists as an entire congregation and were not soundly gathered on the ground of the truth. (The hall that they met in was the independent Baptist Chapel that they had used as Baptists prior to their reception among brethren—Mr. Muller and Mr. Craik, the two leading brothers in Bethesda, had been the Baptist ministers.) Mr. C. H. Mackintosh remarked that it was his conviction that it was a fatal mistake on the part of brethren to have received them as a whole company. He said, “The fact is, Bethesda ought never to have been acknowledged as an assembly gathered on divine ground; and this is proved by the fact that, when called to act on the truth of the unity of the body of Christ, it completely broke down.” Being received en masse, without the personal exercise that should accompany such a step, it was clear that they were not grounded in assembly principles. This left them in a certain degree of vulnerability, and the enemy (Satan) focused his attack there. Perhaps we could say that they came out of the independent Baptists, but the independent Baptist ideas hadn’t altogether come out of them.
Whatever their motives were, one thing is sure—they did not believe that association with an evil teacher defiles, and this led them on a false course of independence that had unintended but serious consequences. Their actions in the matter of receiving Mr. Newton’s friends and partisans made it evident that they were not clear as to Scriptural principles of Christian fellowship. This is seen in the statement of the leaders in their document signed by “the ten,” which says, “Supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they understood and imbibed views that were essentially subversive of foundation truth.”
Needless to say, this caused a stir among brethren at large. When the leaders in Bethesda knew that their conduct was under question by brethren from other places, a meeting of the assembly in Bethesda Chapel was called for the purpose of having the assembly (1200 persons) formally endorse “The Letter of the Ten.” But, when some in the assembly objected to the congregation sanctioning a paper which had not been explained nor understood by most of them, Mr. Muller rose and said, “The first thing the church had to do was to clear the signers of the paper; and that if this were not done, they could not continue to labour among them.” Thus, the people were required, under the pain of losing the labours of their pastors, to endorse the course of action the leaders had taken in receiving the followers of Mr. Newton. Under the pressure of this ultimatum, the assembly in Bethesda Chapel acquiesced, and by standing up they gave their vote of approbation to the document!
By formally adopting this document, the Bethesda assembly took a neutral position between the author of the tracts (and his adherents), and those who utterly rejected his teachings as being blasphemous. They actually stated, “We did not feel it well to be considered as identifying ourselves with either party”—referring to the two groups of brethren in Plymouth. Mr. Neatby’s “History of the Brethren” says, “When Mr. Darby began the second meeting in Plymouth in 1845, the assembly (Bethesda) in Bristol did not take sides, but welcomed fellowship with believers, free from error, from both meetings.” Regardless of how many remonstrances came to Bethesda from exercised brethren in the area and abroad, they insisted that a person must “uphold, maintain, and defend” the evil doctrines of a teacher before he was defiled by them.
Had Newtonianism Affected Bethesda?
The leaders in Bethesda insisted that the assembly had not been tainted by Newton's false ideas about the Lord's humanity, but we have reason question whether this is true. It was reported that Mr. H. Craik (the first signer of "The Letter of the Ten" and one of the two chief ministers in Bethesda) said that the Lord's humanity was of such a character that He would have died of old age, and that if He had drunk a cup of poison it would have killed him! Mr. Wigram writes, “He [Mr. Craik] said with much warmth the other day, that J. N. D. and his followers made too much of the humanity of the Lord Jesus, and that he believed that if the Lord had not been crucified, He would have lived to be a shrivelled old man, and have died a natural death!” Mr. Trotter (commenting on Mr. Craik's remark) said, “What he says there of the Lord's humanity leaves no room for doubt that he does, to a great extent, sympathize with Mr. N's unsound views.”
It is clear from Mr. Craik’s statements that he believed that the Lord's soul and spirit were not affected by sin in the creation, but His body was. However, when we speak of the sinless humanity of Christ, it embraces not only His soul and spirit, but also His body, for humanity involves these three parts. Luke 1:35 says, “That holy Thing which shall be born unto thee shall be called the Son of God.” This shows that the Lord's humanity—which includes His body—was “holy” and could not be affected by sin. Hence, in all His contact with sin in the creation, He remained “undefiled” (Heb. 7:25).
Furthermore, Mr. Trotter reports that it was well-known that another of the signers of “The Letter of the Ten” (Mr. Aitchison) agreed with Mr. Newton on his erroneous points of doctrine, and is named in a tract by Mr. Groves (brother-in-law to Mr. Muller, and supporter of Bethesda) as being one of the "friends" of Mr. Newton!
Also, Mr. Muller, the leading minister in Bethesda (and another signer of the “Letter”), said that he could not go so far as to say that Mr. Newton was a heretic, and that he could not refuse to call him a brother! He also declared openly that Mr. J. L. Harris was doing a work of darkness in the steps he took in exposing Mr. Newton’s errors. While Mr. Muller signed the document that denounced Newton's teachings publicly, he wrote privately, "I consider Mr. Newton's writings to be most sound and scriptural, and my wife and I are in the habit of reading them, not only with the deepest interest, but great profit to our souls. His books are certainly most valuable, for they exalt the person and work of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.... I regard Mr. Newton as the most accurate writer on religious themes of the nineteenth century." We ask, “Do not these statements prove that Mr. Muller had been blinded to the errors of this evil teacher?”
To give an example of the character of the meeting at Bethesda, Mr. Darby reported, “A lady wished to introduce Mr. Newton to teach in a meeting near Bethesda; this meeting refused; she left the meeting accordingly. She was introduced [received] at Bethesda, Mr. Muller knowing that she was maintaining and propagating the doctrine; Mr. Craik, the other pastor, having questioned her. She went there because it was known that they admitted such persons into that meeting.”
A recent "Brethren" historian (Mr. Jonathan D. Burnham), reports in his book ("A Story of Conflict") that eventually, "the leaders of the Open Brethren came to view him [Mr. Newton] in a more positive light accepting his modified Christology."
A Newtonian Party Among the Bethesdaites
It wasn’t long before an actual party manifested itself among the Bethesdaites, and they proved to be staunch supporters of Mr. Newton! Mr. Kelly reported, “Subsequently a party [in Bristol] was formed, a public building was taken, and Mr. Newton was had there, and two of ‘the Ten’ (Messrs. A. and W.) were found in their midst! The movement failed; and these two leading men, to speak of no others (after Bethesda’s loud denunciation of the Newtonian blasphemy, and after these men’s public association with Mr. N.) were permitted to return to Bethesda, without the smallest confession of their notorious and flagrant sin! All they owned was the wrong of leaving Bethesda; but they were not asked, nor did they give, an expression of sorrow for the wickedness of fraternizing with one who still retained the main parts of his heterodoxy as to Christ. And this after the seven meetings!”
It is clear from all this that the leaders of the Bethesda assembly had definitely been affected by Mr. Newton's erroneous teachings. This leads us to ask, "If the leaders were affected by Newton's beliefs, how many others in Bethesda Chapel were similarly affected?"
A Lack of Uprightness
It appears that there was a serious want of uprightness in the matter from the outset. This can be seen in the signers of “the Letter of the Ten” stating, “There has been such variableness in the views held by the writer in question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge as his.” Thus, they excused themselves in the matter by saying that it was too difficult for anyone to really know what Mr. Newton held, and therefore, they were unable to properly judge his writings. But this only condemns previous statements of theirs in the same letter that indicate that they knew and avowedly disclaimed his teaching! They said, “We utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son of God was involved in the guilt of the first Adam; or that He was born under the curse of the broken law ... We utterly reject the thought of His ever having had the experiences of an unconverted person.” But how could they “utterly disclaim” Mr. Newton’s teachings if they were not sure what they were?
Moreover, Mr. Trotter points to the inconsistency of the leaders in Bethesda in having one of Mr. Newton's "friends" who agreed with his erroneous doctrines (Mr. Aitchison) sign the "Letter" that repudiated Mr. Newton's doctrines. Mr. Trotter asks us to consider the situation: “Ten men sign a paper in which they disclaim the views held, and known to be held, by at least one of those who signed it!”
When the heat was on Bethesda, they came together in seven assembly meetings to examine and formally judge the evil of Newton’s teachings, and thus, put distance between Bethesda and the evil teacher. How they were able to judge his teachings after saying that it was difficult for anyone to know what he really taught is unknown. In their written statement, they say that “all of Mr. Newton’s friends at Bethesda” had withdrawn from fellowship. They list them as: “Capt. Woodfall, Mr. Woodfall, Mr. Aitchison and his wife, Mrs. Brown, the two Miss Farmers and the two Miss Percival sisters.” But in doing this, they were admitting that Mr. Aitchison (one of the signers) was indeed a sympathetic friend of Mr. Newton! And, that the others were indeed Mr. Newton's supporters—of whom they previously insisted were not tainted by him and received them! Why was there no confession or expression of sorrow in the statement for having mistakenly received these nine persons? And even then, they were not excommunicated, but simply "asked" to withdraw from fellowship.
What, may we ask, became of the Woodfalls and the other "friends" and sympathizers of Mr. Newton after they withdrew from Bethesda? They went back to Mr. Newton! This confirms their allegiance to him, even though the leaders in Bethesda had avowed that they were clear of him and his evil doctrines.
These things make an honest inquirer wonder whether those at Bethesda were truly following “righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:22).
Division Among the Brethren
The outcome of the action at Bethesda was a general division. It rent the brethren asunder and brought about indescribable sorrow and trouble that touched friendships and divided families. Several meetings throughout the country followed the example of Bethesda, while others firmly maintained the position they previously occupied.
Those who defended and aligned themselves with Bethesda became known as “Open Brethren.” The name probably came from their new principle involving the reception of those in association with an evil teacher. Those who rejected the false principle of association were called “Exclusive Brethren.” This was because they took the position that association with evil defiles, and it was too exclusive for some.
What Does Scripture Teach?
The statement, which Bethesda upheld and defended (and the Open Brethren still do) is that association with an evil teacher was not sufficient to defile a person, and such could not be refused fellowship. This, however, is in direct contradiction with the Word of God which says, “If there come any to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 10-11). The Apostle John made it clear that the elect lady would be defiled by her reception of the evil teacher—even if she herself didn’t hold his doctrine!
Scripture also says, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). This was said to the Corinthians in regard to them inadvertently picking up bad doctrine concerning the resurrection by not being careful of their associations. It shows that association with those who hold bad doctrine will eventually corrupt us.
An Old Testament type illustrates this point. When Achan “took of the accursed thing” from the heaps of Jericho, the Lord said to Joshua, “Israel hath sinned” (Josh. 7). The children of Israel were charged with Achan’s sin even though they did not commit his sin! Nevertheless, God held them responsible because of their identification with him.
We see what the Lord thinks about association with a bad teacher in the account of the “old prophet in Bethel” (1 Kings 13). The young prophet from Judah who went to Bethel did not hold or support the evil and divergent system of worship there—in fact, his mission was to cry against it, which he did. Yet by having casual fellowship with the old prophet in that false position, he disobeyed the Word of the Lord, and the Lord showed his great displeasure concerning it by ending the young prophet’s prophetic service in a very dramatic way.
See also Haggai 2:11-13. "Thus saith the LORD of Hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be [become] holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be [become] unclean? And the priest answered and said, It shall be unclean." The prophet asked two questions from which we learn a lesson from two different angles. The first is: if what is holy comes in contact with what is unholy, will the holy thing make the unholy thing clean? The answer is: what is holy cannot cleanse what is unclean by association with it. The second question is: if what is unclean comes in contact with what is holy, will the holy thing still be holy? The answer is: what is unclean will defile what is clean by association with it, making it unclean also. Hence, holiness cannot be transmitted to that which is unholy by contact therewith, and holiness will only be compromised by its contact with what is unholy.
How Serious is it?
A man sullies the glory of Christ by teaching things that are blasphemous and derogatory to His Person. It is not an inadvertent remark but a system of evil doctrine attacking the impeccability of Christ. To show our allegiance to Christ and godly jealously for His glory, Scripture tells us to have nothing to do with such a teacher. Even to associate with him would be showing a careless disregard for Christ (2 John 9-11). To palliate this sort of evil by receiving those who are in fellowship with the evil teacher is really indifference to Christ. This error is the root of Bethesdaism.
An Open Reception
It has been rightly said that wrong doctrine leads to wrong practice (2 Tim. 2:16). This is certainly the case with the Open Brethren’s false teaching that association with evil doctrine does not defile a person. It has led them to the practice of open reception to the Lord’s Supper. If the root of Bethesdaism is indifference to Christ, the fruit of Bethesdaism is the practice of open reception.
Regarding reception principles, Mr. A. N. Groves (regarded by some as being one of the originators of the Open Brethren) said; “I would INFINITELY RATHER BEAR with all their evil, than SEPARATE from THEIR GOOD ... .on my principles, I receive them all.” (The capitals are his own.) This statement epitomizes the Open Brethren position. Mr. F. F. Bruce (an Open Brethren historian) confirms this, stating, “His [Mr. Groves] words express the attitude which Open Brethren acknowledge as their ideal.”
Since we do not want to accuse the Open Brethren unjustly in this matter, we hasten to say that this applies particularly to the “loose” arm (the chapels) today. In one sense, they really don’t have reception principles, or if they do, they are minimal in most assemblies. Since each assembly acts independently, some might be a little more careful than others, but generally, if a person says that he is a Christian, he is immediately allowed to break bread with them. The assembly clears itself by stating that each individual is responsible to examine himself in this matter, and that it is not the responsibility of the assembly to examine people. To support this, they use 1 Corinthians 11:28, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”
While it is true that each person is to judge himself before he eats the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:28 is not teaching that the assembly is to have an open reception to the Supper. It would be a plain contradiction of the Scriptures that teach that the assembly is responsible to judge evil in its midst (1 Cor. 5:12). The principle is simple: if a local assembly is responsible to judge evil in its midst, then it naturally follows that it must be careful as to what or who it brings into its midst. Therefore, care is needed in reception.
Since purity must be maintained in the assembly (Psa. 93:5), when someone desires to break bread at “the Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:21), the assembly must be careful not to bring someone into fellowship who may be involved in evil; whether it be moral, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical. It has been rightly said that the local assembly is not to have an open fellowship, nor is it to have a closed fellowship, but rather, it is to have a guarded fellowship. The assembly is to receive to the Lord’s Table every member of the body of Christ, whom Scriptural discipline does not prohibit. While every Christian has a title to be at the Lord’s Table, every Christian does not necessarily have a right to be there, because that privilege may be forfeited by his engagement in some evil.
Since the Word of God does not contradict itself, 1 Corinthians 11:28 has to be referring to something other than reception to the Lord’s Table. A closer look at the context of the chapter gives us to see that the verse is not referring to those who would like to come into fellowship at the Lord’s Table, but to those who already are in fellowship there. It is simply saying that each one who is in fellowship has a responsibility to judge himself before he partakes of the Lord’s Supper. It is something like the command parents give to their children before they sit down to eat dinner. They say, “Be sure your hands are washed before you sit down.” This command applies to the children who are in that family and who eat at that table. It does not refer to the neighbours down the street. It is the same in the assembly; those who are in fellowship at the Lord’s Table are the ones who are exhorted to examine themselves before they partake of the Supper.
