Menu•SiteMap |
Guests
My Stand: No. 5
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.
| 'CHRISTIAN' ZIONISM |
|---|
Paul Wilkinson writes that he is "currently undertaking PhD
research on J. N. Darby and the Origins of Christian Zionism
at the University of Manchester". |
|---|
To: Paul Wilkinson
Tue, 22 Jul 2003
Dear Paul,
… I'm surprised that you seem to link "J.N.Darby and the Origins of Christian Zionism".
- As I understand it 'Zionism' was originally a movement for establishing a homeland for the Jews and now for supporting the state of
Israel – that is clearly a political movement.
- JND's stand against political involvement is generally well known. See Doctrine: The World and Its Politics on MB.
- I'm not aware of anything in JND's ministry that would support
'Zionism', whether 'Christian' or otherwise.
- However it is quite possible that some have built their case for it on an erroneous view of his ministry on prophecy – as others have built their prophetic schemes on his ministry on 'dispensations' and the 'rapture'.
- As I understand it, the present state of Israel is not envisioned in Scripture, though no doubt there will be unbelieving Jews in the land in the tribulation.
That the restoration of Israel to the land will be by God's own direct
intervention – not political means – is clear from the following:
- "Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Although I have removed them far off among the nations, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries whither they are come. Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will even gather you from the peoples, and assemble you out of the countries where ye are scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel", Ezekiel 11: 16-17.
- "Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, O my people, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I [am] Jehovah, when I have opened your graves, and have caused you to come up out of your graves, O my people. And I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land: and ye shall know that I Jehovah have spoken, and have done [it], saith Jehovah ... And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them from every side, and bring them into their own land: and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all And they shall not defile themselves any more with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; and I will save them out of all their dwelling-places wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: and they shall walk in mine ordinances, and keep my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and David my servant shall be their prince for ever", Ezekiel 37: 12-14, 21-25.
… In the Lord, Gordon.
Page Top Article Top
'MY BRETHREN'
Its Layout, Design and Format |
|---|
Recently some friendly and well-intentioned – but ill-informed and uncomplimentary – comments have been received. This is an explanation of the rationale behind MB's appearance and an examination of the objections made.
The guest who offered the comments will not be identified. It is not our intention to be personal or to retaliate, but to answer questions that may have arisen in the minds of other guests. December 2003, GAR.
|
First let me say that while Jeff and I, as editors, are always interested in the reactions of guests of MB – and welcome notice of any factual or typographical error –
- the layout design and format – as well as the content – of MB has been taken on as a responsibilty in our service under the Lord.
Visiting a web site, as I often do myself, is like being welcomed into a friend's home.
- We may not like the dinner menu and table setting, and find the style of furniture and its arrangement and colour schemes not in accord with our tastes.
- Even if an opinion is asked, most of us will temper our response with good manners and brotherly love.
- We regret if the personal tastes of any are disappointed or offended by the way we present MB.
It should also be understood that MB is not in competition with the publishers of printed ministry.
- Neither is it our intention to present articles for the sole benefit of those who, like ourselves, already have an extensive library of history and ministry – or to duplicate the appearance of printed books.
- Many, like ourselves, doubtless find it simpler and preferable to read from the printed page rather than from the computer screen.
- Our approach, therefore, is to make it as easy as possible to read from the computer screen, and to navigate efficiently – though our solutions may seem "awkward" to some.
- I have given up on a number of otherwise interesting sites which have a pleasant overall appearance as they are certainly not easy to read after a few minutes.
- It is definitely "awkward" for me to try to read large segments of full screen width text – not book page proportion – with small and faint type,
- and to be forced to scroll to the top of a page for a menu or table of contents links rather than have the constant convenience of a fixed frames menu.
Our guest says, "I really hate all the 'bullets' everywhere in all of your texts. It's distracting and is not in keeping with the original material and makes it seem like you are trying to organize the original ministry in 'outline' form. It also stops the normal 'flow' of thought that was meant to be conveyed in the ministry with unnecessary distractions".
- This certainly is a strong personal opinion, both as to the appearance of text on MB and as to its effect and possible motivation.
