Menu•SiteMap | Guests

My Stand: No. 2

• Gordon Rainbow § Jeff Kuns † Guest
• Aberdeen 1 • Aberdeen 2 • Aberdeen 3 • Aberdeen 4 • Aberdeen 5 † Aberdeen 6	• 'Renton' or 'Strang'? • Open 1 • Open 2 • 'Local Churches' • Privacy of Email	• W. Kelly etc • 1973 Hymn Book • Kingston Bible Trust • The Use of Ministry • Miles J. Stanford

PLEASE NOTE: For the security of our readers, all @ signs have been changed to 'AT' in order to prevent unsolicited email. If you wish to contact any of our guests please remember to replace the @ sign in the address line of your email.

ABERDEEN 1

Thu, 21 Jan 1999

Dear —
… I will attempt to answer all your remarks, but must say at the outset that the answers are not likely to fit in with your thinking.

We left the legal sect in early 1971 but not primarily over the Aberdeen issue.

Being concerned over the whole situation among the brethren, we reviewed several of JND's early papers in 'Collected Writings – Ecclesiastical', which had helped me as a young man to leave the open system.
We came to a judgment that there had been a general departure from the truth of the assembly and that,
- in fact, we were connected with a legalistic sect dominated by clericalism and abuse of the brethren,
  and that the situation could not be remedied from within.
We left on principle – not simply because we were shocked by the blasphemous and worldly behaviour of the 'universal leader'.

We were somewhat suspicious of those who left over the Aberdeen issue, but after some contact it seemed that we were moving on the same line.

As our exercise and judgment of the sect we had left deepened it became increasingly apparent that those who left in July 1970 – not only in this city – had for the most part only a shallow judgment based on a single issue.

Then the Edinburgh situation and the Scottish Law Society matter came up and exposed the whole situation here.

I had seen almost all the letters on both sides from and concerning Edinburgh – and had come to the conclusion that
- the Law Society was a contrived issue and did not involve an unscriptural association,
  although I did not promote this view among my brethren, waiting to see the outcome.
But, because of the seriousness of the whole matter, I did seek to bring the truth and the principles before the brethren constantly in ministry without taking a partisan stand.

Most of those in this city who had left in July 1970 belonged to one strong family connection and almost all had strong family connections elsewhere and particularly in Scotland.

There were professions of neutrality but many evidences in private conversation and public prayer of general outright partisan sympathy for the 'Renton' faction.
Some of the younger brethren were concerned but the family ties were too strong and they acquiesced.

Even before a public commitment had been made to the 'Renton' position there were partisan actions.

When it was made known that a brother from Croydon was stopping enroute to Edmonton, the vocal 'Renton' supporters said he could not even attend a week night meeting.
- When I objected, I was told that if I didn't like it I could leave – and with no others dissenting from that view – we did just that.

In addition there was the outrageous and self-serving proclamation that all who had withdrawn before July 1970 were "wrong in principle".

I had had correspondence – as did brethren elsewhere – with the brother … who promulgated this pretentious dogma, but to no avail.

See History: Wrong in Principle?

We decided then – rightly I believe – that we could not go with either faction, although all we had read, seen and heard caused us to sympathize with the 'Strang' group …

You speak of others in this city "enjoying fellowship in a universal way".

This seems to be an overstatement in view of all the subsequent divisions – and hardly bears on our situation.
We do not have any formal links of fellowship beyond our own locality at this time – and feel that it is so –
- but are not prepared to compromise, or identify ourselves with a patently partisan position, for any extension of fellowship – local or universal –
  even at the risk of being considered independent, an attitude and position we abhor.

I would rather not have gone over this again, although confirmed as having done so, except to satisfy your brotherly concern. Perhaps you will feel it would have been better to leave.

Don't misunderstand. Your attempt at peacemaking and your conviction of your own actions are not being criticized, but I hope you may now be better able to appreciate our stand.

It has not been my intention to offend you by anything said and I hope that we may be able to continue brotherly contacts from time to time.

Love in the Lord Jesus … Gordon.

Page Top

ABERDEEN 2

Wed, 24 Feb 1999

Dear — [to the same]
It is good to hear from you again but, from your reply, I am not sure that I made the situation as to my position clear in my last letter. This I will attempt to do now.

… the situation appears irreconcilable because of the state of things and the commitment to the Renton position in this locality …

and that position remains unchanged today though most of the responsible principals, after nearly 30 years, are no longer in the scene of testimony …

The other matters I mentioned were … symptomatic of the partisan and sectarian conditions – locally and beyond.

They of themselves were not the ground of my withdrawal – though they confirmed me – but rather a conviction through much exercise and effort that
the Aberdeen position generally, and the Renton position in particular, were not Scriptural – and that the situation could not be changed from within.

The Aberdeen position was based on a single issue, shock at the events in the meeting and the house in Aberdeen in July 1970.

It was not based on, nor was there evidence at the time – except in a few – that it had developed into a thorough judgment of the JTJr system by the brethren or of the wrongness of remaining in it for the previous 10 years.
In fact some prominent brothers – despite attempts to help them – persisted in justifying remaining in that system
- by making the illogical, preposterous and pretentious claim that the Lord was still there during those years.
The Renton position solidified this situation and carried it to its logical conclusion, maintaining most of the unscriptural practices and attitudes of the legal system – including the unconscionable continued use of the 1962 hymn book – thus leading to division.

I hope this will make it clear why I could not and would not return to those here in –– though loved and respected as my brethren.

I am glad that you have no thought of getting involved in these matters with brethren here with whom you walk.
The issue is not with them in particular but with the whole Renton position – with which you are happily connected.

Your intense brotherly interest prompted me to share matters with you, but I now feel it might well have been better for us both to have refrained from satisfying your concerns – however genuine they were …

If you do visit … I hope to have the pleasure of meeting you face to face.

Of course, if you do stop in –– I understand the prior claims on you and your time, and the possible repercussions from any contacts with me, and so I am not attempting to unduly influence you as to contacting me.

I do hope that my frankness will not alienate you and that we can continue contacts from time to time on spiritual matters of mutual interest.

Yours in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Regarding Another Table

As to my present position and whether it involves what some refer to as setting up 'another table' the answers to some questions may be found on the new 'My Stand No. 2' page [this page] as well as in the 'Mailbox'.

To avoid repetition please see Studies: The Lord's Supper … for my comments on 'The Supper and the Table – The Distinction'.

The expression 'another table' has been used among brethren from the early years, but it is not supported by Scripture.

It assumes that some have exclusive possession of the Lord's Table and that others – especially any who may have separated from them – have set up 'another table' in opposition to the Lord's Table.

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul gives no support to the idea of various tables among Christians.