The Open Brethren are quick to point out that the person who does not judge himself before he eats of the Supper eats and drinks “damnation [judgment] to himself”—not “to the assembly” (1 Cor. 11:29). This is used to prove that the assembly is supposedly free of responsibility in this matter. It is true that the person will bring judgment on himself, but the same passage tells us that there could also be collateral results felt by those in the assembly, as a governmental action from God. The same passage says, “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep” (vs. 30). There is no mention that these persons were actual offenders in the evil deeds. They were part of the assembly in Corinth, and by being identified with those who were eating and drinking unworthily, they felt God’s hand in governmental judgment. See the example in the type of the 36 men who died in going up to fight at Ai (Josh. 7:5). These men were not guilty of taking of the accursed thing, as Achan was, but by being outwardly identified with him God allowed them to fall in battle.
We might wonder why God would allow His governmental judgment to touch someone in the assembly who is not directly responsible for eating and drinking unworthily. We believe that it is because we are all in the same bond of practical fellowship, and what involves one affects all. This should not frighten us, because we can be sure that in whatever the Lord allows to touch His people, there is a “need be” (1 Peter 1:6) for it on their part and a purpose of love on His (Heb. 12:6). Nevertheless, it should exercise us about maintaining a good spiritual state. And we should also be concerned about the state of our brethren with whom we are in fellowship. We are our “brother’s keeper” (Gen. 4:9) and we do have a responsibility toward one another. Knowing that the Lord’s hand will be upon us collectively, if we as a company do not go on well, ought to motivate us to shepherd those who are getting careless in their personal lives.
Who Decides Who Should Be in Fellowship?
It is important to understand that the brethren in the assembly do not decide what is suitable to the Lord’s Table and what is not; the Word of God does. This is because it is not their table: it is “the Lord’s table.” Personal preferences, likes and dislikes, of those in the assembly have nothing to do with reception; the Word of God decides all. When there is no Scriptural reason why a person should be refused, the person is received. If a believer has been baptized, is sound in faith and godly in walk, there is no reason why he should be refused. Knowledge of Scripture is not a criterion. A person may be a simple believer, but Scripture says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (Rom. 14:1).
However, oftentimes whether one is sound in the faith and godly in walk cannot be determined immediately. The greater the confusion and error from which a person comes in the Christian testimony or in the world, the more difficult it may be to determine. This being the case, wisdom would dictate that the assembly should ask the person desiring to be in fellowship to wait awhile. This does not mean that the assembly is saying that the person is connected with evil. He could be, but they simply do not know, and should wait until they are satisfied that he is not; for they are ultimately responsible to God for whom they bring into fellowship. Scripture says, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins” (1 Tim. 5:22). Although this verse is primarily referring to personal friendships, it does give us a principle by which the assembly can be guided in reception. It should not offend a mature and godly person, for no godly Christian would expect the assembly to violate a principle of Scripture. In fact, it should give him confidence that he is coming into a fellowship where there is a concern for the Lord’s glory and the purity of the assembly.
Are Personal Testimonies Enough?
The Open Brethren, essentially, receive people to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of a person’s own testimony. But this is not what Scripture teaches. An assembly, functioning Scripturally, does not do anything in the mouth of one witness. All is to be done according to the principle, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Cor. 13:1). Compare also John 8:17 and Deuteronomy 19:15. Accordingly, the assembly is not to receive persons on the basis of their own testimony. And especially so when all men tend to give a good report of themselves, as the Scripture says, “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes” (Prov. 16:2). And again, “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory” (John 7:18). This is why a person desiring to come into fellowship may be asked to wait when the assembly does not know anything about him. Once the local assembly has gotten to know a person who desires to be in fellowship, then it can receive him on the basis of the testimony of others.
This is a principle that runs throughout Scripture. Even the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, submitted to this principle when He presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah. He said, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true [valid]” (John 5:31). He then proceeded to give four other witnesses who testified as to Whom He was: John the Baptist, His works, His Father, and the Scriptures. (John 5:32-39) While having plenty of witnesses of His Messiahship, the Lord warned the Jews that there was a day coming when they, as a nation, would receive a false messiah (Antichrist) without witnesses. He said, “Another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” (John 5:43). Thus, the Lord denounced the practice of receiving someone on their own testimony.
The children of Israel failed in this very thing when they received the Gibeonites on their own testimony (Josh. 9). This is recorded in Scripture to warn us of the danger of such a practice.
Acts 9:26-29, gives us an example of the carefulness the early Church had in receiving someone into its fellowship who had some history of opposition to the truth. When Saul of Tarsus got saved, he desired to come into fellowship with the saints at Jerusalem but was refused. Even though everything he may have said to the brethren in Jerusalem of his personal life was true, still, he was not received on his own testimony. It was not until Barnabas took Saul and brought him to the brethren and testified of Saul’s faith and character—so that there was the testimony of two men—that they received him. Thereafter, “he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:28). If the early church did not receive Saul of Tarsus immediately, surely Christians today cannot expect to be received immediately when they desire to be in fellowship.
Another Old Testament type illustrates this same care in receiving. When the city of Jerusalem, the divine centre on earth where the Lord had put His Name, was re-built in the days of Nehemiah, there was great danger from the enemies around them. Consequently, they did not open the gates to allow persons into the city until “the sun was hot [literally—midday]” (Neh. 7:1-3). They made sure there was no trace of darkness around before they received persons into the city. Until that time, they made those wanting to come into the city “stand by” or wait. As the darkness in Christendom grows in these last days, this kind of care must be exercised in receiving. See the same principle in 1 Chronicles 9:17-27 (“doorkeepers”).
We are thankful to say that the reception principles practiced by the tighter arm of the Open Brethren are much closer to Scripture. They most definitely examine those who come to them desiring to be in fellowship, and for all intents and purposes, they are careful in receiving. But, sad to say, they will still uphold the original principle of Bethesda and insist that a person is only defiled by the evil doctrines of a teacher by upholding, maintaining, and defending them—not by mere association with the evil teacher. This means that the door is still open to evil coming in indirectly, as it was with Bethesda.
The Matter of Identification with Bethesda
As it was then, so it is now with the Open Brethren. The false principle to which they owe their origin has been maintained throughout their history. Several years after the division, Mr. Muller said that if they were in the same circumstances again, they would pursue the same course!
Some 30 years after the division, another leader among Open Brethren (James Wright) stated, “We should not refuse to receive one who we had reasons to believe was personally sound in the faith and consistent in life, merely because he or she was in fellowship with a body of Christians who would allow Mr. Newton to minister among them.”
A little over 75 years after the division, a book put forth by the Open Brethren entitled, “The Principles of Christian Brethren” states: “The Bethesda Church, in which Messrs. Muller and Craik ministered, refused to admit any who were convicted of holding the evil doctrine themselves, but did not exclude those who came from Mr. Newton’s meeting.” J. R. Caldwell (editor of “The Witness”), a prominent leader among the Open Brethren, endorsed the book as being “the simplest but most comprehensive account of the so-called, ‘Open Brethren’ that we have seen. It states the history of the movement, the principal doctrines which have been maintained and contended for over eighty years.”
A few years ago, a brother (an “elder,” as he said) in the Open Brethren—in attempting to distinguish the tighter arm (in which he was in fellowship) from the looser arm—proudly said, “We are the original Open Brethren.”
Thus, in these statements by the leaders of the Open Brethren, we have a historical chain of evidence that shows they still uphold, defend, and maintain the evil principle introduced by Bethesda. By this, they prove to be the spiritual offspring of Bethesda, and are thus in fellowship with its error and guilt.
The great point to see here is that those who are in fellowship with the Open Brethren today are in fellowship with the false principle of Bethesda. Most—if they are true to their beliefs that association with evil does not defile a person—will reject any notion of their identification with Bethesda’s guilt. They will say, “What has that got to do with us today?” However, the passage of time does not alter moral acts and their consequences. The Jews today (in regard to their national sin) are basically saying the same thing. They ask, “What do the Jewish people today have to do with the past sin of the nation in crucifying Christ?” Scripture answers, “God requireth that which is past” (Eccl. 3:15). (We quote this verse for the principle involved, because the context has to do with something completely different.)
It remains for upright and exercised persons to judge the false principle on which Bethesda acted, and to step away from the Open Brethren position that upholds and practices that principle. Thus, they would clear themselves of their association with it. Why would anyone want to be identified with a group of assemblies that have had this kind of a beginning and are directly responsible for a division among the Lord’s people?
Principle #2: The Independency (Autonomy) of Assemblies
Another principle that the Open Brethren meet on, which we now turn to examine, is that each local assembly is autonomous (independent). They believe that the local assembly is to stand and act for itself and is directly responsible to the Lord, having no corporate connection to any other assembly. Each assembly, therefore, is not responsible for, nor bound by, the administrative actions of other assemblies with whom it may be in fellowship. Hence, the Open Brethren sometimes have been called “the Independent Brethren”—in fact, they prefer to be called that. Again, our inquiry is simple: Is this principle according to the Word of God?
A New Departure
The origin of the principle of autonomy can be traced back to Bethesda. She clearly gave up the ground on which she professedly occupied in fellowship with brethren elsewhere and adopted independence as being the principle on which she stood—and thereafter openly avowed. The principle of the independency of assemblies that they acted on is clearly stated in “The Letter of the Ten.” It says, “We do not feel that, because errors may be taught at Plymouth or elsewhere, that we therefore, as a body are bound to investigate them.” They also said, “What have we at Bristol to do with errors taught in Plymouth?” The fact that they did not regard the judgment of brethren in Bath concerning Ebrington Street (Plymouth) and went ahead and received partisans of B. W. Newton, shows that they saw no corporate responsibility to act in step with their brethren, and thus, to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). It was not until some time later that they held their seven church meetings to examine Newton’s teachings, and formally stated that Ebrington Street was an assembly with which they were no longer in fellowship.
Robert Baylis confirms this new departure in his book, “My People” (a history of the Brethren from the “Open” standpoint). He raises the question as to which side maintained the first principles after the division. He asks, “Which branch most truly carried on the original principles established in the first decade or two? Who should the Independent Brethren look to as the model for Brethren leadership today: Mr. Darby with his worldwide federation of Exclusives, or Anthony Groves, whose ideas were put into practice at Bethesda in Bristol?” Mr. Baylis erroneously concludes that brethren ought to follow the ideas of Mr. Groves and model their assemblies after his principles. But in stating this, he makes it clear that they did not begin to practice independency (the principle of autonomy) until the matter at Bethesda arose! He says that it was first “put into practice” at that time! Here we have from his own mouth that it was the Open Brethren who really were the ones who made a new departure in Church doctrine and practice.
The false principle of independency on which Bethesda acted is strenuously upheld in the writings of the Open Brethren from that day until now and is regularly practiced among them. Our query is, “Does Scripture teach that each assembly is independent, and do the administrative judgments each make have a bearing on other assemblies with whom they are in fellowship?”
What Does Scripture Teach?
Turning to Scripture, we see that it does not speak of Christians as being “members” of local assemblies, though people often do so mistakenly. The only membership Scripture knows is that in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 5:30). This is a universal bond embracing all true believers on earth; every Christian on earth is in this membership.
One Universal Fellowship of Believers
Scripture also teaches that since the bond among the members of Christ’s body is universal, their fellowship should also be universal. Accordingly, Scripture says, “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). Though Paul was writing to the saints in Corinth, there is no mention of this fellowship being a local thing in Corinth. In fact, when addressing them in regard to matters of assembly order and fellowship, the Apostle said, “ ... with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:2). He carefully linked those in Corinth with the other assemblies on earth as being in one fellowship. God’s desire is that every Christian would walk in this one fellowship, regardless of where they may be on earth.
Scripture indicates that though there would be many gatherings of Christians in one city, they would be viewed as one assembly. For example, Paul addressed the Corinthians as “the assembly of God which is in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), even though later in the epistle he recognized that they did not all meet “in one place” in the city (1 Cor. 14:23). This is seen again with the assembly at Jerusalem. In Acts 2:47 it says, “The Lord added together daily such as should be saved” (J. N. Darby Trans. footnote). They broke bread in many meeting places in the city, but they did it as being “together” in one fellowship.
It is seen again in Acts 9:31, “The assembly then, throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria, had peace, being edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit” (W. Kelly Trans.). The KJV mistakenly translates it as “the churches,” but it should read, “the assembly.” There were many gatherings in those regions, but they are referred to simply as “the assembly,” indicating the one fellowship of Christians that existed in those regions.
And again, in 2 Corinthians 3:3, Paul speaks of the many believers in Corinth as “the epistle of Christ.” Note: the word “epistle” is singular; it is not “epistles,” as most people mis-quote it. It is intended to portray their oneness.
Matthew 18:15-20 is the first mention of the local assembly in Scripture, and we see the Lord alluding to the thought of practical unity among those gathered to His name. Matthew 18:20 says, “For where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst.” He desired that all whom the Spirit of God gathered to His name, wherever they were on earth, would be “together.” He couldn’t have meant that they should all be gathered in one geographical place, as it was in Judaism at Jerusalem. The Lord was indicating that they were to act together, with all others on that ground on which He gathered them (even though they may be in different localities), so as to express universally that they were one. Hence, from the very outset of the teaching of the assembly in Scripture there is the thought of there being one universal fellowship of the saints on earth.
Now someone might think that we are reading more into this word “together” (in Matthew 18:20) than what is intended, but when we turn to the book of the Acts and to the epistles, as we are about to do, and interpret this Scripture in the light of the whole tenor of the Christian revelation, we can see that the Lord was indicating the truth of the Church’s oneness. It is only hinted at here in Matthew 18 because the disciples did not have the Spirit yet, and they wouldn’t have been able to take it in (John 14:25-26; 16:12). The Lord did this on many occasions in His ministry, giving but the seed of a truth and leaving it to be developed through the apostles when the Spirit came.
In John 10:16, the Lord indicates that He was going to gather together His people into “one flock.” Note: He does not say that He wanted them to be found in a number of independent flocks, but that they would all be “one,” regardless of where they may be found on earth. There would be many gatherings, but only one flock—only one universal fellowship of saints.
In John 11:51-52, God moved Caiaphas to prophesy of His intention to “gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” after the Lord had accomplished redemption. Also, the Lord prayed to that end, saying, “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are.” And again, “That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me” (John 17:11, 21). These verses in John’s gospel speak of the oneness in the family of God. They show that God’s desire for His people is that they would be found together in a visible unity on earth, regardless of where they were geographically.
The Members of Christ’s Body Are to Visibly Express the Truth That They Are “One Body”
Moreover, Scripture indicates that the “one body” of Christ (Eph. 4:4) is the ground on which the Church is to meet locally for worship, ministry, fellowship, and administrative actions of discipline. Hence, a Scripturally gathered assembly will express this truth with other assemblies that are similarly gathered on that ground, and thus, will manifest the unity in the body of Christ in a practical way.
The epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians disclose the truth of the “great mystery” of Christ and the Church, which is His body. And, the very first practical exhortation in the epistle to the Ephesians is to “walk worthy of the vocation” wherewith we have been called (Eph. 4:1). We may ask, “How are the members of the body to walk worthy?” Some might tell us that we are to do it by living uprightly and being good citizens in the community, but that is not the point in the passage. Christians, of course, should be concerned about walking uprightly, but the context of Ephesians 4 indicates that the exhortation to “walk worthy” is in view of being called into the body of Christ. This is seen in the following verses which say, “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love; using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. There is one body” (Eph. 4:2-4). It is clear, therefore, that the Church is to walk worthy of its calling by keeping the unity of the Spirit because it is “one body.”
We are not called to keep the unity of the body, but rather, “the unity of the Spirit.” This is because the unity of the body is a vital thing that the Spirit of God formed at Pentecost in uniting the members of the body together to the Head in heaven, of which we are now a part through the sealing of the Spirit (Eph. 1:13). No power of evil or enemy can break the unity of the body, for God Himself keeps it. The unity of the Spirit, on the other hand, is a practical unity among believers that we are responsible to keep, and it is our privilege to do so. F. G. Patterson said, “Keeping the unity of the Spirit is to endeavor to keep in practice that which exists in fact.” And what exists in fact? The passage goes on to say—“there is one body.” Another has said that the unity of the Spirit is “that which the Spirit is forming to give true expression to the truth of the one body.” We conclude, therefore, that Christians are to walk worthy of their calling by putting into practice the truth that they are “one body.” It is God’s will that this unity should be expressed universally, wherever the body is on the earth. This is the first great collective responsibility of the Church, the body of Christ. This unity is not referring to a local group of believers merely; the subject is the “one body,” and the “one body” is not in any one locality. It is a universal unity among believers on earth.
To aid the members of the body of Christ in walking together in practical unity, Ephesians 4 goes on to tell us that Christ, the ascended Head of the body, has made full provision for the members to that end (Eph. 4:7-16). He has given “gifts” to the Church for the purpose of helping the saints understand their privileges and responsibilities in the body, so that they would walk worthy of their calling.
The Open Brethren will acknowledge the truth that “there is one body,” but they see it merely as a doctrinal concept that has no practical ramifications in Christian ecclesiology (Church practice). But they are mistaken; Scripture shows that the early Church practiced the principle of the “one body,” and the Church today should practice it also. This truth is found in many places in the New Testament. We will focus on two things: reception and discipline.
Reception Into Fellowship
In Scripture, reception into fellowship is not seen as being merely a local thing, though it is enacted locally. When a person is received into fellowship at “the Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:21) in one locality, he is received into the fellowship of the saints at large—in all assemblies that are on the true ground of the Church of God, as gathered to the Lord’s name.
If someone were to visit another assembly in another place, he is not re-examined by the brethren in that locality to which he has gone, but rather, is received because he is already in fellowship—even though he may never have been to that assembly before. If he is not known in that gathering, he is to bring a “letter of commendation” stating that he is in fellowship (Acts 18:24-28; Rom. 16:1; 2 Cor. 3:1). Such letters are written from one assembly to another, commending a person to the practical fellowship of the assembly to which he is going. This letter does not tell the brethren in the locality to which the person is traveling to examine him, and then, if all is well, to receive him into fellowship. The letter announces that the person is already in fellowship, and that the assembly is to receive him as such.
Since all matters having to do with the assembly are to be done “in the mouth of two or three witnesses” (2 Cor. 13:1), two or three brothers from the person’s local (home) gathering should sign the letter. By this, we express the truth that we are one body in these matters of inter-assembly fellowship.
When people were saved in the “regions beyond” (2 Cor. 10:16) and new assemblies were formed, it was done in fellowship with those on the ground of the “one body.” It was not God’s thought that these new gatherings would exist as independent assemblies, but that they would be part of the one fellowship of believers to which all Christians are called. Hence, the Spirit of God was careful to link them together with those already gathered on the ground of the “one body,” so that “the unity of the Spirit” would be kept. It says of the Thessalonian believers, “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14). Thus, they were linked in practical fellowship to what the Spirit of God had already begun.
This is borne out in the book of the Acts. We see the various assemblies moving together practically and expressing the truth that they were one body—and this was before they even understood the truth of the one body! It is seen in Acts 8:4-24. Many in Samaria had come to believe on the Lord Jesus through Philip’s preaching, yet the Spirit of God did not own them as being on the ground of the assembly until they had received the Spirit and had practical fellowship with those whom He had already gathered unto the name of the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem. This was done to prevent the Samaritan believers from setting up an independent assembly that was separate from the assembly in Jerusalem. In seeking to keep “the unity of the Spirit,” two representatives came down from Jerusalem and laid their hands on those in Samaria (an expression of practical fellowship—Gal. 2:9), whereby the Spirit of God identified Himself with them. It shows that it is not God’s mind to have independent assemblies. Mr. C. H. Brown said, “God did not permit the Samaritans to get official recognition as belonging to the Church [assembly] until they got it from these emissaries that came down from Jerusalem.” Great care was taken by the Spirit of God to link these believers “together” with those in Jerusalem so that there would be one practical expression of the “one body” on earth, even though this truth had not yet been revealed as a matter of doctrine.
When the Apostle Paul came across a group of believers at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-6) who were unaware of others with whom God had worked, he found that the Spirit of God had not owned them as being on the divine ground of the assembly. They were not recognized as being on the ground of the “one body” until they had the Spirit and had practical fellowship (signified by the laying on of hands) with those whom the Spirit had already gathered. In reference to this group of believers C. H. Brown also said, “They needed something. They had to be brought into the same unity that already existed. They could not be owned as occupying a different ground to the rest of them. Paul could not say, ‘You folks are not on the same ground as the folks up at Antioch, or at Jerusalem, but you have a lot of truth, and I will just go on with you.’ Oh no. He is going to see that they are brought onto the same ground as the rest. They were brought into the same thing that had been formed before they ever heard of it.” Here again we see the care and the wisdom that God had in maintaining “the unity of the Spirit” so that there would be one practical expression of the truth of the “one body.”
Assembly Discipline
Scripture clearly indicates that the truth of the “one body” should also be expressed in matters having to do with discipline and excommunication. Even though there may be many miles between assemblies, they are seen as all being on one ground and in one fellowship; when one assembly acts in an administrative capacity, the other assemblies recognize that act of binding or loosing (Matt. 18:18-20), because such acts made in one assembly are made on behalf of the body at large.
In 1 Corinthians 12:27, Paul indicates that the assembly at Corinth was the local representative of the body at large. This would be true of all assemblies, whether it was Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc. Unfortunately, this verse in the KJV says, “Now ye are the body of Christ.” This is misleading and might cause someone to think that the body of Christ was only at Corinth—as if they were the only ones in the body, or that each local assembly was the body of Christ. This is not correct because the body of Christ embraces all Christians on the face of the earth. The verse should read, “Now ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular.” This more accurately conveys the thought. Note: Paul does not say, “we,” but “ye ... .” He was speaking of the assembly at Corinth. They were surely not the whole body, but they were of Christ’s body—that is, part of the whole.
Hamilton Smith illustrates this point by asking us to suppose that a General, addressing a local company of soldiers, might say, “Remember men, you are Coldstream Guards.” He would not say, “You are the Coldstream Guards,” because they do not form the whole regiment. The absence of the article “the” in the correct translation conveys the right thought that the Corinthian assembly was the local expression of the body of Christ at large. Being the local representative of the whole body, the assembly is to act on behalf of the body at large in administrative affairs of fellowship. Hence, whether acting in reception, discipline, or some other matter, they do so in view of the body as a whole—that is, what is acted on in one locality extends to the whole. Each assembly’s competency to act on behalf of the body at large comes from the fact that the Lord is in the midst sanctioning the ground on which it meets and its administrative actions (Matt. 18:20).
If one assembly should make a binding decision in putting someone away from the fellowship, the body at large acts in fellowship with that assembly and recognizes the action so that the person “put away” is regarded as “without” in all other gatherings too—not just in the locality where he resides. We see this in 1 Corinthians 5:13, where the assembly at Corinth was to put away that wicked person from their midst. Then, 2 Corinthians 2:6 tells us that the “rebuke” or “censure” made by the Corinthian assembly was “inflicted by the many.” “The many” refers to the body at large—the mass of the saints universally (see J. N. Darby’s Translation footnote). Hence the offender is made to feel the rebuke by more than just his local assembly. (We do not say that the man in question actually went to other localities and felt the rebuke by them, but that the action was carried out by the body at large.) The point here is that if a person were to be put out of the fellowship in a particular locality, he is regarded as out of fellowship everywhere on earth, because what is done in the name of the Lord in one assembly affects the whole in practice.
Matthew 18:18 confirms this. The Lord said, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth. ... ” This shows that a decision made by an assembly is made for the whole earth. The Lord didn’t say that it was something for a specific locality. There is nothing in Scripture about making a binding decision that only applies to a certain locality. In this verse, the Lord is simply saying that if the assembly makes a decision in His name, He will recognize it. If heaven recognizes it, then all on earth are to recognize it too.
Likewise, when it comes to loosing an action that has been bound, the assembly where the binding action was made lifts the censure and (administratively) forgives the repentant person that it has excommunicated, then the body at large follows, expressing forgiveness also, in receiving the person if he should come to those assemblies. Hence, when it is “loosed in heaven,” it is loosed in all other assemblies too. An example of loosing is seen in Paul’s remarks in 2 Corinthians 2:7-11. While Paul had authority to act apostolically in this matter, if need be, he chose to wait until the assembly at Corinth acted, so as to keep “the unity of the Spirit.” He said, “To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also.” By doing this, the Church expresses the truth that it is “one body.”
Paul went on to say, “Lest Satan should get an advantage of us” (2 Cor 2:11). Note: he didn’t say, “Get an advantage of you”—referring to the Corinthians; he said, “Us.” This indicates the saints at large in the “one body.” Paul knew that Satan was seeking to divide the assemblies in their universal testimony of the one body, and this delicate inter-assembly matter was where he would work. Therefore, Paul, as representing the saints abroad, indicates how we are to act in these matters of loosing an assembly judgment. Even though he (and perhaps others) knew that the man was repentant and should be restored to fellowship, he didn’t go ahead of the assembly at Corinth and act independently in the matter, though, being an apostle, he had authority to do so. Instead, he waited for the Corinthians to act in the matter first; then he and the rest of the saints elsewhere on earth would accept its judgment and follow it. We are taught by this that we are not to act independently, but in concert with the assembly that makes the action, and thus express that we are one body.
We see another example of the truth of the “one body” practiced in Acts 15, when trouble arose among the saints at Antioch on account of Judaizing teachers from Jerusalem who disturbed the saints with their doctrine of mixing law and grace. Again, we learn some valuable lessons as to how God would have us to deal with inter-assembly problems. The first thing we find is that they determined to take the problem up with those at Jerusalem. We might think that the reason they took the matter there was because it was God’s center for dealing with assembly problems, as if it were the one central place on earth (a headquarters) to which the assemblies were to take their problems. But the assembly at Antioch did not go to Jerusalem because it was unqualified to handle the problem—the Lord was in the midst in the Antioch assembly as He was in Jerusalem. And, if it were simply a case where they wanted an apostolic judgment in the matter, they could have appealed to the apostles Paul and Barnabas who were there at Antioch. Who but the Apostle Paul was more qualified to handle matters touching law and grace? While it’s true that they valued the insight of the apostles and leaders at Jerusalem in the matter, the deeper reason for going up to Jerusalem was to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” The fact was that the Judaizing teachers who were troubling the saints at Antioch had come out from Jerusalem (vs. 24). So as not to break the practical unity between the two assemblies, the brethren at Antioch would not deal with the problem independently but took it to its source and let Jerusalem deal with it.
It teaches us that if one from a certain assembly visits another assembly and does wrong there, so that it requires correction or disciplinary action, that that gathering is not to act independently but to bring it to the local assembly from which the troublemaker has come, so that they can deal with it. Thus, “the unity of the Spirit” is kept in the uniting bond of peace. This, again, shows that Scripture does not support the idea of assemblies acting autonomously.
It is noteworthy that when they went up to Jerusalem with this matter, and stopped at various assemblies along the way, they did not upset those gatherings by spreading the problem among them. They only spoke of things that would cause “great joy” among the saints, though they were, no doubt, deeply burdened about the matter that struck at the heart of the Christian’s standing in grace. This teaches us the importance of not spreading local assembly problems needlessly. Our adversary, the devil, could get a hold of it and use it to cause trouble among the saints.
Hence, a Scripturally gathered assembly is not autonomous, but functions in fellowship with all other assemblies on the true ground of the Church, because it meets on the ground of the “one body.” The principle of the “one body” is also to be acted on when a whole assembly goes wrong. If that assembly refuses to deal with its wrongs after it has been shown to them conclusively from the Word of God, it is to be disowned by the binding action of another assembly acting on behalf of the body at large. After carefully looking into the matter, they would simply make a formal statement that the assembly in error is no longer gathered on the true ground of the Church of God. Following the principle in the type in Deuteronomy 21:1-9, the action is to be taken by an assembly that is the nearest to the problem and knows the situation intimately. (The nearness here is not necessarily a geographical nearness, but a moral nearness. This is seen in Acts 15. The assembly at Antioch was morally nearest to the problem, having had the Judaizing teachers teach their bad doctrine in that assembly. They took it up with the assembly at Jerusalem, from which the Judaizers came, even though there were other assemblies geographically nearer to Jerusalem.)
This collective responsibility is illustrated in another type in Deuteronomy 13. If evil was found in a person in a city in the land, the city wherein he lived was to “stone” him to death (vss. 6-11). Stoning speaks of the conscience of all in a local assembly being engaged in the judgment of a wicked person in its midst. But, if a city is found to have evil in it that it won’t judge, then the other cites in the land were to act for the Lord’s glory and judge that city. It was to be destroyed and made a heap forever (vss. 12-18). This shows that there was a collective responsibility on the part of all the cities in Israel to put away evil in the land. See also Judges 19-20. Typically, it speaks of an assembly that has proved to be unrighteous, being disowned by the other assemblies in fellowship with it, and thereafter, it is viewed as no longer gathered on the true ground of the Church.
In view of these Scriptural principles, we can affirm that Scripture knows nothing of independent (autonomous) fellowships. Local assemblies are not seen in Scripture as “islands” of separate fellowships all to themselves in the ocean of the Christian profession; Scripture sees only one universal fellowship to which all Christians are called (1 Cor. 1:9). The Open Brethren call this “the inter-connexualism of assemblies” (as opposed to their “autonomy of assemblies”), but Scripture calls it keeping “the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace; there is one body” (Eph. 4:3-4).