- My choice of this method was to improve readability making the pattern of thought clearer, highlighting scripture quotations and introducing – what printers call – 'white space' to relieve long unbroken passages.
- This reflects insights gained in a ten year stint with a local high quality printing company.
- Other unconventional 'conventions' have also been adopted to improve readability:
- We use a 'font size=4' to provide a larger, darker and easier to read text;
- in most instances, 'round brackets' are replaced by printers' 'en dashes' to improve the "flow";
- and 'italics' – while preferable in printed matter – appear too faint on the screen, and unless especially required for foreign words, are usually replaced by an 'underline'.
Our guest also says, "it seems that two things are happening.
"First, is that you both assume that the Spirit cannot use the original ministry as given without your help. You assume that one must have a 'good foundation' to be benefitted from the ministry. Let me say that in my own experience and several Brethren I know locally were not born and raised among brethren. I discovered the ministry over 20 years ago and had nobody but the Spirit to help me understand it. The Spirit of God can take the ministry and do with it what and as He chooses".
- We certainly do not underrate the Spirit's power and ability to enlighten and guide souls when other means are not available. We have both proved this.
- In most instances, unless it was originally written, we do not have "the original ministry as given" but a revised and edited printed version.
- At the same time the usual and normal operations of the Spirit, as recorded in the Acts, are seen in His use of suitable vesels to enlighten and instruct:
- Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch, 8: 29-35, although he was reading Isaiah;
Ananias and the brethren in Damascus with Saul, as directed by the Lord: "But rise up and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do", 9: 3-39.
Peter with Cornelius and his "kinsmen and intimate friends",
10: 1-48.
Aquila and Priscilla with Apollos, though "he was mighty in the scriptures", 18: 24-26.
- In the glad tidings – though the Scriptures and tracts have often been used, and the Spirit has access to all – Paul clearly states the normal method:
- "and how shall they hear without one who preaches?", Romans 10: 14.
Our guest continues, "Secondly the bulleting of the text robs the Spirit of His claim over the material and allows you to use it for an 'agenda' that may or may not be in keeping with the Spirit's mind thus acting the Holy Spirit yourselves. My wife noticed that you even go so far as to underline texts that are not underlined or emphasised in the original text. This distincly gives the impression of pushing forward an agenda. Instead of letting the Spirit help the one reading you have decided what is important in the text and should be noticed by the reader. I see it as also going beyond the original intentions of those who put forth this ministry with the exception of Gordon's thoughts which he has a right to do with as he chooses. I think you place too much reliance on your ability to help persons understand divine things instead of leaving these matters with the Spirit of God. I see nothing wrong with putting the ministry out on the internet for persons to find and enjoy. I just object when the ministry is tampered with in such a way as to suit a person's own objectives and agenda. I see these matters as being very simliar to those that arose at Stow Hill when JT's ministry was edited without his knowledge thus making the ministry say something it was never intended to say or serve a purpose it was never meant to".
- I have left the above without 'bullets' so that other guests can decide which is easier to follow.
- The above are very serious and intemperate allegations which, hopefully, our guest will reconsider and retract, or at least modify.
Our guest may not realize that unless oral ministry was both revised and edited – as customary among brethren – most of it would be confusing and unsuitable to print.
- I have personal knowledge of this having transcribed both addresses and readings from tapes for printing.
- The tampering with JT's ministry was an aberration. Nothing in the least similar has ever been done on MB to change the meaning of any ministry presented.
- In his letters, JT often refers to those who have been of good service in both the revising and editing of his ministry.
- Our guest may not be aware of the editing done recently by KBT as mentioned in the Prefaces to "Selected Addresses' and 'Selected Ministry'. In addition to some minor editing – of the previous publications – KBT says,
- "and finally, to ensure consistency with further recovery to the truth, since the ministry was originally given".
- This is a change in policy which has not been followed on MB. The 1961 Stow Hill meeting record states:
- "The question of 'editing' came up, in respect of F.E.R., in a few cases where minor adjustments in doctrine had come in, and after fairly lengthy consideration it was decided that his ministry should be reprinted untouched.