The "cup of the Lord" which comes first and "the Lord's table" refer to our – Christian – fellowship with the blood and body of the Christ.
This is in contrast with Israel's fellowship with the altar, and the idolaters' fellowship with demons.
It has nothing to do with the existence of various companies of Christians – deplorable and humbling as that is.

Of course, to separate from a company of Christians is a serious matter. But it is also a serious matter to charge those who – acting on Scripture and their conscience – with being 'independent'.

To "corrupt the temple of God" – 1 Cor. 3 – by the introduction and promotion of human principles, unscriptural teaching and unchristian attitudes and actions – that is serious!
To allow or submit to "false apostles, deceitful workers" who "transform themselves into ministers of righteousness" who bring the saints "into bondage" – 2 Cor. 11 – that is serious!
For one "to beat his fellow-bondmen, and eat and drink with the drunken" – Matthew 24 – that is serious!

The above and other matters were characteristic from 1959 to 1970.

Some brethren who acted on 2 Timothy 2, in 1960 and later, and withdrew from such iniquity have been called 'independent' and "wrong in principle"
- by those who went on with such abuses with the excuse that they were waiting on the Lord.
If a situation is clearly iniquitous, and without remedy from within, the proper Scriptural course is to withdraw.
In such circumstances we are not called to wait on the Lord. Many, including myself, failed to act when we ought to have.

Some were too young to have been personally involved or responsible for the legal system that emerged in 1959 and the subsequent happenings,

but all are responsible to investigate for themselves.

Many have been led astray by the interpretation of others as to the issues and happenings.
The subsequent course or failure of some who withdrew before 1970 is a cause of sadness but not a ground for charging all with independency.

I am not sure I have covered all the questions but trust this may be of some interest and stimulation and not thought to be merely critical of others. That is not my intention.

I have gone through too much sorrow and discipline on account of my own hesitancy to act and other failures to be less than charitable with those with whom I cannot walk.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

ABERDEEN 4

Thu, 08 Jul 1999

Dear — [to the same]
Whether this is "a definitive reply" I leave to you.

Some of the points you raise are touched on in 'My Stand 2: Aberdeen 1 and 2' [above] which I suggest you review, and so I will only address your remarks in a general way.
I hope to be able to soon post some earlier documents which deal with the pretentious claims which have plagued the brethren.

If I read correctly, your position seems to be based on several assumptions:

that the Lord was with the brethren up to 1970 and that there was no reason, or justification, for withdrawing before that time;
that if — and/or the brethren in New York had judged the Aberdeen matter there would have been no division, nor need of division, at that time;
that, division having taken place, the Lord identified Himself with the Aberdeen company and, since 1972, remains with those with whom you are in the fellowship.

It is not my intention to offend you – or anyone – but if the above assessment of your views is correct – and only you can tell me if it is –

I believe an unprejudiced examination of the whole course of events from JTSr's death in 1953 to the present will show that such assumptions are baseless.

I can understand your respect for your parents' action in 1972 – and mean no disrespect of them – but it appears that you have only heard one side of the whole story.

At the time I investigated both sides extensively.
As a result, although my sympathies were with Mr. Strang and others, I came to it that I could not go with either side.
This was not a decision "to leave brethren".
However, when I objected to a certain patently partisan local action, I was told by the 'Renton' supporters locally that if I did not like their actions I should leave them.

There is need of humbling ourselves in the presence of a holy God to get His assessment.

You say "those my parents 'remained with' in 1972 haven't subsequently divided".

That is a comfortable thought – but surely you can't be unaware of the outcome of happenings between Los Angeles and San Francisco, or of the Bush Fire Brigade matter in Australia.
Perhaps you would not regard those situations as divisions, but the issues and actions involved have that significance regardless of the numbers involved.

Whether much of the teaching in the years preceding 1970 – back to 1959 or even 1953 – was not discarded because it was sound also requires thorough examination.

I have no doubt that the teaching that distinctively characterized that period was unsound and unscriptural.
This was thoroughly gone into by Hubert Calvey at the time in 'The Confrontation of James Taylor Junior … and his supporters'.
I doubt whether right teaching needs to be enforced, or could be enforced in a wrong way.

You say, "What I do know, is that we enjoy the current speaking of the Spirit and the presence of the Lord Jesus in our gathering".

I do not dispute what you say you experience, but I and others might say the same with similar conviction.
I wonder whether you believe that can be, or is in fact only experienced by those with whom you are in fellowship.

Thankfully, I can say that I am not among those you speak of who claim nothing collective exists at the present,

or those who think they are the only right ones because of their action – or inaction.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

ABERDEEN 5

Wed, 15 Sep 1999

Dear — [to the same]
Your understanding of the delay in replying to e-mail is appreciated. I have been busier than usual in recent months.

Now to comment on your remarks:

Reconciliation between Brethren

As to "it is my sincere desire, as no doubt it is yours and many others, that there should be reconciliation between Brethren who once were united in the acknowledgement of the Truth and vitally, the practice of the Truth"

and "that much of what separates Brethren is disagreement on points of Assembly administration".

While the desire is praiseworthy, I doubt that the various divisions that have taken place in recent times are largely connected with administration matters which might reasonably easily be settled.
From what I can see, the causes seem generally to be more connected with basic differences of views as to,

how much of the legal system needed to be judged and,
what were the Scriptural requirements as to separation.

In addition, I know from our own experience that views on certain practices and teachings have changed more or less over the past 30 years.

No doubt others have had similar experience but not necessarily in the same direction.

Besides the above, the alienation and breakdown of brotherly love through past actions is a real issue that would have to be resolved in any reconciliation.

A further difficulty is if some were to take the ground, as I fear some might, that reconciliation was a one-way street

and that all must accept a certain position, say yours, as being right with no need of change.

For example, in 1971 when we heard that the Aberdeen supporters in Hornchurch had confessed that they had been wrong in withdrawing from Mr.Cowell, some one here asked, 'How does that affect us?'
A conspicuous brother replied that it meant that they – those connected with Mr. Cowell – could now come back to us – the Aberdeen supporters.
A preposterous and pretentious position to take!

As to "I urge you to be reconciled with those with whom I walk in practical fellowship",

I wonder if you have similarly urged them, or would it still be a one-way street?

In fact that whole situation is covered in 'My Stand 2: Aberdeen 1 and 2' [above] which were in reply to your informant and to which I previously referred you, and refer you again.
My separation from them is not simply, and not even specially, a local matter but has to do with the basic position to which you are committed.

As to "I believe you to be on a line of independence and desire you might enjoy fellowship with others who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart".

I have no doubt that those with whom I walk do "call upon the Lord out of a pure heart"
- but they would not take the ground, that you seem to take regarding those with whom you walk, that they alone are doing so.
Our present isolated situation is not of our choosing and we are, and have been, cast on the Lord as to it.
You may call it 'independence' if you please, because we have no 'formal' links with others elsewhere,
- but perhaps you would still call it 'independence' if our links were not with your group.