The Principle of a Confederacy—an Imitation of the Practical Unity in the “One Body”
Oftentimes, when those with the Open Brethren hear of these principles of inter-assembly fellowship, they will say, “We do that; we receive persons from other assemblies who have a letter of commendation, and we recognize the administrative acts of discipline made in other assemblies. When someone has been excommunicated from another assembly for some sin, we will not receive that person.”
It is true that assemblies among the Open Brethren will often recognize one another’s acts, but they don’t do it because they see that such decisions are “bound in heaven,” and therefore, binding on each assembly. They will clearly state that they do not believe that each assembly is bound by another assembly’s acts. They believe that each assembly is to take up the case for itself and arrive at its own conclusion before the Lord. If they come to the same conclusion that the other assemblies have arrived at on the matter (which they often do), they mutually consent, and act in accord with it. But, being independent assemblies as they are, they reserve the right to accept or reject a decision made by another assembly. Therefore, outwardly, it may look like they are acting on the principle of the “one body”—but it only appears that way; it really is an imitation of that truth.
The Open Brethren are a system of independent assemblies meeting on the principle of a confederacy. It is an unscriptural principle of unity and a perversion of the truth of the “one body.” Fellowship between assemblies is based on a mutual recognition of each assembly being independent, and that each assembly is free to come to its own determinations in matters. When an action is taken in an assembly, they don’t pretend to be making it on behalf of other assemblies, because they believe that all administrative assembly actions are purely local. Hence, a matter dealt with in one assembly is open to reconsideration and review in another assembly. This unscriptural principle of independency assumes that everything stops at the local assembly and does not extend to other assemblies. If assemblies happen to act together in a matter it is purely on the principle of mutual consent.
An illustration given by W. J. Brockmeier helps us to see the root principle of a confederacy. He asks us to consider the position of the two sides of the United States in the Civil War (1861-1865). The Union (the North) viewed the nation as one indissoluble whole; the Confederacy’s (the South) position was that each state retained the right to be—or not to be—part of the nation, if matters were such where they differed in opinion. The North viewed secession as illegal, while the South held that each state had the right to secede. Thus, we have the root principle of a confederacy; it is the very thing on which the Open Brethren operate in inter-assembly matters.
Hence, when a person visits from one locality to another, and presents a “letter of commendation” to an Open Brethren assembly, it is really more of a letter of recommendation, because each assembly retains the right to accept or reject the person. (This would be in the “tight” arm of the Open Brethren because the “loose” arm has all but given up any kind of care in reception.) They do not see the person as being already in fellowship; hence, there is a need for a re-examination in the locality to which he travels. Their view of a letter of commendation (which a visitor presents) is that it merely assists the assembly in its examination of the person, and acts as an aid to their arriving at a decision as to whether they will receive that person or not. In N. Noel’s “History of the Brethren,” he tells us that these letters will often be “personal, individual, and private letters of commendation!” In other words, they are the personal opinions of sincere individuals regarding the person who carries the letter. He also reports that most Open Brethren assemblies disapprove of the use of letters from one assembly to another. In fact, according to Mr. Noel, they will declare that a letter of commendation is not a “communion ticket,” but evidence that, in the judgment of godly men, the bearer of it belongs to Christ. It is clear from this that “letters of commendation” among the Open Brethren have really lost their Scriptural meaning.
As we proceed, it will become clear that the false principle of independency, first introduced at Bethesda, is indeed an imitation of the truth. Let us remember that we have been warned by the Apostle Paul that there are going to be those in the Christian profession who will imitate the things of God. He speaks of “Jannes and Jambres” as an example (2 Tim. 3:8). What those two men did looked like the real thing, but it was not.
Practical Problems That Result From the False Principle of the Autonomy of Assemblies
Employing human principles in the things of God will always be problematic. The idea of each assembly being autonomous is no exception; there are unintended consequences that result. The problems arise when it comes to putting this unscriptural principle into practice. We will now look at some of these problems.
The Lack of Uniformity in Assemblies
Firstly, since each Open Brethren assembly is inherently independent, being left to itself in all matters, principles and practices vary from one assembly to the next. Thus, each assembly tends to have a different character and order. In some cases, it is slight, but in others it is quite significant. The diversity ranges from the type of meetings carried on, to the standard of holiness used in reception. Slowly but surely, the Open Brethren assemblies have drifted to polarizing views on reception, the use of musical instruments in the meetings, the use or disuse of head coverings, etc. The result is that Open Brethren meetings generally lack uniformity from locality to locality, and from one country to another. Today, the differences between the “tight” arm (the Halls) and the “loose” arm (the Chapels) are worlds apart.
Meeting on Scriptural principles, there is a certain degree of immunity from this drift. When the Spirit of God gathers believers unto the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, He gathers them “together” (Matt. 18:20). If the Spirit of God is given His rightful place as President in the assemblies, He will produce unity of doctrine and practice. The assemblies will have a singular uniformity, being universally of “one mind and one mouth” (Rom. 15:6).
In keeping with this, Paul taught and encouraged uniformity in all the assemblies (1 Cor. 1:2). In the early Church there was one common standard of doctrine and practice for every assembly. He could say, “ ... as I teach everywhere in every assembly” (1 Cor. 4:17). There was also one common standard for conduct, regardless of the culture. He said, “Thus I ordain in all the assemblies” (1 Cor. 7:17). There was also one common way for sisters to recognize headship in the new creation, in prayer and prophesying, expressed in the use of head coverings. In this regard, Paul said, “We have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). There was one order for public ministry of the Word in the assemblies. Since the Spirit of God was there in the midst using the gifts that were present, there was a uniformity of godly order in those meetings. He said, “As in all the assemblies of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33). Finally, there was one common use for the funds accumulated in their collections. Paul said again, “ ... as I have given order to the assemblies” (1 Cor. 16:1-3; Rom. 15:25-26). His great burden was that the various local assemblies, wherever they were on earth, would practice the same things when they came together—whether it was for worship or for ministry.
Walking together in one universal fellowship tends to encourage uniformity from one gathering to another. In Scripture, we find that when new gatherings were established on the true ground of the Church, they did not meet in any way they desired, but followed the order in the assemblies that already existed. It says of the Thessalonian believers, “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14). This shows that there was consistency and uniformity from one assembly to another in those days—and there should be today.
The Difficulty of Judging Accurately
Another thing that is problematic with the false principle of independency is that when each assembly is left to judge matters for itself among the assemblies at large, it is exceedingly difficult to judge accurately. The farther away an assembly is from the problem, the greater this reality becomes. How would they know the details of the case, or the spirit of a thing (which often is the key), to be able to judge the matter accurately?
This is the very thing that Bethesda complained about. They did not feel that they were capable of judging the matter of the evil teacher and his followers in Plymouth, not having known the details of the case. This may have been true, but they failed to see that they were not asked, nor were they responsible to look into the details of the sin in Plymouth and make a judgment—it was something that had already been done; a godly judgment had been arrived at concerning the evil. All that was required of brethren was to accept the judgment that was made and to refuse those from Ebrington Street, Plymouth. Thus, “the unity of the Spirit” would have been kept in “the uniting bond of peace.”
God’s way is simple, but man’s way complicates matters. God’s way is to have the matter looked into and judged in the place where it occurs. If it concerns an individual, or a whole assembly that has gone wrong, those who are intimately acquainted with the problem and are morally nearest to it are to make the judgment (Deut. 17:7). If it is a whole assembly, that assembly is disowned, and such is done on behalf of all the assemblies at large. The other assemblies do not have to look into the case and judge the matter for themselves—they wouldn’t be able to do it accurately anyway, because they are not from that area. The simplicity of God’s order is that the other assemblies do not have to make the decision; the decision is made for them. All that the assemblies abroad are to do is to bow to the action, because “there is one body” (Eph. 4:3-4), and in doing so, “the unity of the Spirit” is kept. How could we think that an assembly, hundreds—maybe thousands—of miles away from a problem could properly judge a matter accurately? God does not place such an impossible task on the Church. His way is to have those at the epicentre of the problem deal with it, for, and on behalf of, all the other assemblies.
All Bethesda had to do was to accept the decision of the brethren who knew the whole case at Plymouth and keep Mr. Newton’s supporters out of fellowship in Bristol. But misunderstanding this principle, they thought it was incumbent upon them to deal with it, and they handled it in their own independent way. By taking the matter into their own hands, they were, essentially, re-judging the case and the judgment at Bath. When this error was brought to the attention of the leaders at Bethesda they defended their independent action rather than own their wrong, and this only made matters worse. It gave occasion to the dividing of the brethren at large.
The Inevitable Likelihood of Assemblies Coming to Opposing Decisions and Thus Disrupting Unity
Another complication that arises from the false principle of independency is that it opens the door to the possibility of assemblies coming to opposing decisions in certain matters, and thus, ceasing to walk with one another as far as inter-assembly fellowship is concerned. This is not hypothetical; because of this very thing, not all Open Brethren assemblies are in fellowship with each other.
For example, assemblies A, B, and C recognize and accept a decision (judgment) made by assembly X, but assemblies D, E, and F do not recognize that decision. Assemblies D, E, and F consequently fall out of practical fellowship with X, but remain in fellowship with A, B, and C, who are in fellowship with X! This is utter confusion, yet it is a present reality among the “tight” arm of the Open Brethren. It is not the unity of assemblies of which Scripture speaks.
The result of this principle of independency is that the whole system on which the assemblies stand breaks down when it comes to the practice of it. Mr. Darby illustrates this by saying, “Supposing we were a body of Freemasons, and a person were excluded from one lodge by the rules of the order, and instead of looking to the lodge to review the case, if it was thought to be unjust, each other lodge were to receive him or not on their own independent authority, it would be clear that the unity of the Freemasons systems is gone. Each lodge is an independent body acting for itself. It is vain to allege a wrong done, and the lodge not being infallible, the competent authority of lodges and the unity of the whole is at an end, and the system is dissolved.”
Evil Cannot Be Properly Dealt with in the Fellowship of Assemblies at Large
An even more serious consequence of the system of independent meetings is the loss of true Scriptural discipline. The principle of independency prevents evil from being adequately dealt with. Since each assembly is autonomous, and judges for itself, if an offender were justly disciplined by his local assembly, he might go to another assembly and be received. The decision of the second meeting would be its own responsibility and would not concern the first. The offender could then travel around to the various gatherings with a letter of commendation from the second meeting and he would not be affected by the discipline enacted by the first meeting. The first meeting would not consider it a matter of concern, unless the offender they had disciplined came back to them, which he would not likely do. Hence, all effective discipline is negated by this unscriptural principle.
This false system of independency makes it possible for a person to be part of a decision that rightly excommunicates a wicked person, yet he faces the possibility of breaking bread with him in another assembly! Mr. Darby said that the independent system of assemblies “entails the consequence that I might participate in the exclusion of a wicked person in one meeting and take the Lord’s Supper with him in another!” This is confusion. Again, such scenarios are not merely hypothetical, but actually happen on occasion among the Open Brethren. Mr. W. Hoste (an avowed defender of the Open Brethren) has admitted that he knew of such cases.
There is No Recourse to Set Right an Unrighteous Assembly Judgment
It could happen that a brother might be put out of a meeting unjustly. He could find some comfort in being received at another assembly, but the decision of the unjust meeting could not be challenged. Hence, there is no possibility of ever having the matter set right. The assembly in question can continue under the banner of Open Brethren and nothing can be done about it.
Or, a teacher of serious error may arise in one assembly, and that assembly could be in such a state that it does not see the error, and consequently, does not deal with him. Other meetings might rightly refuse the evil teacher, if he should go there, but his local gathering could not be dealt with by the other assemblies. Since the Open Brethren assemblies allow those in association with the evil teacher’s doctrine to be received in the other assemblies (providing that they were not convicted of holding and promoting those doctrines), there is no way of stopping collateral defilement from spreading through the other assemblies from that evil teacher.
Summary
In summary: the false principle we have considered in chapter 1 lets evil into the fellowship at large, and the false principle that we have now considered in chapter 2 makes it impossible to put it out! This is always the result when human opinions, principles, and methods are introduced into the things of God. There are unintended consequences.
Four Objections to the “One Body” Being the Ground on Which the Church Should Meet
The Open Brethren will argue strenuously for their independency by saying that it is not possible to practice the truth of the “one body.” The following are four main objections:
Objection #1
“If you practice the truth of the one body, you will of necessity have to break bread with every member of the body of Christ. This means that you would be breaking bread in fellowship with Catholics, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Charismatics—in short, with every kind of evil doctrine and practise in Christendom. This is something that God would not ask His people to do. Anyway, how would you ever get all Christians in the body of Christ to consent to these principles; they don’t want them?”
The Principle of a Remnant Testimony
It is clear that those who say this don’t understand the concept in Scripture of a “remnant testimony.” It is extremely important to grasp this truth, for it has a great measure of application to our day.
A great principle on which God acts when that which He has committed into the hands of men in testimony fails is that He reduces its size, strength, glory, and numbers, and carries it on thereafter in a remnant form. He no longer identifies Himself with the existing testimony at large in the power and glory that He once did when it was first established. If He were to do that, it would give the appearance that He condoned the conditions that exist in its fallen state. Instead, He falls back upon His sovereign power and grace to maintain His testimony—but in a remnant form. God has acted on this principle in Israel in the past, and He will do it again with the Jewish remnant in a coming day, and He is doing it today in the Christian testimony.
To see this principle in God’s Word more clearly, turn to Deuteronomy 12:5-7, “The place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, even unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come. And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks: and there ye shall eat before the Lord your God.” This shows that originally it was God’s desire for all His people to gather for worship at this one “place” of His choosing, which was Jerusalem.
Now turn to 1 Kings 11:9-13, “And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David My servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.”
Then, in verses 29-36 it says, “And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field: and Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (but he shall have one tribe for My servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) because that they have forsaken Me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in My ways, to do that which is right in Mine eyes, and to keep My statutes and My judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David My servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept My commandments and My statutes: but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David My servant may have a light alway before Me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen Me to put My name there.”
Then in chapter 12:22-24 it says, “The word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from Me.”
We see from this, that although it was God’s desire to have all His people gather at Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices (Deut. 12), since failure had come in, He would no longer continue His testimony at His divine center in the power and glory that it once had. Solomon and the children of Israel had failed and had turned from the Lord to idolatry (1 Kings 11:10-11, 33), and this led the Lord to change His ways with them. He would reduce the size, power, and glory of His testimony in Israel and carry it on thereafter in a “remnant.” It would continue thereafter with just one of the twelve tribes.
This is the first time in Scripture that the word “remnant” is used in connection with the public testimony of God’s people. The “first-time rule” in Bible interpretation is important to observe, because when something is first used in Scripture, it usually gives the sense of how it will be used thereafter in other passages. Hence, we do well to pay attention to what is said here. The important thing to see is that there was a marked change in God’s ways when failure came in. He removed ten of the tribes from the divine center and kept only “one tribe” there—a remnant. The Lord said, “This thing is from Me.” It was His doing in removing most of His people from the divine center of gathering. It is not a contradiction of God’s principles as given in Deuteronomy 12, but a change in His ways when wholesale failure had come in.