"Mr. Gardiner confirmed that no 'editing' had been done with J.N.D.'s Collected Writings. Also J.T.'s ministry was not changed either it was printed as he said it, or it was not printed at all".
Of course the above refers to the original edited publications.
If our guest's reasoning is correct – and I do not think it is – then logically all Bible translators, including JND, would be
- guilty of robbing the Spirit of His claims over the Scriptures, tampering with the Scriptures to suit their own objectives and agenda and hindering the flow of thought.
- According to Morrish's Bible Dictionary, pages 794-5, the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts, or 'Uncials', date from the 4th century and
- Many Bible translations separate the texts by verses – similar to 'bulleting' – or, as JND, paragraph the text.
- All use upper and lower case letters, modern punctuation and some use quotation marks and various means to emphasize text.
- All show chapter and verse numbers – useful though certainly uninspired – and most have marginal or footnote references embedded in the text.
- Most insert words to make the sense clear – sometimes without notice – and to a greater or lesser extent paraphrase.
- According to the reasoning of our guest all the above ahould be unnecessary and only interferes with the Spirit's work and the flow of the text and is distracting.
We certainly do not want to offend the tastes of our guests,
- but our first aim in all we do is to serve our own master who is able to make us stand. Romans 14: 4.
- Therefore we pursue our way in good conscience before our Lord, trusting that we many never have to face any, whom the AV translators describe as those
- "who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil".
G.A.R.
Page Top Article Top
ANONYMTY – ANOTHER LOOK
Does Scripture contemplate anonymous ministry? |
|---|
The following was written many years ago to
the Editor of 'Open Forum' – a discontinued publication. GAR
|
|---|
The following comments are not intended, nor should they be construed, as an attack either on the Compilers’ practice of anonymity or of their policy of offering the same anonymity to the contributors to 'Open Forum'.
- It is deplorable, shameful and humbling that a situation should exist among the people of God that would cause any brother to have to resort to anonymity because of “fears of repressions and persecution”, 'Open Forum', 9-1a.
- Having been, to my shame, connected for many years with a party in which “repressions and persecutions” were the order of the day, I can deeply sympathize with any who do or might, suffer under such an unchristian attitude.
- My own conviction is that the admonition,
- “he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully”, Jeremiah 23: 28,
- precludes me from seeking or accepting the shield of anonymity.
- Others must act according to their own convictions and in this I recognize the scriptural principle,
- “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand”, Romans 14: 4.
That being said, I would like to offer some comments in answer to the question, “Is there anything in Scripture to guide us on the subject of anonymity?”
- Let us examine various points which have been brought forward in support of anonymity.
Doubtless, “many books are anonymous”, but these are mainly historical accounts.
- The – human – authors of the didactic and prophetic books of both the Old and New Testaments – with the exception of Hebrews and the letters of John – are clearly identified in the text or elsewhere in the sacred record.
- Such writings most nearly approximate the “expository writing” for which anonymity is desired.
- The weight of scriptural evidence seems clearly against anonymity as a general practice where doctrine is involved.
How the gospels which “seem actually to have been written anonymously” could have had “their names attached, accurately, no doubt – in the second century”, apart from direct personal knowledge is difficult to understand,
- unless those by whom the ‘names’ were attached were also directly inspired. Such a circumlocuitous method would seem out of character for our God
- “who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’ ”, 2 Corinthians 4: 6.
“Luke’s authorship” being “unobtrusive” is quite different from remaining anonymous
- Can there be any doubt that Theophilus, at least, knew who had addressed the gospel and apostolic accounts to him?
As to John, “the rumour spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die”, John 21: 23 – surely indicates that he must have been known.
- “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true”, 21: 24
- – also shows that John must have been known as the author, for of what value is an anonymous witness?!
- The “personality” of a witness, for such the “author” claims to be, is certainly not “irrelevant”.
To conclude that “The above considerations seem to provide ample scriptural precedent for anonymous writing” is premature.
- Let us not forget that
- “All Scripture is God-breathed”
- and that therefore the decision as to whether the human author was to remain anonymous would be made by God, not by his instrument.