I suppose it might be considered a generous offer that "you can still serve the Lord – in the valuable service you render in providing the information on your web site – and be linked on with persons walking in separation to God".

Be assured, subject to various spiritual measures, that I am already "linked on with persons walking in separation to God",
- although we certainly recognize that there others who do so as well.

If there were something really to repent of I would not avoid "swallowing my pride … and revising some pages".

That indeed would be nothing compared "to being assured that you are linked on with those the Lord Jesus is pleased to have associated with Himself",
- if indeed they were the only ones, which I doubt.

The above shows, I am afraid, that your concept of 'reconciliation' in my case – if not in that of others – is indeed a one-way street demanding absolute and unconditional surrender of conscience to your position.

Statements by others you are associated with confirm that the 'continuity' position is still held, a position which completely sets aside other brethren.
Of course the 'continuity' position is an integral part of the discredited legal system carried over in 1970.

The above all relates to your hope as to 'reconciliation' of myself and others with your group.

I forbear from noticing remarks on other matters as being simply going over old ground again.

• The Green Books

There is only one exception – your remark that

"I was only five in 1970 and know little of the teaching until then.
"I have however seen some of the 'green books' " – the 'ministry' of — – "and have found substance in them which could only be a result of the Holy Spirit's operations".

The legal system with its sectarianism, clericalism and false and fanciful teachings obviously did not emerge all at once.

These matters developed insidiously over a number of years, as those of us who lived through those years well know.
Truth – enough truth to make it palatable – was mixed with the errors and many were – and many are still – deceived.
But you are wasting your time and in danger of damaging yourself by delving into the 'green books'.

I have – and do – appreciate all your interest in me, —, but I believe the continuation of correspondence on the present lines is unprofitable.

Of course, I would be glad to hear from you on other matters on 'My Brethren' –
- especially if you were willing to come out of the shadows and make some positive contributions for the benefit of other guests.

May the Lord continue to bless you and your household.

With love in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

ABERDEEN 6

Reply to claims and charges of a 'Renton' supporter by R. Stott – d. 1976.
See History: Hymns: Preface 1973 for the balance of this undated letter

ABERDEEN 6
Reply to claims and charges of a 'Renton' supporter by R. Stott – d. 1976. See History: Hymns: Preface 1973 for the balance of this undated letter

Beloved Brother,
No, I was not surprised to receive a letter from you – the only surprise was that you should think that this would frighten me! You may be surprised that it did not antagonise me either!

I appreciated the spirit of your letter, but not its tenor.
It saddens – yes – because of its lofty approach. It disappoints because it contains little evidence of apparent contrition for past involvements. "Our faces in the dust" was written by a broken-hearted JND. Nevertheless I will reply …

You say that "food and water" is being provided amongst you – though no one is challenging this – and that by simply reading certain ministry published by B and M proof is afforded of your "provoking the Lord's presence and approval".

Your boasting is not good, for implied in it is the assumption that outside of your limited circle the Lord's approval and presence are unknown.
Dangerous doctrine this, and if not watched may come dangerously near to the heresy 'we are the church'.
I enclose for your perusal examples of other springs of living ministry, both current and past, in which there is a happy blend of the truth as it is in Jesus in keeping with the standard that the Spirit of God has never lowered.
This is just part of the Lord's gracious provision for those who call upon His Name in a day of small things.

You speak of a "right assembly position" maybe forgetting that this is claimed by the Jimites and many others today.

You should be aware of JND's dictum, "In days of breakdown the only 'position' " that the Spirit of God recognises is a moral one, based on 2 Timothy 2: 19.
In the day of fragmentation in which we are it is more comely to walk humbly 'in the light of the assembly', claiming nothing outwardly but surrendering nothing of the great principles of the recovery.

Your assessment of the Edinburgh issue is biased and ill-informed.

The copy letters enclosed [not available] and written at the time reveal that much heart searching and earnest pleas went entirely unheeded.
It was not until December 1971 that the issue was switched to the Law Society.
During the whole of 1971 the issue was clearly the reluctance on the part of many to judge the wicked — system, root and branch.
Many judged the outrage of Aberdeen who never fully faced the previous causes of it all.
I do not only blame —. We were all culpable in that we provided the soil in which this noxious plant grew. To us be the shame and confusion of face.
A sense of this in the current application of Gilgal would prevent any superior attitude being assumed by those who were all guilty, but vessels of mercy.
It has taken its time with me to fully root out this virus, and had I now to rewrite 'If we walk in the light' many of my own comments would have to undergo considerable revision.

There is no secret about the Oxted/Croydon matter.

On your side the enemy's tactics were to promote the legal line, on ours more the open line.
This has been withstood but, sadly, many have opted for the more open line of fellowship, surrendering many divine principles in doing so.
- Those who resisted this are conscious of divine help.
It is true to say that we are doing nothing different in doctrine or practice today away from the simple piety and love for the truth that marked those who were in the path of separation before being overtaken by the deadly perils of the system.

You invite me to complete the journey back to "those few who are still following righteousness" etc., whom I "abandoned [?] in early 1972".

Scripture does not enjoin that we go forth to "those few" but to Him, without the gate, a glorious Person to Whose Name we delight to assemble.
If your rash claim implies that all other believers outside of "those few" are following the very reverse of righteousness etc., then it is dangerously assumptive ground.
JND had a solemn warning for this: "Interpose anything between your soul and Christ and your Philadelphia becomes Laodicea; your safe ground is as unsafe as the rest of christendom".
God is our witness that we have not abandoned anything of the truth as it is in Jesus.

If, in placing me in "an evangelistic standpoint" you mean that I am loose as to my walk and free to go anywhere, I refute this completely.

Our habits as to separation have not changed one iota.

This does not mean that we cannot show interest, without compromise, in the work of God in West Africa, as enclosed [not available] indicates.
I have also to add that from the "standpoint of the mystery, and what is proper to the assembly", these precious truths are cherished as never before.
May I suggest that you allow your heart to expand itself from its straitened outlook?

The enclosures you sent added nothing to my knowledge.

One extract reads, "my conviction is that if JT had been apprised of the full facts in 1946 his answer would have been different".

This is an unwarranted conclusion that cannot be prove anyway.

JT did give a judgment and to my certain knowledge rhe full facts were presented. I have a copy of the relevant papers.*

[*See Biography: J. Taylor: Memorabilia: Associations 1946.]
Read Willie Mason's letter [not available] for a feeling assessment of the issues involved.

[Robert Stott]

[The conclusion of this letter is not available.]

Page Top

'RENTON' OR 'STRANG' ?

This is an edited version of a recent inquiry and reply. July 22, 2009.

'RENTON' OR 'STRANG' ?
This is an edited version of a recent inquiry and reply. July 22, 2009.