The Lord will act on this same principle with the Jews in the coming Great Tribulation. When the nation gives itself over to the idolatry that the Antichrist brings in, the Lord will separate a remnant among them and will bring many of them through that time of trouble into His Millennial kingdom (Isa. 8:12-18; 17:6-7; 66:2). In those days, “the testimony” will not be with the mass of the nation, but “among My disciples” (Isa. 8:16).
Some may ask, “I can see this principle in God’s dealings with Israel, but can it be applied to the Church’s testimony?” The answer, unequivocally, is yes. We see the principle of it in the passage that we looked at in 2 Timothy 2:19-22. There, God encourages exercised believers to separate from the mixture in the house of God and to retreat to a remnant position “with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”
It is seen more specifically in Revelation 2-3. These chapters outline the prophetic history of the Church from its early days, just after the apostles, right down to the last days. If we follow the course of things as depicted in these addresses to the seven churches, we will see a downward course in the Christian testimony, until finally, a point of no recovery is reached, and thereafter, the Lord acts on the principle of a remnant testimony.
In Ephesus, we learn that “the angel of the church” (the responsible leaders) rightly judged all that was inconsistent with the Lord. It says that they would not “bear them which are evil.” But sadly, their heart was not with Him in it (Rev. 2:2-4). In Smyrna, any further slide downward was temporarily stayed by the great persecutions that came upon the Church. The severity of the trial cast them back on the Lord. But in Pergamos, when the times of great persecution were ended, “the angel of the church” began tolerating some who held “the doctrine of Balaam,” which is worldliness and idolatry. The angel was not charged with holding these doctrines, but the Lord found fault with them because they did not denounce the evil, as did the angel at Ephesus.
In Thyatira, a worse condition prevailed; “the angel of the church” allowed the same evil doctrine and practice that was held by some in Pergamos to be taught! (Compare Rev. 2:14 with 2:20) What started out as some holding evil doctrine resulted in many teaching the evil doctrine. This shows that if the holding of evil is not judged, it will lead to the propounding of it. In Thyatira, the teaching of this evil had developed into a system of things called “Jezebel,” which surely answers to Catholicism. In the Middle Ages, that wicked system had such a tyrannical grip on the church at large, with its strength and organization, that it controlled the angel! Those who were in the place of responsibility had failed to deal with it when they could have, and now it had grown into a monster that controlled them! (Compare Acts 27:14-15. The “Euroclydon”—a great Mediterranean wind—swept over the sailing ship, and the sailors could do nothing but “let her drive.”) The figure of “Jezebel” is aptly used here because that woman not only brought idolatry into Israel formally, but she also controlled and manipulated her husband, king Ahab.
Such being the case of the public state of the Church, where there remained no power to deal with evil, the Lord separated a remnant, saying, “But unto you I say, the rest [remnant]...” He let the mass go (Rev. 2:24). Thereafter, He worked with a remnant that would hear what the Spirit was saying to the churches. Here, we have the word “remnant” used in connection with the Christian testimony. It is significant that the Lord did not put on them “the burden” of setting right the confusion in the Christian testimony in an effort to bring the church back to where it once was. Instead, He turned their focus forward to His coming, saying, “Hold fast till I come” (Rev. 2:25).
From that point forward, a marked change is seen in the Lord’s ways with the Church. Up to this point, the voice of the Spirit was to the whole Church. “What the Spirit saith unto the churches” preceded the promise to the overcomer in the first three churches. This indicates that the reward to the overcomer was set before the whole Church because the Lord was still dealing with it at large. But now, at this point, that order is reversed. The call to “hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” follows the promise to the overcomer. This is the order in the latter four churches. What the Spirit has to say in regard to Church order is no longer given to the masses—only to the overcomer. This is because it is assumed that only the overcomer will hear what the Spirit is saying—in the context of Church order the masses are not expected to hear and repent. Paul’s prediction to Timothy that the masses would “turn away their ears from the truth” has come to pass (2 Tim. 4:2-3), and therefore, the Spirit is no longer speaking to the body at large.
Remarking on this change, J. N. Darby said that the body at large is “dropped” from this point onward, because the public mass in the Christian profession is treated as being incapable of hearing and repenting. Mr. W. Kelly said, “The Lord thenceforth puts the promise [to the overcomer] first, and this is because it is vain to expect the Church as a whole to receive it ...a remnant only, overcome, and the promise is for them; as for the others, it is all over.” As a result, the Lord no longer expected the mass of the Christian profession to hear and to return to the point from which it had departed. All thought of recovering the Church at large is abandoned because it has reached a point of no recovery. This is why we do not believe that the Spirit is necessarily speaking to every person in Christendom today in regard to the truth of gathering. With most, He is letting them go their own way as to their ecclesiastical affiliations.
Working with a remnant testimony since that time, it has pleased the Lord to recover the truth that was lost through the Church’s carelessness in the centuries before. However, He has not seen fit to recover all of the truth at once. The remnant referred to in Revelation 2:24-29 are the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and others like them who separated from the evil of “Jezebel” in Medieval times. They were told to “hold fast” to what little truth they did have. Sometime later in Reformation times, the Lord allowed a little more truth to be recovered—such as the supremacy of the Bible and faith in Christ alone for salvation. But that movement of the Spirit was impeded by the Reformers turning to various national governments in Europe for help against the persecutions of the Church of Rome. This was tantamount to turning to the flesh for help instead of relying on the Lord (Jer. 17:5; Psa. 118:8-9; Isa. 31:1). The result was the formation of the great national churches in Christendom, and the deadness of Protestantism began, as depicted in the church at Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6).
It was not until the early 1800s that the Lord gave a full recovery of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). It happened when men stepped away from all formal, man-made organization in Christendom. This is depicted in the Lord’s address to the church at Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13). At this time, God established a corporate testimony to the truth of the one body. Prior to this time, the remnant had been individuals who sought to go on faithfully in separation from the corruption of the Church of Rome. We are now in days when every man is doing that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25), and most are complacent in their low state. This is depicted in the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22).
The thing for us to see here is that the Christian testimony has reached a point of irremediable ruin, and this has called for a change in the Lord’s ways with it. He has let go of any attempt to restore the public state of the Church at large to what it once was and is now working to maintain a testimony to the truth of gathering in a remnant form.
A Divine Provision for the Day of Ruin
Our point in mentioning a remnant testimony is to show that God has made a gracious provision for us in this day of ruin. In resorting to such a position in Christendom, we can still practice all the truth of God—including the truth of the “one body.” And in doing so, we do not have to compromise any principles by breaking bread with Christians who are defiled by their bad doctrines and evil practices. The brethren gathered to the Lord’s name from the early 1800s have taught this; it is not a new idea, though evidently misunderstood by the Open Brethren.
While we cannot practice the truth of the “one body” with all the members of the body of Christ today, we can still meet on the principle of the “one body.” To practice this truth the Lord does not need to have every single Christian in the world gathered together to do it—though it is His desire; but it can be done in a remnant testimony. The very meaning of the word “remnant” implies that all are not there. In divine prerogative and grace, God is taking a few here and a few there, and is gathering them unto the Lord’s name so that this remnant testimony is carried on until He comes.
The maintaining of this testimony today is a sovereign work of God. This is seen in the Lord’s remark to Philadelphia, “He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth” (Rev. 3:7). No man or devil can hinder its continuance, though it might appear to carry on in much feebleness. Humbling as it may be, He does not need any one of those whom He has gathered, regardless of how gifted they might be. If we don’t want to be there and we go away, the Lord will gather someone else so that this remnant testimony will be carried on until His coming.
Let us say it again; God desires all the members of the body of Christ to be together in practical fellowship—whether they are Catholics or Charismatics, etc. (Eph. 4:1-16). It is His ideal. But since ruin is everywhere in the Christian testimony, and there is much confusion and corruption, God’s Word indicates that we are to take a position of separation from the disorder and practice the truth in a remnant testimony.
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah illustrate remnant testimony principles typically, for those in that day were a remnant of God’s people in Israel. In Ezra 6:16-22, we see that when they had returned to the place of the Lord’s appointment (Jerusalem), they offered a sin offering “for all Israel,” even though all of the tribes were not there. This shows that they felt the general failure of the people of God and owned their part in it. It is significant that the offering had “twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel.” This shows that even though it was some 500 years after the sad division of the tribes under Jeroboam, the remnant that had returned still had the whole nation on their hearts. They still held to God’s thought and purpose for the twelve tribes of Israel that they should gather as one at the divine center—Jerusalem.
The point to see here is that even though all the tribes were not there, it didn’t stop those who were from setting “the priests in their divisions [classes] and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God; as it is written in the book of Moses” (vs. 18). They were still able to practice the truth as it is written in the Word of God. They “kept the Passover” and “the feast of unleavened bread” in the prescribed manner (vss. 19-22). They even practiced Scriptural separation from those who—though they were Israelites—were defiled in the land.
The “Brethren” Are Not God’s Remnant in Christianity
Some will likely see pride and bigotry in the idea of a remnant testimony. They might say, “How can the Brethren think that they are God’s remnant today? It sounds like they believe they’re His chosen faithful few!”
This is really a “straw man argument.” A “straw man argument” is to set up a fictitious and flimsy argument that someone supposedly uses to defend his or her position on some belief, but like a straw man, it can hardly stand up on its own accord. Then, we come along and easily knock the straw man down and make ourselves look like a champion. This is what we have here. It’s easy to poke holes in the idea that brethren think they are God’s remnant today, and point out the bigotry of it, and so on. But the problem is that the statement is false to begin with; the brethren gathered to the Lord’s name do not believe that they are God’s remnant.
Brethren have always held and taught that all true believers among the mass of mere professors in Christendom are the remnant in Christianity. Ecclesiastically, the saints gathered to the Lord’s name simply occupy a remnant position in testimony and are where the remnant (all true believers) should be, as gathered to His name. The gathered saints, therefore, at best, are only part of God’s remnant; they make no claim to be the remnant. They may be accused of believing that they are God’s chosen few, but these accusations are bogus.
It may be that people think that the brethren are saying that there is ruin out there in the church denominations, but not among them, because they are doing things right and the churches are not. This also is a terrible misunderstanding. Brethren do not see themselves apart from the ruin; they fully own their part in it. They often refer to Daniel’s prayer as an example (Dan. 9). The gathered saints have been set in a very privileged position in Christendom, but sad to say, as a whole, they have not been faithful—and they will freely own it. The idea of the brethren thinking that they are God’s only faithful ones is pure fiction. They see themselves as being quite unfaithful, though extremely privileged. The misunderstanding here is that people are confusing the great privileges given to the gathered saints with their personal and collective faithfulness.
Let us remember that there would be no need of a remnant testimony if the Christian testimony at large were not in ruins. That there is such a thing as a remnant testimony is proof that the Christian profession at large has failed and is not what it should be. If the gathered saints are any kind of a testimony, they are a testimony to the fact that there is a sad ruin in the Christian profession.
Objection #2
“Teaching that all administrative actions of a local assembly are binding on all other assemblies is saying that the assembly is infallible, which it is not. The whole idea is akin to the evil of Popery that claims infallibility, and thus, it couldn’t be the truth.”
The Assembly is Vouchsafed with Authority, But Not with Infallibility
The misunderstanding here is falsely concluding that because the assembly has authority that it also has infallibility. There is no truth to this. An assembly gathered on divine ground is vouchsafed with authority, but not infallibility.
In Matthew 18:15-20 the Lord announced that He was going to confer His authority upon “the assembly” to act for Himself during His absence. This was a new departure in the ways of God. Israel was going to be set aside on account of their failure, and Christ would “build” His assembly (Matt. 16:18). The assembly was going to be the new divine administrative center on earth that God would set up and recognize. If difficulties were to arise among the saints, they were no longer to bring them to the judges at Jerusalem, as when He gave His authority to Israel to act for Himself in Judaism (Deut. 17:8-13); they were now to bring it to the assembly. He said, “Tell it to the assembly.”
The Lord went on to say that the assembly would have authority to act in His name administratively, if need be, saying, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As mentioned already, an example of the assembly binding can be found in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and an example of the assembly loosing is in 2 Corinthians 2:6-11. Thus, the assembly has been vouchsafed with the Lord’s authority to act in His name during the time of His absence, and its acts are to be submitted to as the final authority. This authority was not given to the apostles (though a special apostolic authority was given to them), but to the assembly.
However, because the assembly has been given authority, it does not mean that it is infallible in its acts. J. N. Darby has written a helpful article on this subject entitled, “Confounding Authority with Infallibility.” He shows that it’s possible that the things the assembly may bind on earth may be in error, but it does not change the fact that the Lord’s authority is vested in the assembly. Many people have been confused on this point. They can’t understand how an action that is wrong could be “bound.” They conclude that if it is wrong, then it couldn’t be bound in heaven. However, it is a mistake to think that “bound in heaven” means that it is necessarily approved by heaven. It simply means that heaven recognizes it. Heaven may not be pleased with a decision the assembly makes; yet stands by it. The thing is still bound because the assembly has been vested with the Lord’s authority to act for Him representatively. It is an extension of His authority, and it’s possible that that authority could be misused.
Illustrations abound in this regard, and it shows that we understand this principle in other areas of life. A police officer has authority but not infallibility. He could mistakenly arrest someone, and they would have to submit to it until it was set right. A father, having authority in his household, may also wrongly discipline one of the children in his family; again, the child would have to submit to the discipline until it was set right. The President of the United States could pass a law with the backing of Congress that is terribly wrong, both morally and ethically, but because he has authority, it would be a law that is bound on the nation until it was officially set aside. If the civil authorities were not run that way, there would be no order in government at all; we would be living in a state of anarchy. In each case, the place for those under such authorities is to acquiesce and submit to the decision until God sets it right. This is the way order is maintained in the house of God.
It should solemnize us greatly when we think that we could use the Lord’s authority mistakenly and identify heaven with something that is not right; and thus, incur His governmental judgment. If such a thing would happen that an assembly makes an unrighteous decision, there is recourse. Firstly, we can take the matter in prayer directly to the Lord, the Head of the Church. He can exercise the consciences of those in that locality to the end that they will set the action right. Secondly, the Lord will raise up prophets among them locally or send some from other assemblies to arouse the conscience of that assembly, so that it might be rectified (2 Cor. 2:4; Rev. 2:13; 2 Chron. 24:19-22; Judg. 9:5-21). Thirdly, if that assembly refuses to deal with its wrongs after they have been shown to them conclusively from Scripture, that assembly would be disowned by a binding action of another assembly which would act on behalf of the body at large. They would simply state the fact that the assembly in error is no longer on the true ground of the Church of God. The whole (local) assembly in question is dealt with because it has defended the evil in its midst and has become a partner in it. If things reach this point, it is no longer a question of certain individuals in its midst being involved in the evil, but the whole (local) assembly that has refused to judge it. This is the sad but orderly and Scriptural way of dealing with a wrong assembly action, or inaction—should they fail to act to put away evil (Deut. 13; Judg. 21; 2 Sam. 20:14-22). We mention this to show that there is recourse against the abuse of the Lord’s authority in administrative affairs.