- There is therefore no scriptural precedent to guide us in making a decision to write anonymously.
On a “further question”, it is important to recognize that the scriptures were written for others as well as for ourselves.
- “Joel … Malachi” were doubtless well known to their contemporaries. Their names were therefore more than “a reference mark” at the time of writing.
- That they may have become such to us centuries later is not in itself a sufficient argument in favour of anonymity, either now or at the time of writing.
“But where the subject is doctrinal and not experiential, how is the author’s personality or history relevant to his subject?”
- Now is this based on Scripture? Consider Peter's judgment,
- “Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him”, 2 Peter 3: 15.
- Evidently Paul, under the Spirit’s guidance, thought his “personality” and “history” relevant to his subject when writing to the Galatians on the doctrine of the gospel of grace – see Galatians 1 and 2.
- He charges Timothy,
- “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others”, 2 Timothy 2: 2.
Later he says, “you, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purposes, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings … But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it”.
- From the foregoing it appears obvious that the personality, experience and teaching of Paul are inextricably woven together and are in his judgment, whatever we may think, “relevant to his subject”.
The reference to “Geshem says it”, Nehemiah 6: 6, as a possible ground of “prejudging the ideas presented”, is an unfortunate example.
- Geshem was an enemy of God’s people and his false charge was used by their opponents to try to hinder God’s servants.
The foregoing leads me to conclude that there is no biblical authority to support anonymity as a personal policy and that
- there are ample indications that the identification of an author is a valuable personal testimony to the truths he asserts.
G.A.R.
Page Top Article Top
AN APPEAL TO THE BRETHREN
IN CONSIDERING MATTERS OF
FELLOWSHIP AND RECEPTION |
|---|
Richard C. Reed, With Christ: November 29, 2004
Richard's appeal is addressed to those brethren with whom he was identified
It is presented here as a thoughtful analysis worthy of consideration by all.
The editors of 'My Brethren' do not agree with some minor details, but the 'Appeal' has not been changed, except for editing re punctuation etc. GAR
See also Doctrine: Fellowship.
|
|---|
A collection of quotations from Mr. Darby's letters concerning matters of reception and fellowship is being circulated.
- One has had an opportunity to read the material and consider the quotes in their contexts. Please allow some very brief specific comments and then some general observations in an appeal to the brethren to be careful about adopting loose principles.
Although Mr. Darby always held all believers had title to remember the Lord with the brethren, there were in fact some he would not receive.
- At the end of his life Mr. Darby counselled the brethren to consider 2 Timothy 2 because things had changed so much in Christendom. He was looking at a span of some fifty years. How much more have things changed in the one hundred years plus since JND went home to be with the Lord?
- The quotes taken from Mr. Darby tend to cast him as one favoring a loose reception of all believers. The body side of the truth – that all believers are members of one body – is overemphasized and the truth of the house – the house of God is the assembly, and a place of order according to the divine mind – is being reduced in importance.
- Indeed it is accurate to say that many dear brethren have little acquaintance with the truth of the house and know only the body side of the truth.
- The failure of brethren is being used to advance the opinion that any believer can break bread without any responsibility attaching to that act.
- If you are in possession of those quotes, please compare these comments with the quotes and the comments that follow. We are in the last days!
- "Hold fast that which thou hast!".
1. Vol 1: 42 – p. 34 in my edition – 1840: The reference is here to churches who refuse to receive all Christians and in so doing perpetuate division among the Lord's people. Mr. Darby's observations are entirely correct here, though we must recognize that brethren were themselves united at this point. They had not yet been tested.
2. Vol. 1: 451 – p. 370 in my edition – 1864: Reception is based on membership in the body of Christ [not] intelligence in spiritual things. This principle is exactly right.
3. Vol. 1: 13-14 – pp. l0-12 in my edition – 1869: A simple brother is to be received, even if defective in his understanding of system.
- If we only receive those who agree with us, plainly we are sectarian. JND would have received one who is truly simple and so should we, or else we are just another sect, perhaps with more light than many, but a sect of Christendom, just the same.