1. Why is there is plenty on your website about the Renton company but very little about the Strang company?

Answer: I suppose most of the items to which you refer are in History:

Aberdeen - A House Divided or in 'Aberdeen 1-6' above.

The explanation is that I posted the information that had come to hand, and there was somewhat more from the 'Renton company'.
Also after the web site was online, individuals from the 'Renton company' were more ready to correspond and to be posted than those from the 'Strang company' who, for whatever reasons, desired privacy.

2. Can you enlighten me about matters in 1971/2 and your personal reason for choosing neither Renton nor Strang.

Answer: Being at such a distance I had no personal or practical experience of

the situation in Edinburgh and had to go by the information available – even though possibly partisan and biased – and my own discernment as to the rightness or wrongness of the issue or issues apparently involved. And so I can only refer you to the various items mentioned above

My "personal reason for choosing neither Renton nor Strang" was based on:

a. My understanding – see

My Stand 1 - Associations

b. The situation in Toronto – Almost all were influenced by natural or national links in support of the 'Renton company' and there was a pervasive acrimonious and partisan spirit even before the actual division.

In an outstanding instance a brother from the UK– not committed to 'Renton' – was not to be allowed to even attend a week night meeting on his way through. My objection to this was met by an invitation to leave if I did not like it, There being general support for this attitude, I left.

c. Although both a. and b. inclined me to favour the 'Strang' position, I came to it that, having no personal contact and being at such a distance, with no others likeminded, such a connection would be merely nominal – and might still be fraught with the continuing problems of the legal background. This seems to have been confirmed by the several divisions that have taken place in that group.

Our "position" may well be deemed independent by some but is the only way open to us as far as I can discern.

To identify with any of the several existing groups would only seem to alienate us from others of our brethren and severely limit our ability to serve all our brethren.

G.A.R.

Page Top

OPEN 1

Sun, 28 Feb 1999

Dear —
In reviewing our recent correspondence, I don't think I properly expressed my appreciation of the time you have taken to explain your experiences since 1970 and your current situation, and so I do so now.

In regard to your remark, I am sure I would be at home with you and in your home, but I am equally sure I would not be at home in your meeting situation as you describe it.

In my desire for companionship after leaving Aberdeen, I made several attempts to settle in groups such as you describe but it didn't work out.

It was not simply a matter of different viewpoints – though there was certainly that – but I was thoroughly uncomfortable.
This was not only because of the situation but especially and specifically because I had compromised what I believed – and still believe – to be the truth.
As a young believer I had left the open meeting I was in on principle and on conviction.
While I had much to learn objectively and by experience, I do not doubt that my movement then was under divine impulse and direction.

You have gone another route – brought up possibly among brethren – and now finding, as many have, that there were persons, groups, activities of which there was no prior knowledge.

I don't say you have, but many – some I had been very close to – have embraced everything new to them, almost without discrimination.
These things are not new to me. I saw them as a young man and have always been aware of what was going on among others.

I chose a path I believed in accord with Scripture and pleasing to my Lord. I failed in it as much as it failed Him, and me and others.

But I am convinced that the principles hold good and that separation from the religious systems is the only path in which I can maintain a good conscience.
If others choose another path, they must answer for themselves, just as I certainly must, for to his own Master a man stands or falls.

To many, evangelism is everything. I am certainly not against the spread of the gospel or seeking to serve men as the Lord gives me opportunity. In younger years I had laid myself out for this.

But at the same time I judge that my calling is to be faithful to what I know and value.
And, in particular, I am convinced that – without ignoring other responsibilities to men in general or to my brethren in particular – that the highest calling is to sonship
and therefore to be – both here and for the ages to come – a worshipper as part of the worshipping company.

As you have been free to share your experiences and exercises, I have done so too.

I cannot help but feel deeply – as you doubtless also do – that we look at some matters differently. But be assured, I am not judging you nor condemning you.
I believe the Lord ordered our original contacts – so refreshing and strengthening to me – and also the recent renewing of our contacts.
I hope and trust they will continue and be of mutual help and comfort as we continue to correspond from time to time …

Ever affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

OPEN 2

Tue, 18 May 1999

Dear — [to the same]
From your letter, I have the sense that you feel some necessity to convince me of the rightness of your present position,

and in doing so I believe you have misunderstood my own stand.

While we shared much in common in the early '70s, we had arrived at it by different routes and for different reasons.

I can understand that Aberdeen had a great effect upon you – as it did upon many – but, as I've tried to explain, I withdrew for other reasons.
Much exercise led to a judgment that I was in a sect dominated by legalism and clericalism, and which had forsaken divine principles.
Aberdeen, as such, played an extremely minor part in my withdrawal, only confirming my judgment.
- In fact, I would have left even if Aberdeen had never taken place.
This accounts, I believe, in a great measure for the different perspectives which we have on our present situations.

While I share your appreciation of the Lord Jesus as the Good Shepherd, it seems to be going too far to say that He "led us out of the bondage of an evil system, and into His 'one flock' ".

I have no doubt of being in His flock from the beginning of my spiritual history, although I was not in the practical good of it at all times and have been connected with various groups, including 'open', which were not in accord with it.

As to "Somebody said once that a fold is governed by a circumference (principles and rules?) while a flock is governed by the Centre of the circle".

A fold is certainly an enclosure – rules – but a flock is governed by the voice of the Shepherd – principles.
If we had been listening to His voice we would have withdrawn years before Aberdeen.
From my observations, it seems that many – perhaps the majority – who have escaped from the fold – as you put it –
- have given up divine principles and consider themselves at liberty to go where they please, and do what they please.

You seem to have difficulty with my saying that I felt that I had compromised the truth by linking with various groups after Aberdeen, and say "Is not Christ Himself the Truth?"

Perhaps it would have been better understood if I had said that I had compromised my loyalty to Christ, which I certainly did.
But, John has no difficulty in speaking of those "walking in truth, as we have received commandment from the Father", 2 John 4.
- The 'truth' there is not Christ personally but what is in accord with Him.

You speak of being "set … free to recognize as such every true sheep in His flock".

Perhaps it is because of our different backgrounds, but I have never had any problem as to "loving recognition of the Lord's people wherever they may be found".
- However, that does not mean that I'm going to follow any of them into situations which I believe dishonour the Lord Jesus.
  "Hereby know we that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments", 1 John 5: 2.

The "deeply rooted antipathy" which you attribute to exclusives toward opens is not a one-way street.

Certainly there are many differences in what you call their respective "cultures" but that in itself
- has nothing to do with my rejection of the position of both opens and post-1959 exclusives.
I know, love and respect brethren of both persuasions – and expect to continue doing so.

I said, "I chose a path I believed in accord with Scripture and pleasing to my Lord. I failed in it as much as it failed Him, and me and others.

"But I am convinced that the principles hold good and that separation from the religious systems is the only path in which I can maintain a good conscience".