Let us note that Scripture never instructs us to take matters into our own hands as individuals and act independently in what seems to be a wrong assembly action. Independent actions of individuals in such collective matters is always decried in Scripture (Deut. 17:12; Num. 15:30-31). It only opens the door to the enemy. God has His way in which such problems are to be dealt with, and we must follow His directions if order is to be maintained. Unfortunately, this is where many Christians get into error. They think that they can’t submit to something they believe is unrighteous and not according to Scripture. They think that they will be compromising a good conscience. Some will say, “I have to obey the Lord first, not the brethren.” But whether they realize it or not, they are really saying that they are more holy than the Lord Himself. If He can stand by the decision until it is rectified, why can’t we? An assembly that makes an error in its administrative responsibilities still has the Lord in its midst until it is disowned as being no longer on the true ground of the Church of God. J. N. Darby said, “Why speak of obeying the Lord first, then the church? But supposing that the Lord is in the church? It is merely setting up private judgment against the judgment of the assembly meeting in Christ’s Name with His promise (if they are not, I have nothing to say to them); it is simply saying, ‘I count myself wiser than those who are.’ I reject entirely as unscriptural the saying, ‘First Christ, then the Church.’” He also said, “The question therefore is a mere and poor sophistry which betrays the desire to have the will free, and a confidence that the person’s judgment is superior to all that has been already judged.”
W. Potter has written a short paper on assembly actions in which he says that the “whatsoever” in Matthew 18:19 is an “unconditional” whatsoever. An assembly may bind something wrongly, and our place is to submit until it is rectified in an orderly way. Regardless of what Potter says, seeing “whatsoever” as being unconditional, to some, is akin to Popery. They believe that this would be making the assembly infallible in its administrative actions, which is not true. Such persons argue that if “whatsoever” is unconditional, then the assembly could bind anything that it wanted, and it would be automatically bound in heaven. In their minds it would be making heaven subject to the actions of the Church on earth; and should the assembly make a mistake, then heaven would be putting itself in fellowship with the evil, which is something God would never do. On the surface, this argument seems quite logical, but behind it is the enemy’s attempt to bring confusion into the assembly, and an overthrowing of its actions. All anyone has to do is to declare that an action of the assembly was an unrighteous action, and thus, conclude that heaven has not bound it. And if heaven has not accepted it, then they should reject it too. Therefore, they do not have to bow to it. It is a convenient way of setting aside assembly actions that we don’t like. If the assembly’s administrative acts were to be only submitted to under the condition that they were righteous acts, then all order would soon be lost.
The great problem with this erroneous idea is that assembly judgments become subject to our private judgment. The assembly is no longer the highest court of authority in these matters; our personal judgment is. In this, all order is gone. Everyone is left to do “that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). Many have been sadly misled with the idea that unless an assembly action bears the hallmark of God’s Word, it binds no one on earth and is not ratified in heaven. In other words, the decision is only a bonafide binding action of the assembly when it is a right decision. Now, if we were to bow to an assembly decision only when we thought it was right, the sad outcome each time the assembly acted would be that some would end up submitting to the decision, and others would not, simply because their private judgments differed. In these days when the state of the Church is generally low, we are bound to have some who will think that they are wiser than their brethren, and whose private judgment will differ from the assembly. The enemy would soon make use of it in dividing the saints, and thus, disrupt the unity. It’s surely not God’s way of maintaining order in His house. No, we are enjoined to submit, even if we thought the action to be wrong, and wait on the Lord to correct it. Thus, order is maintained. J. N. Darby said, “A judgment of an assembly, even if I thought it a mistake, I should in the first instance accept and act upon.”
In an effort to negate the force of the “whatsoever” in Matthew 18:18, and prove that it could not be unconditional, some have mistakenly assumed that verse 19 is a prayer meeting, and thus, reason that if the “anything” in the assembly’s prayers is subject to heaven’s qualifying (for God only answers our prayers when they are according to His will), then their “whatsoever” in binding decisions must also be subject to heaven’s qualifying. But they are mistaken in thinking that verses 19-20 are referring to the prayer meeting. The context indicates that it is a meeting for assembly discipline, though the principle laid down in these verses is broad enough to include all assembly meetings in a secondary application. (This is why Matthew 18:20 is sometimes read in the breaking of bread.) Paul speaks of this same meeting for discipline in 1 Corinthians 5:4-5.
If Matthew 18:19 is speaking of the prayer meeting, then the Lord changed His subject right in the middle of His dissertation on the assembly’s administrative actions; and then He switched back to it in verse 20 and in the following verses, having to do with having a forgiving spirit toward a repentant brother who has sinned (vss. 21-35). It would not be orderly. The point of verse 19 is that the assembly comes together with the Lord in the midst (vs. 20) to invoke God to ratify their binding decision. The promise is sure, “It shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven.” This is a promise that the Lord never gives in regard to an assembly prayer meeting. He retains the right to grant or not grant the assembly’s prayer requests. But that is not the case here with administrative actions—He simply says, “It shall be done.” It is upheld as bound in heaven.
For those who might question whether “whatsoever” is anything that the assembly might pass judgment on, we would point them to 2 Corinthians 2:10. We find there that when it comes to loosing a binding action, Paul says, “To whom ye forgive any thing ... ” If they are seen forgiving “any thing” they must necessarily have bound anything.
C. D. Maynard said, “An assembly, when gathered to the Name of Christ, has Him in its midst, and has His authority for acting in binding or loosing the sins of an offending brother. (Matt. 18:18-20) Such an act is ratified in heaven. From this decision there is no appeal, save to Christ in glory; as Jesus 'committed [His cause] to Him that judgeth righteously.' (1 Peter 2:23) ...It might occur to some that if a local assembly judged, as they thought, wrongly, an appeal might be made to another local assembly. For example, to restore a person wrongly put out. This has no more Scripture for it than any Romish corruption. On the face of it, it denies the practical oneness of the two meetings. To entertain the question refuses that there is one body and one Spirit. If the Lord’s Table be one, both meetings are bound when one acts, so that appeal is impossible. If they can revise one another's judgments, the unity of the Spirit does not exist there; they are but independent meetings.” The misunderstanding of this important principle in assembly matters is behind all the sad divisions that have occurred among those gathered to the Lord’s name down through the years. We do well, therefore, to ponder these things carefully.
Another erroneous idea is that if the assembly makes a wrong decision (and it may be only so in someone’s eyes), then it can no longer be regarded as an assembly owned by God; and, therefore, they should leave it. This may be an excuse for a person to act in self-will, and perhaps leave the assembly. However, it is a mistake to think that an assembly loses its standing as being Scripturally gathered to the Lord’s name because it made a binding action in error. Again, this confounds authority with infallibility. The fact that an assembly has authority but not infallibility is to assume the possibility that it could make a mistake.
Objection #3
“In the Lord’s addresses to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, He held each assembly responsible for what went on in it. He never told them to interfere with the matters in another assembly, even though there were some serious evils there. This shows that each Christian assembly is autonomous and does not have a responsibility in regard to what goes on in other local assemblies.”
Assembly Order and Function is Not the Subject of “the Seven Churches”
The book of Revelation does not deal with Church order and function as a matter of doctrine. It is a mistake to think that it does. If we were to take our Church doctrine from it, we would run into some serious errors.
It’s true that the Lord didn’t tell any of the other assemblies to deal with the flagrant evils going on in Pergamos and Thyatira, which had idolaters and blasphemers in their midst. But neither did He tell those responsible in Pergamos and Thyatira to excommunicate those wicked persons in their assemblies! If we try to teach from these chapters that assemblies have no corporate responsibility in regard to one another because there is no mention of it here, then we would also have to take from these chapters that assemblies shouldn’t excommunicate wicked persons in their midst, because there is no mention of it here either! The Open Brethren surely do not believe this. It shows that we cannot take our Church doctrine from these chapters.
It is a mistake to think that because there is no mention of things concerning the truth of the “one body” in these chapters that assemblies are not to practice the truth of the unity of the body. The “one body” is Paul’s line of truth; John (the writer of Revelation) doesn’t take up that side of things—it was not given to him to bring out. If Revelation 2-3 are teaching us that local assemblies are autonomous, then Scripture would be contradicting itself. It is because, as we have already seen from the book of the Acts and the epistles, Scripture indicates that there should be a corporate cohesiveness among the assemblies at large. Revelation 2-3 is not the place to be looking for principles of assembly order and function. If we want such, we must turn to the Corinthian epistles. Importing that line of things into these chapters is “forcing a round peg into a square hole.” It may be convenient for supporting Open Brethrenism, but it is poor Bible exegesis. Sound Bible interpretation is to interpret Scripture in the light of all other Scriptures, and other Scriptures plainly show that Christian assemblies are to practice the truth of the one body in their inter-assembly dealings.
The book of Revelation is to be understood by its symbolic interpretation (Rev. 1:1 – “He sent and signified it”); we are not to interpret it literally. It’s true that the seven churches were literal assemblies in that day, but the Lord was using them to symbolize certain conditions that would develop in the history of the Christian testimony. This is the primary interpretation of these chapters.
Objection #4
“Having assemblies move together as a whole unit cannot be done without some sort of a federation or human organization to oversee it. This is what the denominational churches do, but since setting up something like this is not found in Scripture, it is not of God.”
Holding the Head
The simple answer here is that if the saints were “holding the Head” as Scripture enjoins us to do (Col. 2:19), such unity would be realized among the assemblies at large, and there would be no need for a human organization. The proof that this truly works is seen in the early chapters of the Acts. They had no headquarters or ruling organization over them, yet the assemblies walked in communion with the Lord, and kept “the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” If saints are truly gathered to the Lord’s name, they have the Lord in their midst, and He makes it work. There is no need for human organization.
However, if an assembly is not on the true ground of the Church, it will not have the Lord in their midst in the sense of Matthew 18:20. (We realize that the Lord is with all Christians in another sense [Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5], and if they were to be together for any purpose, He would be there with them, but Matthew 18:20 is speaking of a different sense altogether. It refers to Him as being in the midst of those whom He has gathered unto His name, to sanction that ground upon which they are gathered, and to authorize their administrative acts.) If Christians are only professedly gathered to His name, and the Lord is not in their midst in this sense, it will be all but impossible for them to practice a corporate unity without some human help. But it simply is not true that there needs to be human organization in place to have assemblies move together in concert with one another in a universal, worldwide fellowship. Christ, is the Head of the Church, and He will keep it together, if we look to Him and hold the Head.
Objections Summary
In summary, looking back to the origin of the principle of independency among Brethren, it is clear that the leaders in Bethesda did not understand the truth of the “one body” in the first place. When called upon to act on the principle of the unity of the body, they “dropped the ball.” Mr. R. Evans, in replying to Mr. W. Hoste (a staunch Open Brother and defender of the position taken by Bethesda), summed up the whole problem succinctly. He said, “The fact is, Bethesda acted more as if it were a private concern of its own, than part of the one Church of God on earth. Or, in all events, as if they were an independent congregation, without responsibilities beyond their own membership ... .Neither Muller, nor Craik, nor those meeting at Bethesda Chapel ever understood the position they had taken. Mr. Muller was never anything more than a Baptist Pastor. This I have been told by an Open brother in Bristol.”
This is still very much the position of the Open Brethren today. Those who take this unscriptural ground of independent assemblies have little else before them than their local fellowship. As those in the denominational churches, they see themselves as being “members” of a local assembly. The “loose” arm is fast becoming like the independent (free) evangelical churches of Christendom with all the trappings of “the camp” (Heb. 13:13). The “tight” arm is closer to the truth, but neither group practices the truth of Scripture in regard to the true ground of gathering, though they profess to be gathered unto the Lord’s name as in Matthew 18:20.
Principle #3: The Closed Oversight System
The third principle that we want to address is the “closed oversight system” that the Open Brethren use to manage the administrative affairs in their assemblies. Since each assembly is independent, there is some variation in the principles and practices among them from one assembly to another. But generally, the administrative meetings for the care of the flock are for certain “appointed elders” and are closed to the average brother. These “elders” are a group of four men usually; if one in the group dies, moves away, or through advanced age becomes unable to continue in the work of oversight, a new man who has been groomed for the position is “invited” by the remaining elders to fill that spot. Hence, he is appointed to that office by the other elders, and the rest of the assembly has no voice in this appointment.
Our question is, “Is this a Scriptural practice?” We do not ask whether older brethren should take responsibility in “the oversight” of the assembly, because Scripture says that they are to do so (1 Peter 5:2), but whether it should be done in a “closed” circle. This may be useful in keeping unwanted persons who have little understanding of principles of Scripture or the issues at hand from intruding, but we believe that the Word of God does not support this practice, and there are some very good reasons why, which we now point out.
Assemblies (or Elders in Local Assemblies) Are Not to Appoint Their Elders
First of all, in Scripture, there is not an assembly that ever chose its elders. Assemblies were never entrusted with such a difficult task, regardless of the piety and intelligence of those who were in them. In every case, the Word of God says that elders were chosen for assemblies by the apostles. It says, “When they [Barnabas and Paul] chose for them, elders in each assembly and prayed with fastings, they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23 – W. Kelly Trans.). On certain occasions delegates of the apostles were commissioned to choose elders for an assembly. Titus is an example (Titus 1:5). But there is no record in Scripture of an assembly choosing its elders. Nor is there any instance in Scripture where elders in an assembly appointed others to that office. It is clear, therefore, that to have appointed elders, we would need an apostle or a delegate of an apostle to do the appointing. Since there are no apostles on earth today, there can be no appointment of elders today.
The wisdom of God can be seen in having elders specifically chosen for an assembly, and not by an assembly, nor by elders in an assembly. If assemblies were to choose their elders, they might be biased and pick ones who favoured their inclinations and placated their interests, but being an apostolic function, they would be delivered from this danger. Another danger is that if the “elders” in the assembly do the choosing of new elders, it could lead to the appointing of a good “party man” without realizing it, while a man who truly has the interests of Christ and the welfare of the saints on his heart is overlooked. A brother may have the necessary qualifications and exercise, but because he has not been “invited” into that inner circle, he is left out. The assembly ultimately loses the benefit that he could bring by this false system of appointment.
The Open Brethren will recognize that there are no apostles to ordain men today and they will insist that their appointment procedure is purely unofficial. It may be true that they don’t lay hands on the person’s head in some official way, as many denominational churches do, but it is still an appointment. Men do the choosing to the inner circle, and this naturally leads to some being excluded.
What Does Scripture Teach?
It is clear from Scripture that God did not intend for the appointment of elders to continue. If He did, He would have continued to give apostles so that such could be ordained. It was a provisional thing for the early Church until it was established in the truth of “the mystery” and the Word of God was completed (Col. 1:25-27). The Church was in its infancy in those early days, and it needed elders in an official sense. As the Church matured and the apostles were taken from the scene, it was expected that the Church would not need this apostolic appointment, but it would have the spirituality to “know” and “esteem” those who did that work (1 Thess. 5:12-13).