- Honesty requires the whole letter be read, and not just a quote excised. The third from the last paragraph makes it very clear that Mr. Darby says it is evil to allow one to be allowed to go back and forth among brethren and system.
4. Vol. 2: 130-31 – pp. 109-10 in my edition – 1870: This letter makes it clear that we do not receive to the Lord's Supper – called the Lord's Table by some. We receive to the assembly.
- The local company is really receiving a saint in light of a fellowship that already exists. Scripture knows only one fellowship. Such a one received is subject to all the discipline of the house, according to Mr. Darby. Receiving a saint places that one in a position of responsibility.
5. Vol. 2: 420 – p. 349 in my edition – 1875: There is no such a thing as receiving a saint as a visitor and receiving a saint to 'full fellowship'.
- In 1875 JND says the assembly must be satisfied as to adequate testimony, though it was not so at the beginning of the recovery. Why the change? Why does he say that now – in 1875 – 2 Timothy 2 has to be considered, but not earlier?
- Was it not because of the change in conditions? The Bethesda question had been raised. and he was no doubt concerned about the serious departure that had come in. What would he say about our day? Would he not advise us also to consider 2 Timothy 2: 19-22?
6. Vol. 3: 543 – pp. 459-460 in my edition – 1878?
Although the date of this letter is unknown, JND makes it clear that time has not changed his mind. Indeed that is good, because time does not alter moral principles.
- Every believer has a title to be there as a member of the body of Christ. Just above, though, in a portion of the letter that was not quoted, JND says the person received is subject to the discipline of God's house, and is not to assert a condition to be free to go anywhere.
It is one's understanding that these quotes were originally excerpted from JND's letters and published in a tract printed by what was once an 'Open Brethren' publishing house.
- It is understandable that those who have historically supported an open reception policy would find it to their advantage to make it seem that Mr. Darby also favored open reception.
- If he did, there was no reason at all for the Open division to have ever taken place. If these quotes represent 'the whole' of JND's views, he indeed must have been an 'open brother', but one trusts we all know that is not the case.
Mr. Darby tenaciously held to the view that all believers be received, and one fully supports that!
- But he also said saints were not free to go back and forth, and one supports that too!
- In addition he counsels the brethren to consider 2 Timothy 2: 19-22, and one even supports that!
- Every believer does have a title to remember the Lord with us as a member of the body of Christ, and not simply because he is a member of 'us'. If that 'us' is narrower than the body of Christ, we are plainly wrong.
We are equally wrong if we consider only the body side of the truth. To do so is to be like the man with the withered hand. We must consider both the house and body sides of the truth!
- The body side means He receive all believers to the assembly.
- The house side says responsibility attaches to the assembly, and we must consider what a believer is linked with. JND said things were becoming difficult in his day – it was not so simple as at the beginning before any trouble came in amongst the brethren. What of our day?
- Ecumenism is growing, and we hear much about all Christians being together. In the system the most abominable doctrines are accepted, and things are far worse than in JND's day.
- Even amongst some companies of so-called brethren there has been apostasy from things once held to be true. Paul's ministry has been given up as seen in the return to the clerical system and lack of head coverings on the sisters. The view that Christ could have sinned but didn't is tolerated if not widely accepted.
- Do we not need to be extra careful today? Can we really receive saints, dear though they may be, who have links to such things? Should they not be asked to judge them?
One remains committed to the principle of receiving all believers in the light of the discipline of the house of God. We receive to the assembly, not to the supper!
- If a truly simple believer asked to remember the Lord in genuine simplicity, and the person known to be pure in walk, one would not object.
- But in the fifteen years since one left open ground, there has been only one person presenting herself to one's local assembly in greatest simplicity, and that dear sister did not ask to break bread, and we did not invite her.
- Many other persons have become known to us, but they could not be viewed as simple, and did not ask to break bread with us.
JND was a mighty man of God. There is no question but that he was used – as well as others – to help souls get clear of system and see the light of the assembly.
- His ministry was largely one of getting free from system and dealing with the question of independency of meetings.
- Although greatly used of God, the recovery was not entirely committed to him. In His wisdom, the Spirit of God raised up others as well.