I assume that this is what you are referring to when you say, "How can we hang onto 'separation from religious systems' as our ground, if all we have is a more subtle religious system of our own? Sorry I'm a bit blunt".

You are more than a bit blunt – friends can be blunt with each other – but you are also very much mistaken if you think that I'm making separation my 'ground'.

In answer to Daniel Soukoreff – Mailbox, April 27, 1999 I said,
- "My own understanding is that the 'one body' is still the basic ground of gathering but, because of the ruin, it must now be governed practically by 2 Timothy 2: 19-22".
This is the teaching we have had, almost from the beginning, and hardly seems to qualify as "a more subtle religious system" of my own.

You say, "I don't want to harp too much on Aberdeen".

But surely after nearly 30 years we should have judged and cleared ourselves
- "not only from the gross aspects of our past situations, but from the distorted way of reasoning, and the overweening pride, which marked us, and to walk softly all our days before Almighty God".
In my judgment, Aberdeen is only an incident in a much broader picture – although a shameful, painful, sorrowful, humiliating incident – and undue occupation with it will only defile.

As to encouraging "a real broken hearted new start in simply following the Lord".

If we have not been before the Lord in broken hearted repentance and confession before now we must surely be hard hearted and self righteous.
I'm not sure what you mean by "simply following the Lord". Paul's exhortation to Timothy was to
- "pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart", 2 Timothy 2: 22.
  That is what, with the Lord's help, I seek to do.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course, and trust that we will be able to continue in brotherly love.

Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

HISTORY OF 'LOCAL CHURCHES'
versus
THE 'BRETHREN' MOVEMENT

Thu, 22 Apr 1999

Dear —
I have had Mr. Broadbent's 'The Pilgrim Church' – to which you refer – for many years.

It contains much interesting information but his object seems to be to justify the 'open' and 'independent' position.
His comments on Mr. Darby's teaching – and his rejection of the ruin of the church and of household baptism – expose his independent position. It is a book which I could not recommend.

I have also been aware for many years of the reference to "self-conceited brethren" in the introduction to the King James Version.

It does not appear to have any reference to some particular group – or groups – of 'brethren', as you suppose,
- but to those brethren – whoever they might be – who would criticize that particular translation, preferring some other, or their own.

You say "Anabaptists are Brethren" but this sounds sectarian.

All believers in the Lord Jesus are brethren, whether anabaptists, paedobaptists, or those who practise household baptism.

Your chart – 'History of Local Churches / Brethren Movement' – is interesting but appears to be based on a misconception.
- Just because groups use the word 'brethren' to describe themselves means nothing of itself.
I cannot recognize any as brethren except on the grounds the Lord Jesus sets out. Studies: My Brethren.
Nor do I recognize any line of 'brethren' throughout the ages which does not embrace all the brethren – all who belong to Christ.

There are no doubt many who have suffered throughout the ages from the established churches, whether for Christ and the truth, or just for what they thought was truth.

I do not justify mistreatment of any brethren, then or now. But it is not the part of those who belong to Christ to publicly object.
Are we afraid to suffer – whether from the world or the worldly church – for the Name of Jesus? Matthew 5: 11-12; 1 Corinthians 4: 6-16; 2 Timothy 2: 7-13; 2 Peter 2: 20-25.

As for "mysticism", so-called Christian or otherwise – regardless of your quotations from an encyclopaedia – I reject it as having no basis in Scripture.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

PRIVACY OF EMAIL

Mon, 15 Mar 1999

Dear —
I agree that correspondence, including e-mail, between individuals may be generally considered as personal and private.

But, the sharing or circulating of a letter – by its own writer – or of a reply – by its own writer – can only be restricted or restrained by prior mutual agreement.
In 50 years among brethren, I have seen many letters circulated without bearing the explicit permission of the recipient,
- as well as many – including some of my own – without the explicit permission of the writer.
This is not said in justification but to indicate common and generally accepted practice. I cannot recall any objections being made.

Its format and use as the address of the 'My Brethren' web site both indicate that 'mybrethrenATglobalserve.net' [now 'emeritusATmybrethren.org'] is not the personal and private address of site correspondent.

It is similar to a business address. Personal mail for an officer or employee may be sent to a business address but unless clearly marked private and confidential – and even that is no guarantee – it is subject to being opened and distributed with the general mail.

In its 'Anonymity' and 'Correspondence' policies on the 'Guests' group page, 'My Brethren' makes provision for anonymity or non-publication of messages received.

The attention of guests is directed to those policies when they access the 'Home Page' – and again in the 'Introduction' on the 'Guests' group page
The 'Correspondence Policy' states: "Any correspondence regarding the My Brethren site – whether received here or personally – may be posted on this page unless it is specifically requested that it not be posted".
- To date, there have been only 3 requests, besides the present one. Two referred to a portion of an e-mail; the other is temporary. The need for privacy is evidently not a widespread concern among brethren.
Persons using the web should understand that guest books and remarks or inquiries to any site are subject to publication – unless a specific request is made at the time.
- Those with concerns as to privacy should check the policies of sites visited before communicating.

One of the purposes of 'My Brethren' is to facilitate the interchange of experiences, and the clarification of misunderstandings.

Replies by the site correspondent considered to be of interest or value to guests may therefore be posted on the 'My Brethren' site.
- If non-publication has been requested for the original inquiry or message, the reply will have all identifiers removed before being posted.
- A good number of messages and replies for which anonymity or non-publication has not been requested have, for various reasons, not been posted.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

Wm. KELLY and HIS MINISTRY
• Bibles and Publications • W. R. Dronsfield

The inquiry and the balance of my reply is in the 'Mailbox'.

Wm. KELLY and HIS MINISTRY • Bibles and Publications • W. R. Dronsfield
The inquiry and the balance of my reply is in the 'Mailbox'.

To: Anonymous 1
Thu, 20 Jan 2000

W. Kelly (1820-1906)

Dear —,
You wrote, "While spending time on your site, I noticed that you have no material concerning William Kelly.

"I just wanted your opinion as to his ministry and any other information concerning William Kelly".

You have raised an important point which bears on the objectives and policy of the 'My Brethren', and I welcome the opportunity your remarks afford to clarify my position.

There are several factors involved regarding Mr. Kelly and his ministry:

Personal: Site Objectives says "My Brethren deals mainly – but not exclusively – with the history and ministry of JND, JBS, FER, CAC, JT and others who were in practical fellowship with them …"

Along with others, in 1881 Mr. Kelly separated from brethren – including JND – with whose history and ministry MB is mainly concerned. For details see History: Later Contentions: Ramsgate.

The Ministry: Introduction says: "It is not my intention to reproduce articles that are readily available. As the ministry of those beloved servants mentioned above is still in print, it will only be drawn upon for this 'Ministry' group or for the 'Doctrine' group if suitable articles by other servants are not available. Much of the ministry presented here is therefore by other servants whose names may not now be generally known".