God has fully anticipated a time when the apostles would no longer be on earth to appoint elders, and He has made sure that the assemblies would not be left without those to “take the lead” (1 Thess. 5:11-12; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17). The Spirit of God would raise up men to carry on this work. Scripture says, “Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which He has purchased with the blood of His own” (Acts 20:28). When the apostles were on earth, they appointed such to the office of an elder because they recognized this work of the Spirit in them. But since they are gone, we must not think that the work of oversight cannot continue. There is no mention that the Spirit of God would stop raising up men to do this work.
Mr. Kelly said, “What then? Are there none suitable to be elders or bishops, if there are no apostles to choose them? Thank God, there are not a few! You can hardly look into an assembly of His children without hearing of some grave elderly men who go after the wanderers, who warn the unruly, who comfort those who are cast down, who counsel, admonish, and guide souls. Are not these the men who might be elders, if there were a power existing to appoint them? And what is the duty of a Christian man as things now are in the use of what remains? I say not to call them ‘elders,’ but surely to esteem them highly for their work’s sake, and to love and acknowledge them as those who are over the rest of their brethren in the Lord.”
Hence, in a gathering of Christians meeting together according to Scripture, there will be men who will carry on this work. They will be known by the work they do, and they are to be recognized as such, even though they have not been appointed to that office. The Word of God says that we are to:
“Know” them (1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Cor. 16:15).
“Esteem” them (1 Thess. 5:13).
“Honour” them (1 Tim. 5:17).
“Remember” them (Heb. 13:7).
“Follow” their faith (Heb. 13:7).
“Obey” them (Heb. 13:17).
“Submit” to them (Heb. 13:17).
“Salute” them (Heb. 13:24).
So then, it is not for us to be “grooming” and “choosing” men for the work of oversight; it is the Spirit’s work. If He is given the liberty, He will raise up ones who will do that work. But sad to say, among the Open Brethren this work is hindered by the man-made system they have in place that chooses elders. They will deny this and tell us that they are merely appointing those whom the Spirit of God has raised up in their midst. But this is presumptuous; such is an apostolic work! It is a departure from Scriptural order and an imitation of God’s way of true oversight in an assembly.
Even when elders were officially appointed to the office of oversight by the apostles, there is no record in Scripture that they excluded other brothers from the administrative meetings of the assembly. This can be seen in the meeting that was held in Acts 15:6-22. It says, “The apostles and elders came together for to consider these things.” While there is no mention of others attending the meeting in the book of the Acts, Galatians 2:1-10, which recounts the same meeting, indicates that other brothers were there. Paul notes that this liberty was abused, and certain “false brethren” (who were neither apostles nor elders) came into the meeting and tried to forestall the proceedings with their agenda.
This shows that when such meetings are not closed to a certain few, there is a risk of having some there who will carry on with little understanding of Scriptural principles. When this is the case, leading brethren must step in and shut down the person (or persons). This is what happened in that meeting in Acts 15 and Galatians 2. When certain ones rose up and tried to convince the brethren of their opinion of the matter in question, Paul, and some of the others, stepped in and stopped it. He says, “To whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour.”
The fact that this meeting was conducted “privately [separately from the others]” shows that meetings for administrative affairs (sometimes called a “care meeting”) are to be handled apart from the local assembly as a whole. There are times when it is necessary for the responsible brethren in an assembly to meet together to discuss certain issues confronting the assembly without those present who are unestablished or governed by emotion. It is clear from Acts 15:6 that the women and young believers were not included in this meeting. The only other person in the assembly who would be excluded is a brother who has had some disciplinary restriction placed on him in this regard. Apart from these exceptions, the meeting should be open to exercised brethren who have a care for the flock. All brothers do not need to be there if they are not exercised about this work, but those who do come need to recognize those whom God has raised up to “take the lead” and give place to them (Heb. 13:17). Scripture assumes spirituality and communion on the part of all in a care meeting to discern this.
Having brethren in administrative meetings who are not leaders per se, gives them an opportunity to grow in their understanding of Scriptural principles in matters pertaining to the affairs of the assembly. If they are pre-empted from coming to this type of meeting, as is the case with the Open Brethren, they will miss a valuable education in administrative matters. Moreover, having other brethren present in such meetings tends to keep a balance on issues that arise, and there is greater immunity to a party spirit developing.
In the meeting described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2, men from two different assemblies (Antioch and Jerusalem) attended because the matter in question involved the two localities. Certain teachers from the assembly in Jerusalem had come to Antioch and taught erroneous things there (Acts 15:24), and so the matter was taken up between the two gatherings. But normally in a care meeting there should only be those who are from that local assembly.
In the administrative affairs of an assembly, God would have us to look to Christ, the Head of the Church, when problems arise (Acts 4:23-31)—not invent a system of administration where four men deal with it. It may be a convenient way to avert certain difficulties that might arise, but it is not God’s order. When man-made order comes into the assembly, though it may be with good intentions, there are unintended consequences that will result. For instance, such a system could foster elitism. Those in the inner circle could start thinking (quite unknowingly) that they are above their brethren, and it will be felt in the assembly. The men who are in that inner circle may be inclined not to listen to legitimate concerns and suggestions from persons in the assembly because they think they know better, and because they have been appointed to that office. Other brethren in the assembly might get the sense that their input is not important, and so they might not bother to concern themselves with the cares of the assembly.
The Conscience of the Assembly Is Not Reached nor Is It Purified in Assembly Decisions
Matters in the assembly could very well be handled more smoothly by having four men to deal with things, but the conscience of the assembly is not properly engaged when things are handled in this way.
Scripture indicates that if it is a matter of sin in the assembly, the charge levelled at the assembly is that such is “among you.” This is the assembly as a whole (1 Cor. 5:1; Josh. 7:11). The assembly is to feel it as its own sin, and it is to deal with it as an assembly. Therefore, the word to the assembly is, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:13). And having done that, the assembly was commended, “Ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:11). These are actions of the assembly, not the actions of a few men acting for the assembly.
Since the assembly is charged with the sin, it needs to be engaged in the clearing of its conscience. But when a few men act for the assembly, the conscience of the assembly is not properly reached or purified in the matter. The Lord said, “Tell it to the assembly” (Matt. 18:17). This shows that a collective exercise of the assembly is necessary. Acts 15, again, indicates this. It says, “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church [assembly] ... ” (vs. 22). While the “whole assembly” was not at the administrative meeting, they were apprised of the issue at hand, and their conscience was sufficiently engaged in the decision. When the assembly action is made, it should be made with all in the assembly present. This would include sisters and younger brethren. All binding assembly actions are to be done “in assembly” (1 Cor. 5:4; 11:18)—that is, when the assembly is together in a meeting for that purpose (Matt. 18:18-20; 1 Cor. 5:4). The details of the case do not need to be delved into in a public forum because they could be of a defiling nature, but the sin involved should be named, and Scriptures read that bear on the assembly’s responsibility in regard to it. In this way the conscience of each person in the assembly can be engaged in the action taken and purified in the matter.
This exercise is pre-empted when matters are handled by four men who act for the assembly. Feeling our weakness in assembly responsibilities, it is understandable why we might want to appoint certain ones to do that work for us, but in doing so, the assembly is not properly involved in the matter. J. N. Darby said, “The meeting of a few caring for the saints and serving them is very desirable, but they cannot act as the assembly though they may serve it in every way.” He also said, “A meeting of labouring brothers is not the assembly, and the practical difference is this, that the conscience of the assembly is not purified.” Hence, the false system of oversight that the Open Brethren use, essentially, makes assembly decisions just the decisions of the men in the inner circle. Even though these men may be godly, and deeply exercised, and sincere; and they may even come to the right conclusion and judgment in matters; still, it overrides the conscience of the assembly when it is handled in that way. Having such a system interferes with the assembly’s dependence and communion with God in these matters. God’s way of assembly administration is to have the assembly cast on the Lord for help, but man’s way is to set up a system whereby elders in the assembly handle it for the others.
The “closed” oversight system may be convenient, but it is an imitation of the truth of Scriptural administrative oversight. On the surface it looks like the way that God would have the administration of an assembly to function, but a closer look at it will indicate that it is not God’s order.
Principle #4: A Partial Denial of the Presidency of the Holy Spirit in the Ministry Meetings
The fourth false principle that we wish to address is the partial denial of the presidency of the Holy Spirit in the meetings of the Open Brethren. We say “partial” because the Open Brethren allow the Spirit to lead in their ministry meetings in a measure. We are referring to meetings where gift is exercised, not meetings for prayer and worship where the priesthood of believers is in exercise.
In the previous chapter, we noted that the Open Brethren have a system in place in the sphere of local church government to pre-empt the flesh from coming in and derailing the leadership of the assembly. They do a similar thing in the sphere of ministry—and for the same reason—to pre-empt the flesh from acting in the meetings. We know that when liberty is given to the Holy Spirit to lead in ministry, there is a risk of the flesh in someone coming in and spoiling the meeting with profitless speaking. And, to prevent the flesh is certainly a good thing, but it doesn’t mean that we should employ a man-made scheme to do it. However, this is what the Open Brethren have done. They have introduced certain practices in the ministry meetings to control things, but these practices are not God’s order.
From what we have already covered, and again here with this point, it is evident that the underlying principle behind much of the order in the meetings of the Open Brethren is that they are attempting to control things for the glory of God by human methods. It is a nice desire, but it is not wise, or Scriptural. Introducing human principles and human order to forestall the flesh in the assembly results in hindering the Spirit of God from leading as He would in the ministry (1 Cor. 12:11). It reminds us of the well-meaning attempt of Uzza. He tried to steady the ark by putting his hand on it, but it displeased the Lord because he interfered with God’s “due order” (1 Chron. 13:9-10; 15:13). Uzza’s intentions were well meaning, but they were not of God.
What Does Scripture Teach?
Looking into the New Testament we find that there are a variety of meetings that the Church is to have for the ministry of the Word. Among the Open Brethren these meetings do not exist, or they have been altered to fit an order of their own making. These meetings for ministry are:
The Open Meeting
This is a meeting where the podium is left open for the Spirit of God to lead two or three brothers to minister the Word (1 Cor. 14:26-33). Since the Lord is in the midst in this meeting and the Spirit of God is in control, these brothers will be led to minister something from the Scriptures that will be for the edification of the assembly. It says, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other[s] judge.” Those who act as prophets in this meeting are to speak for the “edification, and exhortation, and comfort” of the others assembled on that particular occasion (1 Cor. 14:3).
Since this meeting is open for the Spirit to use whomsoever “He will” (1 Cor. 12:11), there could be someone who thinks that he has something profitable and that he is being led of the Spirit, when he is not. Such will invariably occupy the time unprofitably. This was the problem in Corinth. They abused this meeting and turned it into a free-for-all. They all had something that they wanted to “show and tell,” whether it edified the assembly or not (1 Cor. 14:26). They were so eager to speak that they were tripping over each other, and the meetings for ministry were disorderly. The Apostle Paul shows that the answer is not to delete that meeting from the schedule of meetings, but to resort to the God-given way of regulating the meeting, so that all things would be done “decently and in order” (vs. 40).
The Apostle states three things that are to regulate the ministry in the open meetings:
We are to give place to the leading of the Spirit, which is implied in the word “let”—8 times (vss. 26-30).
The prophets are to use self-control in regard to their own “spirits,” and are not to interrupt one another, but wait until the first speaker is finished before the next speaks (vs. 32). Paul said, “If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace [be silent]” (vs. 30).
If a person persists in speaking with little or no profit, the assembly has recourse in that it can “judge” that person’s ministry and have him silenced (vs. 29).
Sad to say, this meeting has been removed from the regular meetings among the Open Brethren. There may be some exceptions, but generally, their answer to the problems that might arise in open meetings is simply not to have them. This prevents the embarrassment of having it turn out unprofitably, but it’s not God’s way of handling the problem.
A Reading Meeting
The essential principles of a Bible reading meeting are given in 1 Timothy 4:13. It says, “Till I come, give attendance to reading [the readings], to exhortation, to doctrine.” The “reading” that Paul speaks of here is not personal or private reading of Scripture, or of reading written ministry, but that of the public readings of the Scriptures when the saints are gathered together (J. N. Darby Trans. footnote). It was the custom of the early Church to come together to hear the Scriptures read (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). The fact that Paul included “exhortation” and “teaching” indicates that after the Scriptures were read aloud, there was opportunity for the Spirit of God to use any who had a gift for exhorting or expounding the truth, to make comments for the spiritual help and understanding of the saints. This is what a Bible reading meeting is.
These meetings were valuable in the early Church because most in that day did not have a copy of the Scriptures. It was the only way for the saints to hear the Word of God and get some helpful ministry. These occasions also promoted fellowship. Scripture says, “They continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship” (Acts 2:42). The Bible reading meeting is still a wonderful means of learning the truth.
Paul encouraged Timothy to use those opportunities to exercise his gift in exhortation and teaching. He reminded him that he definitely had a gift for it, and he was not to neglect the use of it. He also reminded him that he had the support of his older brethren (“the elderhood”) who had recognized his gift and had given him the right hand of fellowship in the use of it (1 Tim. 4:14). We should not encourage someone in this way if he does not have a gift for ministering the Word. The person could embarrass himself, and there would be little spiritual profit for the saints. While the meeting should be used for those who can teach, if there are none present with a distinctive gift for teaching, the saints can still be fed. If various brothers in a gathering express what they do understand in connection with the passage, in dependence on the Lord, they can count on the Spirit of God to give the saints something, because God always blesses the reading of His Word (Rev. 1:3).
Of course, this meeting could also be spoiled by disruptive comments and debates by fleshly persons. However, the principles Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 14, though they are primarily for governing the open meeting, can be applied to any meeting for ministry. If someone speaks unprofitably, and persists in doing so, the assembly has the recourse to “judge” it, and have that person silenced. Again, this is God’s way of regulating the ministry.
Sad to say, the Open Brethren have handled it differently. The “loose” arm has pretty much deleted this meeting from their regular schedule of meetings, and thereby have gotten rid of any potential problem of the flesh intruding. The “tight” arm still has reading meetings, but they handle the difficulty in another way. They have an appointed teacher to “lead” in the meetings; he is called a “teaching elder” (1 Timothy 5:17). This man will conduct the meeting and explain the Scriptures to the saints in, more-or-less, a sit-down address. He may have another “appointed” man to help him in the teaching. The others in the assembly are not to speak while he, or they, expound the passage. Then later in the meeting, he will throw it open to questions for a few minutes. These questions, of course, are directed to the teacher(s) who has explained the passage to the saints. Due to the diversity among the Open Brethren meetings, this may not always be the case in every assembly, but generally the “tight” arm has this arrangement. W. R. Dronsfield’s “The Brethren Since 1870” reports, “Readings have been abandoned in many places. Even where Bible readings are held, they are often controlled by an appointed chairman who introduces the subject or the chapter by a talk of varying length, and then leaves the meeting open for discussion or questions. Pre-arranged ministry is the custom in some places.”