- Mr. Stoney and Mr. Raven were used to help the saints see the breaking of bread was to be at the beginning of the meeting, as introductory to the service of God.
- Mr. Raven was further used to bring light as to eternal life and the Lord's person. Mr. Coates emphasized the assembly and personal devotion to the Lord and the truth, and was a bridge between FER and JT Sr. Mr. Taylor Sr was used to to solidify the truth of the assembly, and under his ministry the brethren had rest.
It is sad, but true, that a legal line developed even while JT Sr was alive. That line bore sad fruit later on. Many, many lives were affected and there is no need to recount a sad story.
- The enemy has had his way in a public sense, but the door is still open to those who overcome. In these Laodicean days the Lord appeals to individuals.
- The brethren have failed publicly, and that was to be expected, because everything committed to man in responsibility fails! Brethren are not exempt from the lot of all other men! Let us not think that we have corporately kept what others have not!
- If we say Christendom is in ruin or that the testimony is in ruin, let us own our own part in the ruin.
In light of the ruin do we now reject the truths recovered in the ministries of JND, JBS, FER, CAC, and JT Sr?
- One would shudder from the thought of rejecting what God has given to us! Many have been through much deep and personal exercise over this ministry.
- Now, while one acknowledges the failure of brethren, and one's own many failures, one refuses to acknowledge that the truth has failed! The truth stands out in brightest contrast to the deepening darkness!
Will we be faithful? Let us not turn JND's comments taken out of context against what JND plainly believed.
- He would receive a simple saint, but he would never support one going back and forth! Let us not try to use JND as a justification to return to open principles.
- "… If one wanted to be among the brethren, then next among the sects, I should not allow it. and would not receive such a person …", JND's Letters, Vol. 3: 133 – 1881.
Did the brethren become too exclusive? That is not an easy question to answer, although the principle of excluding what is not suitable to the Lord is a right one, no matter how legally we have handled it.
- The brethren even in JT Sr's day acknowledged many times that there were certainly other companies of brethren and many saints in the systems of men.
It may be that brethren came to receive only from among themselves, and JND does call that arrangement a sect.
- We need to get back to the Scriptures as the final arbiter while we continue to value ministry God has seen fit to preserve.
If brethren went too far in one direction. do we meet that by going to the other extreme?
- One truly believes that genuine, simple believers are to be received. A 'simple' believer is one who does not come with conditions, but simply desires to remember the Lord.
- If such a person. known to the brethren, seeks to break bread. the local brethren should act as they feel would honor the Lord, acting without seeking the approval of others, but also not acting independently of others whose consciences might be affected by their action.
A 'simple' believer is not one who desires to break bread with us out of convenience.
- JND makes it clear that in receiving such a one, he would be free if that person were in our area, and no local company to which that believer would be attached exists in our area. In other words, it is not a matter of convenience.
- A believer walking with a company of believers with whom we do not walk should be provided the means to get to his own company if one exists in our area. Such a one should not seek to remember the Lord with us simply because he is in our area!
- See JND's Letters. Volume 2: 10 – 1869.
A 'simple' believer will not place conditions on the assembly. There will be no reservation to continue to go back and forth between companies of the Lord's people.
- In receiving a saint. he is received to the assembly. It is confusion to receive a saint continually who intends to break bread with two companies holding divergent views on important matters.
- We are in a peculiar position today. It is most difficult. There are many true and godly believers in various companies of the Lord's people. Why are there so many companies? It is surely in part due to our failures!
- Without question there has been harsh treatment of dear brethren that went beyond what was due to the Lord. Our failure is only part of it!
- The movement of Israel out of Egypt and into the land was accompanied by one test after another. Even the final settlement in the land left a permanent division between two and a half tribes and the others.
- We need to understand that brethren suffered greatly in the questions of independency vs. unity, in the question of the Lord's Supper – why do some brethren end their meeting with it? – eternal life, the Lord's Person, and even the position of the servant in accountabi1ity to the brethren.
- Brethren suffered greatly – on all sides – when divisions came over these issues. Time does not change moral issues.