Even if Mr. Kelly had remained in practical fellowship with those brethren, his ministry would not be heavily drawn on because it is still in print and readily obtainable.
I have a number of his books in my library, although I find little occasion to refer to them.
I also have the bound volumes of the 'Bible Treasury' which he edited for many years, and which contain many of his writings.

There is one extract from Mr. Kelly's writings in Studies: Inspiration of the Scriptures: Comparison of the Gospels.

I have quoted him there because his was the only item I could find that covered that particular point.

There are subsequent further extracts in: • Biography: J. N. Darby - Part One: JND As I Knew Him • Doctrine: Unequal Yoke: On Unions, Worldly or Religious • Doctrine: The Lord's Coming: The Rapture of the Saints: Who Suggested It, or Rather on What Scripture? • History: 'The Brethren': (commonly so-called) - A Brief Sketch of Their Origin, Progress and Testimony: Andrew Miller

I would only use his writings, or those of others in a similar position, if needed material could not be found elsewhere or as a witness to what was held in earlier years.

Mr. Kelly was a servant of the Lord and is to be respected for that and honoured for his work's sake, particularly the editing of Mr. Darby's 'Collected Writings'.

"Mr. Wm. Kelly … had once been a valued brother and expositor of Scripture among us, but for a long time had lost the confidence of his brethren generally; many feeling, moreover, that he had lost spiritual power. This lack of confidence was mainly owing to the fact of his persistent efforts to interfere in difficulties which arose in various localities", GWW

History: Later Contentions for the Faith: Ramsgate and WK

A servant is answerable directly to his Lord for his service. At the same time we have to take account of his position and his course.

In particular, Mr. Kelly was a bitter, persistent and intemperate foe of Mr. Raven and his ministry. See Biography: F. E. Raven: His Foes.
It would be inconsistent to feature his ministry along with the valued ministry which he attacked.
From Mr. Kelly's comments in the 'Bible Treasury', I am quite sure that he would not want his ministry featured alongside that of Mr. Raven and brethren such as JBS, FER, CAC, JT and other servants who valued FER and his ministry.

As to Mr. Kelly's ministry, there is doubtless much that is right in it.

However, by his separation and his attacks on Mr. Raven he has – in my judgment – departed from the main line of recovery of truth.
Therefore I could not recommend other than a cursory examination of his writings.
As Boaz said to Ruth: "Go not to glean in another field, neither go from here … Let thine eyes be on the field which is being reaped",
Ruth 2: 8-9.
Despite the recent failure and breakdown among those who claim to be followers of the servants noted above,
- I am convinced that the ministry of those servants is still "the field which is being reaped".
Having knowledge and experience of other ministry, I am not disposed "to glean in another field".

C. H. Mackintosh

I'm glad to hear that you have been helped by CHM's 'Notes on the Pentateuch'. Mr. Mackintosh was a special gift, used to make the truth available and simple for many.

If you enjoy his writings, you would likely enjoy those of Mr. C. A. Coates as well.

In contrast to WK, CHM remained in happy fellowship with FER until he was taken by the Lord.
If you have not already, I recommend you look at Biography: C. H. Mackintosh and Biography: F. E. Raven: His Friends

Bibles and Publications

Although they were not in fellowship with WK, Bibles and Publications, which you mention, is connected with brethren of similar views to Mr. Kelly – especially as to Mr.Raven –

That is no doubt why they carry WK's ministry.

Mr. A. H. Rule who is mentioned in Biography: F. E. Raven: His Foes was connected with the same group as Bibles and Publications.
He was perhaps even more virulent in his attack on FER than was WK.

W. R. Dronsfield

You also mention finding 'The Brethren since 1870' by Mr. W. R. Dronsfield online.

WRD was with 'Glanton' which separated in 1908. 'Glanton' then joined with the 'Booth-Grant' group and in the 1970's both joined the 'reunion' group – which group has recently divided.
I first saw his book in 1973, and consider it unreliable. It had many minor factual errors.
While many would no doubt find it interesting, it is heavily biased against Mr. Raven and Mr. James Taylor Sr.,
- and presents them and their ministry in a light that I reject as incorrect.

Please understand, —, that I have no desire to be merely negative or critical, but your inquiry deserves a candid reply.

If any points are not clear please let me know.

Thanks again for visiting 'My Brethren'. I'll be glad to hear from you at any time.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

1973 HYMN BOOK

From: Gregory P. Morris
deiniolgpmATbtinternet.com
Hawarden, Flintshire, Wales, U.K.
Sat, 5 Feb 2000

The 1973 Little Flock Hymn Book does need revision.

There are many Hymns both from previous editions of Little Flock Hymn Books and others in current use among Glanton/Kelly Brethren which would be an asset.
There is a large number of Hymns, c. 50, which could be removed from the 1973 edition without detriment.

Suggested additions:
O teach us Lord, Thy searchless love to know (1953)
O Lord by faith we look above (Glanton/Kelly 1978)
and many more.

Kind regards, Gregory Morris.

To: Gregory P. Morris
Tue, 08 Feb 2000

Dear Gregory,
Thank you for visiting 'My Brethren'. I hope you come back from time to time.

Concerning your remarks as to the 1973 Hymn Book, in History: Hymn Book: 1973 Re-Selection I say that, while in my opinion it has some flaws,

it "appears to be the best collection now in print" and, in my judgment, it is still. The few who meet here have used it for many years.
Robert Stott – the compiler of the 1973 book – and his wife have stayed in our home, and in the early 1970's Robert and I had much correspondence.
He was an honourable brother and I have no doubt that his work on the Hymn Book was done in the fear of the Lord and with the confidence of brethren with whom he walked.

As far as I am aware, the 1973 re-selection – including its 1984 additions, 481-502 – was made for the use of certain brethren walking together and with regard to their understanding of the truth.

While others might like to see changes, it was not made for them, or for me or you.
Any revision – a great and costly work not to be undertaken for minor reasons – would be at the discretion of KBT and those responsible for it.
To undertake a revision to add hymns from the 'Glanton/Kelly' book would be inconsistent with the principles guiding earlier revisers,
- and would ignore WK's criticism of the 1856 and 1881 books.
Others – including yourself and those you are connected with, whoever they may be – are free to make their own Hymn Book.
- We few here have compiled our own 1993 supplement of 47 hymns.

I would like to make it clear that, while MB has an unofficial Site News: The KBT Report for the information of guests,

I am not connected in any way – except as they are my brethren in Christ – with KBT or those it represents.
At the same time I respect the brethren connected with KBT, and its continuing work in the publication and distribution of Bibles, Hymn Books and valuable ministry.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

KINGSTON BIBLE TRUST

From: Gregory P. Morris
deiniolgpmATbtinternet.com
Hawarden, Flintshire, Wales, U.K.
Sat, 5 Feb 2000

Dear Sir,
I am writing to ask why the Kingston Bible Trust has seen fit to reproduce and augment 'The Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth' in such an inflammatory way.