Needless to say, this human arrangement in the assembly Bible readings hinders the leading of the Spirit of God. A brother may have something to contribute that would help in the understanding of the passage that they are considering, and the Spirit may wish to lead him to share it, but he is not to interrupt the teaching. This system may be a convenient way to prevent the Bible readings from becoming disruptive, but it is not God’s order. It is really leaning on the arm of the flesh (Jer. 17:5). We do not say that a gifted teacher shouldn’t take the lead in teaching in a Bible reading, but that he should be led of the Spirit in it, and that there should be liberty for others present to contribute as led by the Spirit. Scripture knows nothing of having an appointed man to lead in the teaching; such a structure interferes with the leading of the Spirit.
If we really believe that the Lord is in the midst, we wouldn’t entertain the idea of having any other person than Him presiding in the ministry meetings. Mr. C. H. Mackintosh said, “How could an assembly ever get on without some human presidency? Would it not lead to all sorts of human confusion? Would it not open the door for everyone to intrude himself upon the assembly, quite irrespective of gift or qualification? Our answer is a very simple one. Jesus is all-sufficient. We can trust Him to keep order in His house. We feel ourselves far safer in His gracious and powerful hands than in the hands of the most attractive human president.” Scripture confirms this; it says, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man” (Psa. 118:8).
Outwardly, the Bible readings among the “tight” Open Brethren may look Scriptural, but in reality, a human order has been substituted for God’s order.
An Address
An example of this meeting is found in Acts 20:7. It says, “Paul preached [discoursed] unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech [discourse] until midnight.” When the occasion arises, and there is a brother present who is gifted in ministering the Word of God, the assembly may take advantage of the opportunity and ask him to have an address. The meeting may be used to teach the truth of the Christian revelation to the saints, or it might take the character of practical exhortation and encouragement.
Thankfully, we can report that the Open Brethren use this meeting freely, and God has used it for blessing among them.
In Review
In review, we see that the presidency of the Spirit is somewhat denied in the ministry meetings among the Open Brethren. Of the three meetings for ministry that assemblies should have, two of them have been either deleted or modified to the point where the Spirit of God is hindered, at least partially. This is not God’s order for ministry in the assembly. He would have us to act on Scriptural principles and trust the Lord. If problems arise in these meetings, we are to look to Him who is the Head of the Church—not invent a human order to prevent or solve the problem.
The Informal Infrastructure of Inviting Servants
Due to the nature of the independency of the Open Brethren assemblies, those who minister among them cannot visit an assembly and minister in their midst as the Lord may lead; such have to be “invited” to do so. People can go to different assemblies and take part in the breaking of bread and the prayer meetings, but unless they are “invited,” they are really prohibited from taking part in the ministry meetings. This, again, is hindering the Spirit of God. He may exercise a brother and desire to send him to help the saints in a particular locality, but the informal infrastructure of “inviting” servants hinders this. This order keeps undesirable persons away, but again, it’s not God’s order.
Servants who do not pander or subscribe to certain tendencies in certain assemblies will not be “invited” by those assemblies. If such were to come on their own accord, they are expected to have a letter of commendation from their local assembly, and even with that, the assembly to which they have gone still reserves the right to refuse them in ministering in their midst. Hence, the full-time labourers among the Open Brethren must wait to be invited by assemblies to take meetings. This means they do not exactly arrange their own itineraries as the Lord may lead them; instead, their schedules are largely controlled by this informal infrastructure.
As a result of not having the freedom to move about to minister the Word in teaching and exhortation, the emphasis among the servants in the Open Brethren tends to be more towards the gospel, rather than the ministry of teaching. Over time, most assemblies have become little more than gospel outreaches. Hamilton Smith said, “It is not only too plain that, as a result of the adoption of these false principles, the truth of the Church has been largely obscured amongst the Open Brethren and increasingly they tend to become simply a gospel mission.”
Furthermore, the inconvenience of having to be re-examined each time a person goes to another assembly (unless he is known there) and the prohibition of ministry unless “invited,” tends to deter inter-assembly fellowship. It is commonly reported that those who are among them do not move about from locality to locality much in inter-assembly fellowship. Being “locality bound” only helps these independent assemblies drift apart in diversity.
Conclusions
As mentioned in the introduction, we sincerely love those connected with the Open Brethren (as we do all of our Christian brethren in the various church denominations), but we firmly believe that the principles on which the Open Brethren meet are erroneous, and we have sought to point them out. We believe that we have done this clearly and simply, and we hope lovingly, so that no one wanting the truth could misunderstand what has been presented.
Are the Open Brethren Truly Gathered Unto the Lord’s Name?
There remains one point that needs to be addressed, “Are the Open Brethren truly gathered to the Lord’s name according to Matthew 18:20?” They profess to be so gathered, and this is evident in the fact that they (the “tight” arm) place a sign on their buildings stating that they are—oftentimes quoting this very verse to support their claim. But is this claim true? We believe that it is not. In examining the principles on which they meet, it is clear that they are not in accord with the true ground of the Church, and therefore, could not be gathered to the Lord’s name as Scripture speaks.
Matthew 18:20 has often been called the “Magna Carta” of the Church because the verse has the basic elements and principles that constitute a Christian assembly. It is the first time the local assembly is mentioned in the Bible, and therefore, we would do well to pay special attention to it. The Lord did not develop and expand on the truth of the assembly at that time because the disciples didn’t have the Spirit yet, and they wouldn’t have been able to take it in (John 14:25-26; 16:12), but He did give the essential principles of it. He did this on many occasions in His ministry, giving but the seed of a certain truth, and then leaving it to be developed through the apostles when the Spirit came.
The Spirit’s Work in Gathering
There are two things that show that the Open Brethren could not be gathered to the Lord’s name according to Matthew 18:20, even though they profess to be. Firstly, gathering Christians to the Lord’s name is viewed in Matthew’s gospel as a sovereign work of God by the Holy Spirit. While the Spirit is not directly mentioned in the passage, it is clear that He is the divine Gatherer. The words “are gathered together” indicate this. The Lord did not say, “Where two or three come together” or “meet together ... ” as some modern translations render it. “Are gathered” is in a passive voice, and this points to the fact that there has been a gathering power outside of the people themselves that has been involved in their meeting together on that ground.
Hamilton Smith said, “To use a simple illustration, I see a basket of fruit on the table. How did it get there? It was gathered together; it did not get there by its own efforts. The word for ‘gathered together’ in the Greek is ‘sunago’ which literally means ‘to lead together,’ and could be translated, “are guided together”—all of which suggests a Gatherer.” This shows that the divine ground of gathering for the Church is not a voluntary association of believers. It’s true that there should be personal exercise and energy on the part of those who are gathered by the Spirit to be found there at the place where Christ is in the midst, but that is not the side of things that is presented in Matthew 18:20.
Who else could the Lord entrust with the gathering of His people together unto His name, but the Spirit of God? The best-intentioned men have sought to gather the Lord’s people together and have made a thorough mess of it. Being ignorant of the truth of gathering in the Scriptures, they have shunted them into denominational sects and groups, and have encouraged them to go to “the church of their choice.” The result is that Christians have been scattered in a thousand directions. This surely is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 18:20 indicates that when the Spirit of God gathers believers to the Lord’s name, He does not gather them in independent assemblies, but “together” with others on that same ground, regardless of where they are on earth, because “there is one body” (Eph. 4:4). Some may think that we are seeing more in the words “gathered together” than God intended, but since we are to interpret Scripture in the light of all other Scriptures, when we turn to the Acts and the epistles we see that the Lord was indicating the truth of the Church’s oneness in testimony. (As mentioned earlier, these truths are only mentioned here in embryo and are left for the Spirit of God to develop later by the apostles.) But there is no mention in the New Testament of Christian assemblies being independent of one another. The togetherness that the Open Brethren see in Matthew 18:20 is nothing more than unity in a local gathering, but this is missing the point.
Our purpose in mentioning this is to show that if the Spirit of God were the Engineer of the Open Brethren position, He would have “gathered” them “together” with others who are similarly gathered to express the truth of the one body. But, as we have seen, the Open Brethren do not even profess to be gathered on the ground of the one body; they believe in independency. Since the Spirit of God would not lead Christians to a ground of gathering that is contrary to the Word of God, we conclude that the Open Brethren could not be gathered on the true ground of the Church of God, as they profess to be.
Two Aspects of the Spirit’s Work in Gathering
Some of the confusion that people have in regard to being gathered to the Lord’s name comes from seeing only one side of the truth. It is not that the Spirit of God sovereignly gathers people to the Lord’s name and that they have no exercise about it; that would not be the whole truth. Scripture presents two sides of being gathered together where the Lord is in the midst. As mentioned, Matthew 18:20 emphasizes God’s sovereign work in gathering, but Luke 22:8-12 focuses more on what is required of us in being guided by the Spirit to that place of His appointment. Luke takes up the truth of gathering from the side of man’s responsibility. It says, “When ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water: follow him into the house where he entereth in.” The Spirit of God is seen here in the figure of “a man” bearing a pitcher of water. (Many times, in Scripture, the Spirit of God is seen as an unnamed man working behind the scenes. This is because it is not the object of the Spirit to draw attention to Himself. He does not take a place of prominence in Christianity but works behind the scenes guiding exercised souls to that Scriptural ground where the Lord is in the midst of those thus gathered.) In this case, He led the disciples to the place where they could be with the Lord for the supper. “Water,” in Scripture, often signifies the Word of God (Eph. 5:26; John 15:3). Thus, we learn that the Spirit of God uses the principles of the Word of God to guide believers to the place of the Lord’s appointment. Some of the exercises that we need to have to be guided to that place are:
A sincere desire to know where the place of His appointment is. This is illustrated in Peter and John inquiring of the Lord, “Where wilt thou that we prepare?”
The energy of faith to go into the city and being exercised about being led to the place. This is illustrated in the words, “And they went ... ” (vs. 13).
The exercise of climbing the stairs of separation to the “upper room” (vs. 12). This would imply leaving behind every connection with the world—both secular and religious.
Lastly, having been directed to the place of His appointment, there is the exercise of making “ready” (vs. 12). This refers to the need of being in a spiritual state of soul suited to His presence. This is done by exercising self-judgment (1 Cor. 11:28).
Scripture teaches us that the Lord has a place to which He gathers Christians together on Scriptural principles. Matthew 18:20 says, “Where two or three are gathered together ... ” and Luke 22:9 says, “Where wilt Thou that we prepare?” Again, Matthew 18:20 says, “There am I in the midst,” and Luke 22:12 says, “There make ready.” Both passages speak of this place. J. N. Darby said, “He [Christ] is the only centre of gathering. Men may make confederations amongst themselves, having many things for their object or aim, but the communion of saints cannot be known unless each line converges towards the living Centre. The Holy Ghost does not gather saints around mere views, however true they may be, upon that which the church is, upon that which it has been, or that which it may be on earth, but He always gathers them around that blessed Person, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
The Lord’s Presence “in the Midst”
The second reason why we do not believe that the Open Brethren are truly gathered to the Lord’s name is that the context of the passage in Matthew 18 indicates that the Lord is “in the midst” of those whom the Spirit of God has gathered, to sanction the ground upon which they are gathered, and to authorize the administrative actions of binding and loosing that are done there. But, as we have pointed out, many of the principles on which the Open Brethren meet are not Scriptural, and thus, the Lord would not sanction with His presence a ground that is not according to His Word.
Furthermore, if the Lord did give His presence to the Open Brethren position in the sense that it is spoken of in Matthew 18:20, He would be condoning an obvious division in the public testimony of the Church. And consequently, He would be the Author of a division!
Two Aspects of the Lord’s Presence With His People
Many of our Open Brethren friends may feel that they have enjoyed the Lord’s presence in their midst in a very marked way in their meetings. And they may wonder how it could be said that the Lord is not in the midst of Open Brethren meetings. But this is because they are confusing two different aspects of the Lord’s presence with His people.
As mentioned, Matthew 18:20 refers to the Lord’s presence sanctioning the ground upon which the Spirit of God has gathered His people. It is speaking about proper Church ground. But the Lord’s presence is spoken of in another sense in Scripture. He said, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5; Matt. 28:20). In this sense, the Lord is with all Christians as individuals. If Christians, as individuals, get together for any reason, secular or religious, He would be with them there in that sense. Unfortunately, some have a difficulty understanding this, and ask, “How can the Lord be in the midst of His people, and yet not be there with them?” They conclude that it is pure nonsense. But the simple answer is that Scripture speaks of the Lord’s presence in two different ways. As discerning Christians, we are to “approve things that are excellent [differ]” (Phil. 1:10).
Nor should we think that the Lord is “in the midst” sanctioning the state of those whom He has gathered; Matthew 18:20 is not speaking of the state of His gathered saints—for it may be terribly low—but the ground on which they are gathered.
An Imitation of the Truth of Gathering
Hence, it is one thing to say that we are gathered to the Lord’s name, and entirely another to truly be gathered to His name. Even though many things outwardly look Scriptural among the Open Brethren, we do not believe that they are gathered on the true ground of the Church. As we have shown, human principles and order have been adopted to keep these assemblies functioning—not to the same extent of the denominational churches—but they are there. We believe that this has been done because the Lord is not in their midst according to Matthew 18:20. Sad to say, they have substituted human order for divine order, and this is leaning on the “arm” of the flesh (Jer. 17:5). We realize that this conclusion may be offensive to those who are in the Open Brethren assembly position, but we feel it incumbent to speak the Word faithfully (Jer. 23:28).
As previously mentioned, the Open Brethren profess to be gathered to the Lord’s name, and even put a sign on their building stating that they are, but this in itself does not mean that it is so. Mr. Hayhoe used to say that it is something like a person looking for a physician. He may go down the street and find a sign on an office building stating that such and such a physician’s practice is there. Turning in and noticing that there are no diplomas or certificates posted to prove the doctor’s authenticity, he asks the nurse at the desk, and she replies, “Oh, he doesn’t have a certificate from a medical school, but he is a good doctor and you will like him.” Similarly, the Open Brethren may state that they are gathered to the Lord’s name—and they may have good intentions in doing so—but they really don’t have authority from Scripture to take that ground because they do not meet according to all the truth of Scripture. Mr. Vern Clark summed it up aptly by saying, “The whole thing is but an imitation of the true ground of gathering.” Our dear brethren in this false position may not realize this, so we would encourage them to search these things out for themselves in the presence of God, with an open Bible and an open heart, and see if it is so (Acts 17:11).
In drawing this study of the principles and practices of the Open Brethren to a close, we trust that we are not being harsh or judgmental in our conclusions. At times it has probably sounded that way to those affectionately attached to that church position, nevertheless, we have sought to state the truth, and we cannot make excuses for it. We trust that it has been done faithfully and lovingly. We now leave it to the Lord to exercise souls.
We believe that those who are truly exercised will take these things to heart, and act on them, as the Lord would lead. We now commend our readers to “God, and to the Word of His grace” (Acts 20:32).