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 9-109I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. (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. 9:3737Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few; (Matthew 9:37); John 4:35-3835Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. 36And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. 37And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth. 38I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labor: other men labored, and ye are entered into their labors. (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 5:33Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to 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. 2:1717But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 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. 3:16-1716And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 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 7-117For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (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 1:3535And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (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. 7:2525Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 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. 2:2222Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. (2 Timothy 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 10-1110If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For 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. 15:3333Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. (1 Corinthians 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 2:11-1311Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, 12If 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 holy? And the priests answered and said, No. 13Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. (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 9-119Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (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. 2:1616But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (2 Timothy 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 11:2828But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (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 11:2828But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (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. 5:1212For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? (1 Corinthians 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. 93:55Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever. (Psalm 93:5)), when someone desires to break bread at “the Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:2121Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 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 11:2828But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (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. 11:2929For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 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. 7:55And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men: for they chased them from before the gate even unto Shebarim, and smote them in the going down: wherefore the hearts of the people melted, and became as water. (Joshua 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 1:66Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: (1 Peter 1:6)) for it on their part and a purpose of love on His (Heb. 12:66For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. (Hebrews 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. 4:99And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? (Genesis 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. 14:11Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (Romans 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. 5:2222Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure. (1 Timothy 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. 13:11This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)). Compare also John 8:1717It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. (John 8:17) and Deuteronomy 19:1515One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (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. 16:22All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits. (Proverbs 16:2)). And again, “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory” (John 7:1818He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. (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 5:3131If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (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 5:32-3932There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 33Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. 34But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. 35He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. 36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. 37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (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 5:4343I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if 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 9:26-2926And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. 29And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. (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 9:2828And 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. 7:1-31Now it came to pass, when the wall was built, and I had set up the doors, and the porters and the singers and the Levites were appointed, 2That I gave my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the ruler of the palace, charge over Jerusalem: for he was a faithful man, and feared God above many. 3And I said unto them, Let not the gates of Jerusalem be opened until the sun be hot; and while they stand by, let them shut the doors, and bar them: and appoint watches of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, every one in his watch, and every one to be over against his house. (Nehemiah 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 9:17-2717And the porters were, Shallum, and Akkub, and Talmon, and Ahiman, and their brethren: Shallum was the chief; 18Who hitherto waited in the king's gate eastward: they were porters in the companies of the children of Levi. 19And Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, and his brethren, of the house of his father, the Korahites, were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates of the tabernacle: and their fathers, being over the host of the Lord, were keepers of the entry. 20And Phinehas the son of Eleazar was the ruler over them in time past, and the Lord was with him. 21And Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was porter of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 22All these which were chosen to be porters in the gates were two hundred and twelve. These were reckoned by their genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office. 23So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of the house of the Lord, namely, the house of the tabernacle, by wards. 24In four quarters were the porters, toward the east, west, north, and south. 25And their brethren, which were in their villages, were to come after seven days from time to time with them. 26For these Levites, the four chief porters, were in their set office, and were over the chambers and treasuries of the house of God. 27And they lodged round about the house of God, because the charge was upon them, and the opening thereof every morning pertained to them. (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. 3:1515That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. (Ecclesiastes 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?