It denounces those meetings which have left the pathway yet the Kingston Bible Trust is quite happy to accept legacies from these apostates.
It is all rather puzzling. I could not get any reply from my Great Aunt and Uncle on the IOW. They can hardly approve of such a monument to misguided industry.
Would the Depot not be more fair to reproduce some of the documentation (without comment) and let others decide rather than flatter the vanity of a handful of meetings with who the fire and cloudy pillar is now said to be?

Yours sincerely, Gregory Morris.
St Deiniol's Library, Hawarden.

To: Gregory P. Morris
Sat, 5 Feb 2000

Dear Gregory,
As explained in my previous email, I have no connection with KBT and so cannot speak for them. I suggest that you contact them directly for an answer to your inquiry. However I will venture a few comments.

The book to which you refer – 'A Further Review of Recovery to the Truth and its Maintenance (1827-1997)' by B. W. Burton* and reviewed briefly in Site News: The KBT Report: Book Review –

was issued "to fill the gap left by the non-availability of" earlier histories by Mr. Ware and Mr. Gardiner "and to bring the history up to the present date".

Both the previous books also present views as to certain earlier, but still extant, groups which could be considered "inflammatory" by those to whom they refer.

Whether you or I agree – or do not agree – with the statements made as to "those meetings which have left the pathway", the author surely is free to express his judgment from his perspective.
His language – to me at least – seems quite mild and hardly merits your characterization of "denounces".
Nor do I believe that KBT and brethren with them consider those brethren from whom they are now separate as "apostates", as your words suggest.

Concerning legacies, I suspect brethren leave these to KBT for the support of its work in regard of the printed ministry.

It would be just as fair to ask why those you think are being treated as "apostates" would leave legacies to KBT in the first place, if they thought they were so treated.

Even if "some of the documentation (without comment)" was reproduced it might not help any to come to a fair and just judgment.

I have many letters on both sides of some of the earlier issues but, at this date, I doubt that many who are unacquainted with the principals and background would find their way through it.

I cannot believe the intention of the present compiler – any more than that of GWW or AJG – was to "flatter the vanity of a handful of meetings with who the fire and cloudy pillar is now said to be".

This would normally be sufficient – in accord with MB policies – for me to completely ignore your email.

As it is, I suspect – perhaps wrongly – that you are motivated by some unhappy experiences and I trust that a sober review may lead to tempering your unbrotherly and pejorative remarks.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

THE USE OF MINISTRY

Further to the note in Biography: C. A. Coates: Introduction.

THE USE OF MINISTRY
Further to the note in Biography: C. A. Coates: Introduction.

Thu, 16 Mar, 2000

In accord with longstanding custom among brethren – see Personal: Copyright Information – MB is not copyrighted.

But it is stated there: "To preserve the integrity of the 'My Brethren' web site, requests to post a link on other sites should be submitted for consideration …".
Though the non-copyrighted articles or poetry of living authors might have been published on MB without permission, this has always been sought and granted.

Recently, an extract from Biography: C. A. Coates was published on another site, and a link provided to MB.

This was done without the common courtesy – or the brotherly consideration – of first contacting me.
I only know of the owner by his site and by report. We have never communicated with each other.
This lack of ordinary civility and brotherliness may not be deliberate – and therefore excusable as an oversight.

Inconsonantly, however, the site owner claims copyright for everything on his site, including the non-copyrighted extracts

from my biography of Mr. Coates, and of the ministry of CAC, JBS, GeoC, etc., from other sources.

Rather than making the above a personal issue, it affords an opportunity to note the practice – on more than one site –

of publishing extracts from the ministry of the servants to whose history and ministry 'My Brethren' is devoted,
while ignoring the main characteristics of that ministry and the separate position of those servants.

I am not advocating withholding ministry from any believer.

Intelligent brethren have always held that any truth they have received was in trust for the benefit of all saints.

My concern is the selective use of their ministry to support the views of those who reject their ministry as a whole.

One facet of their ministry may be praised,
- but it is not viewed – as it surely is – as an integral part of a greater whole given by the Spirit, and
it is not recognized – as it surely is – as an outcome of, and a support to, the main thrust of their ministry.

Some – not all – approvingly quote extracts relating to their favoured subject, but do not hesitate to downgrade certain other great Scriptural truths brought forward by brethren,

and unfairly blame the pursuit of these truths for the sad failures and divisions among brethren.
No one familiar with the broad range of their ministry – and their commitment to it in their letters –
- could ever believe that the brethren quoted would have sanctioned such a use of their ministry.

On the reasoning underlying this selective use of ministry, only certain parts of Paul's ministry need be emphasized,

and his ministry relating to the assembly, its relationship to Christ and its functioning, whether on the Corinthian or Ephesian levels, could safely be ignored.
Then it follows that Paul's emphasis on the collective application of the truth – assembly principles and practices –
- could also be blamed for the public failure of the church which commenced in the early centuries.

The remarks in Ministry: C. A. Coates: Introduction apply to many other servants whose ministry others may quote:

"CAC's … ministry and gospel tracts … have been a help to many who know nothing of his lifelong commitment to the interests of Christ marked by his separation from the world and its ecclesiastical systems.

'A Warning and an Appeal …' and 'Present Conditions in
the Christian Profession' in Ministry: C. A. Coates confirm this.
"Many of those who are aware choose to ignore it, glad to benefit from – and sometimes retail – his ministry, while retaining their own compromised positions".

Another concern is the misrepresentation of the character of the ministry of CAC and others by presenting it along with

that of those who opposed them – and the distinctive truths they advanced – or
- who refused Paul's charge as to separation in 2 Timothy 2: 19-22.
"Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with seed of two sorts", Deuteronomy 22: 9.

The above is not, in any sense, a personal attack on any person, web site owner or group, known or unknown to me.

It is put forward in a brotherly spirit – and in love of the truth –
- to uphold the integrity of the ministry and the ministers, remembering that Paul could say
"I have not shrunk from announcing to you" not a part but "all the counsel of God", Acts 20: 27.

G.A.R.

Page Top

MILES J. STANFORD
January 4, 1914 – September 21, 1999

K. Pipes J. Gossett J. Kuns 1 K. Paluga J. Kuns 2

MILES J. STANFORD January 4, 1914 – September 21, 1999
K. Pipes J. Gossett J. Kuns 1 K. Paluga J. Kuns 2

To: Kevin Pipes
ExchangedLifeATaol.com
Boston, MA, USA
Tue, 28 Mar 2000

Dear Kevin, [re email of Sun, 26 Mar 2000 Guest Book 3]
Thanks for visiting MB. I'm glad you like it and trust you will return.