- The desire to heal those divisions is to be commended! The way to heal them is not to ignore them, but to go back to them and look at them. and see if there is a reconciliation possible on a righteous basis. There is probably room in all divisions for each side to confess failure to the other side!
- Christendom is being swept by an ecumenical spirit that will eventually end up with Babylon, after the true believers are translated to the glory. Ecumenism promotes the idea that all professing Christians should be together, no matter what doctrines might be held.
- In our zeal to restore relations with other believers. we need to avoid being ecumenical. We need to have a right judgment on things. It is not a matter of us being the right party and everyone else wrong!
It is a matter of dealing with issues the Lord allowed to come upon us, and seeing if there is a righteous way to heal the breaches in light of the Lord's soon coming for all true believers.
- We cannot afford to maintain a party spirit any more than we can afford to throw away everything brethren suffered for in the name of loving our brethren.
The Lord has allowed the questions of reception and autonomy of local meetings to come up once again. We really need to look to the Lord about this.
- As members of the one body, all saints have title to the privileges of the assembly, chief among which is participation in the Lord's Supper and the service of God.
- In view of the breakdown, we must regulate reception in light of the house of God being a place of discipline – Hebrews 3: 5-6; 1 Timothy 3: 15; 2 Timothy 2: 19-22 – just as Mr. Darby advised.
- In the light of the assembly being God's house, reception can be neither sectarian nor open. We do not receive a brother or sister because they are with 'us'. Neither do we receive on the basis of convenience, relationships in the flesh, or self-will.
- If we receive a believer without regard to the consciences of brethren elsewhere, we have taken a large step toward occupying the ground of local autonomy.
We need to be on the line of recovering our brethren! Scriptures that present principles of recovery, like Jeremiah 15 – especially verse 19 – Genesis 14: 12-16, and 1 Samuel. 30: 1-20, do not suggest that recovery is achieved by a going back and forth.
- Even though we all acknowledge we have all failed the Lord in responsibility, we must also acknowledge the truth that was brought out through the ministries of J. N. Darby, J. B. Stoney, F. E. Raven, C. A. Coates, and J. Taylor, Sr., and not seek to overthrow what has been gained for the Lord and his saints!
- Of course we acknowledge that even these beloved brethren themselves experienced failure, and one does not wish to place ministry on the level of inspired Scripture.
- The enemy did sow tares like the harsh legalism in an attempt to overthrow what the Spirit of God was doing, but was there not an abundance of 'wheat'? Surely, there was an abundance of good food for the people of God?
- Are we really prepared to say it was all tares – darnel – and go back to 1848, saying all since was one gigantic mistake? One shudders at the thought of giving up all of the 'land' that was secured for the brethren and glory of God.
It is not a return to 'us' that should be sought. It is the acknowledgement of the truth that we should seek – 2 Timothy 2: 25.
- It is a plain fact that there are indeed very few 'simple' believers today, especially among companies of so-called brethren. How is a brother or sister who is not so simple to be treated? The answer is with love and faithfulness.
- A believer who has joined another company of believers who oppose what we hold dear is more accountable than a believer who is truly simple. Is it really faithful to receive such a one, on the condition that he is allowed to return to a company that historically opposes what we hold dear?
- It is not a question of godliness – there are many believers who are very godly in most companies of believers. A believer who has a history should be expected to give an account and clear himself, and we should be prepared to do the same.
Since breaking bread implies fellowship, we should make sure there is a righteous basis to go on together. We must love all believers, even though we can not go on practically speaking with some.
These are the last days. We all need to seek the Lord out as to these matters.
- It is wrong to be self-occupied, but let us invite the Spirit of God to search us, and if there is need for adjustment in any of us let us accept it in meekness and humility.
- The Lord's words for us today are found in the words to Philadelphia and Laodicea. Let us hold fast what we have. The enemy wants to snatch it away.
- Let us also heed the knock at the door. At the very end the Lord is outside and seeks response. Are we available to him?
The foregoing is submitted humbly in the interest of faithfulness to the truth and love for the brethren and the Savior who has bought us all!
Richard C. Reed, 1991
Page Top Article Top
Your guest entries and messages will show that
the continuation of My Brethren is important to you.
|
Page Top