There is no desire to alienate or antagonize you, Kevin, in what I must say in order to respond to your hope that "some day you will include Miles Stanford".

Be assured that – though I do not agree with him on some matters – I esteem him as a brother in Christ.
Therefore, no disrespect for Mr. Stanford is intended but, for several reasons, his writings will not be appearing on MB.

As you are aware, there is already a large site devoted to Mr. Stanford's extensive writings, and a good many of them are available there online.
'My Brethren' is devoted to the history and ministry of those brethren commonly called 'exclusive' and in particular to JND, JBS, FER, CAC, JT and others who were in practical fellowship with them.
- Mr. Stanford was familiar – from the outside – with their history and ministry as his paper 'The Plymouth Brethren – A Brief History' shows.
- It also shows that Mr. Stanford failed to grasp the distinctiveness of their ministry as a whole.
Mr. Stanford quotes some of the brethren mentioned above indiscriminately with others who bitterly opposed them and their teachings and/or
- refused – as he himself did – the separation from clericalism and sectarianism for which their ministry called.
He makes a narrow and selective use of their ministry to support his favoured doctrines – which I am assured they would never sanction –
- ignoring the full spectrum of their distinctive ministry given, as I believe, by the Spirit.

Mr. Stanford is not alone. There are other authors and sites marked by the practices in No. 3 and No. 4.

Similar questions have come up recently.

See my responses above in W. Kelly and his ministry and in The Use of Ministry.

I do not enjoy having to respond thus, and trust that you will understand my reasons,

lest it be "So I have become your enemy in speaking the truth to you?", Galatians 4:16.

I will be glad to hear from you again and answer any questions you may have.

Yours faithfully in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top Article Top

To: John R. Gossett
john.r.gossettATboeing.com
Seattle, Washington, USA
Mon, 02 Apr 2001

Dear John, [re email of Fri, 30 Mar 2001 in Guest Book 5]
… Regarding my comments as to Miles Stanford, I had no intention of being even "a little hard" on Mr. Stanford or of being personally disrespectful as I explained.

I strive, as in all my comments on any who serve the Lord, to be factual and objective recognizing that "to his own master he stands or falls", Romans 14: 4.
My comments had nothing to do with his own service or ministry except as it touched upon the history, service and ministry of those servants to which MB is devoted.
For the reasons given, I believe there has been a misuse and a disregard of their distinctive ministry.

At the same time I can only be thankful that, through Mr. Stanford's publications, you have been "exposed" to the ministry of JBS and others.

It is a shame that you were not introduced to it in the group you were with – and I am quite familiar with them and their outlook – but that is another matter.
I hope you have been able to pursue the ministry of JBS beyond the brief quotations by MJS. There is much light, food and encouragement in it.
Unless one becomes generally familiar with the ministry of any servant he may well have a distorted view of it.
If you have not already done so, you may find it worthwhile to check MB's Biography: J. B. Stoney and Ministry: J. B. Stoney …

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top Article Top

To: Jeff Kuns
jkunsATncws.com
Grass Valley, CA, USA
Tue, 19 Jun 2001

Dear Jeff, [re email of Tue, 5 Jun 2001 in Mailbox: JKL]
… I can understand, and am thankful, that you have been helped by Miles Stanford's focus on particular areas of the truth and the quotations he makes from the ministry of those who are featured on this site.

Others have expressed similar thoughts. See above for my comments which I will try to not repeat.
I trust that you will appreciate that anything I have said before, or say now, is in no way an attack on MJS or those of similar views.
- My only interest is to maintain the integrity of the truth.

The 'growth' and 'identification' truths to which MJS draws attention do not stand on their own but

are integral parts of the teaching of the apostles, and of the ministry of JBS, CAC and others.

However they never label them or present them separately.
This is in accord with Paul's word to the elders of Ephesus:
- "I held back nothing of what is profitable, so as not to announce [it] to you, and to teach you publicly and in every house … for I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God", Acts 20: 20, 27.

While there are diversities of gifts and services, there is no suggestion in the Scriptures of 'specialists' with a special body of teaching, as is common today especially in evangelical circles.

Designating certain areas of the truth by special names may attract and even help some, but may repel others to whom it has the appearance of a super spirituality.
This was common in earlier years, and perhaps still, with conferences to promote 'the victorious life' as a higher order of Christianity.

The reason you are "met with blank stares and arguments" when you attempt to share certain truths may be because many have been only presented with a truncated version of the gospel.

Many have never been taught – because their teachers don't know it – the removal from before God of the first man and
- the establishment in His presence of the second Man, the Man of His pleasure, and our association with Him.

As you suggest, some 'teaching' seems completely centred on new birth which is treated as if were the whole truth.

It is important as being the initial and basic work of the Spirit, but it is only the beginning.
From my knowledge of others it seems that many who talk about it, or preach about it, do not even understand new birth itself let alone the elements of the gospel.
- Paul exhorts, "Have an outline" i.e. 'a systematic exposé' "of sound words, which words thou has heard of me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus", 2 Timothy 1: 13.
That is, as I believe you have learned, not a 'Bible College' course.
It is another issue of course, but such institutions are like the Philistines' 'new cart', a most unsatisfactory substitute for spiritual teaching in the assembly.

Your observations as to the difference in the way Mr. Stanford deals with certain matters – especially fellowship – compared with Mr. Stoney's thoroughness and definiteness are right on the mark.

Certain basic differences between their commitments must be recognized.

CAC wrote of "what Mr. Stoney said at a rather important point of his career.

"He went to JND and asked to be allowed to take his place with the very few who were at that time breaking bread.
"Mr. Darby asked him if he had faith for it. He replied, 'Faith or no faith, I can't stop where I am'".
- He remained faithful to the separation from the public religious groups of his day.

From what I can determine Mr. Stanford never took such a step but criticizes the position of those who did.

He exposes the shortcomings of various prominent persons and their teaching in his 'polemics' and maintains a certain aloofness
but never makes a clean break in separating from the public religious institutions.

I believe that it is this basic difference between JBS and MJS that accounts for the differences you rightly note.

As you will see in his ministry, JBS had the whole scope of the truth before him.
This is bound to make for a definiteness that occupation with limited portions of the truth cannot give.

Further than that – in my limited acquaintance with his writings – I have seen no evidence that MJS appreciates

the distinctive and unique place of the assembly in the affections of Christ and the counsels and purposes of God, or
the place the Lord's Supper has leading to the present – and soon eternal – service [worship] of God …

I'll look forward to hearing from you as you are able.

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top Article Top

To: Jeff Kuns
From: Karl Paluga
Wed, 12 Jun, 2002

Dear brother Jeff,

… I understand that you have read some of Miles Stanford's ministry. Perhaps the 'Green Letters'?