My Answer: No. 2

To: Liz Cameron
alera1ATyahoo.com
Belleville, MI, USA
Sat, 05 Aug 2000

Dear Liz,
Thank you for visiting MB and for your sincere inquiry which, unwittingly doubtless, draws attention to our weak situation

• but also provides an opportunity to frankly address the problems we face.

• I will be candid, but my reply may seem lengthy and complicated – not at all what you may have expected –
  • because of the confused state which has existed among some brethren during the last 40 years.

1.  F. E. Raven (1837-1903)

Apart from those who refused his ministry in 1890, and still remain bitterly opposed – and with whom I am not connected –

• the other "exclusive" groups referred to on MB would trace their history back to FER and earlier.

• However, the present practice of many is completely out of accord with his repudiation of ecclesiastical position and 'brethrenism'.

2.  J.T.Jr. (1899-1970)

The vast majority of the brethren with whom I and others were once "in fellowship" remained with JTJr

• – not to be confused with James Taylor Sr. (1870-1953) his honoured father –

• and his successors, despite the introduction from 1959 of a harsh legal system and an increasing number of new and unscriptural doctrines and practices.

• Some, of course, were his ardent partisans but most remained through various fears:
  1. family break-up,
  2. loss of lifetime friends,
  3. financial hardship through loss of employment or dissolution of partnerships.

There are meetings of this group in — but I could not, in any sense, recommend them.

• You would not likely find a welcome until you had accepted their rigorous code of conduct, broken all family, personal and Christian links, and submitted to the authority of their universal leader.

• There has been ample witness by those who have escaped that the situation among them has only grown worse since 1970.

3.  Renton

• There are no 'Renton' meetings "in —— or nearby within easy driving distance".

While I know and respect personally many among them, it cannot be denied that, as a group, they continue to maintain much of the legal system and have not judged their failure in continuing in it.

• Additional information is in
  History: Wrong in Principle?
  My Stand 1: What Went Wrong?
  My Stand 2: Aberdeen 1-5.

Present Situation

Now you may well say, 'Where does this leave us? You are setting out ministry on MB which seems to have failed'.

• Not at all, persons have failed, and failed grievously – I have failed, and repented – but divine principles and truth remain.

The present situation is much like the shipwreck of Acts 27: 41-44. As you will see from the "Mailbox",

• there are individuals and small groups throughout the world, some local and others somewhat wider, who are attempting in weakness – and, I admit, with some differences of opinion –
  • to maintain the truths set out on MB, the truths which earlier brethren maintained.

• The reasons I and others press on despite the failure and weakness, and why I see no alternative, are set out in Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State of the Church …

Your brother in our Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

SISTER  TO  SISTER
This guest article is the major part of a heartfelt response from one sister to a genuine inquiry from another sister.

To: Liz Cameron
alera1ATyahoo.com
Belleville, MI, USA

From: Peggy Paluga
Rede4HimAThotmail.com
Pelican Rapids, MN
Thu, 10 Aug 2000

… First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Peggy, I'm 39 years old, married to Karl – a dear brother in Christ.

• We have two daughters, Ashley [Dickinson], 16, and Rachel, 13, whom I began to educate at home after leaving the public school I was teaching in 2 years ago.

• My family and I are born again Christians – within the past 6 years.

• After several years of searching, church hopping, studying the Scriptures, etc., we have left institutional religion altogether and, I guess you could say, are now "of the brethren".

• My brethren are indeed "those who hear the word of God and do it" Luke 8:21.

• If this makes me one of the "brethren", than I guess I am. All glory, praise, and honor to the Lord for this!

• We see very clearly, just as they do, the necessity to obey the Scriptures in all things including our method of worship which is in accordance with the pattern for the Lord's body as is made known to us in the Scriptures of the New Testament.

My family and I live in north central MN. We are not identified with any organized denomination or religion whatsoever.

• We don't "go to a church", but instead, believe we are a small expression of the church or the body of Christ in a specific locale.

• As is the manner of many brethren scattered throughout the world, we come together simply in our home on the first day of the week to break bread and remember the Lord's death until He comes again.

• This is our simple mode of worship – no fancy church buildings, no big church choir, no clergyman, no laity, no outline to follow for the "Sunday Service", no bulletins, no announcements, no fancy clothing, no tithing, no hymn playing organ, etc.

• Just four of the Lord's brethren, remembering our Savior's death, burial, and resurrection as He has commanded us to do – 1 Cor. 14: 37.

We rejoice in the simple manner the Lord has provided for His brethren to approach Him, vs. the burdensome religious world's ways which include

• many man-made rules, costly "church" buildings, human appointed authority figures, planned sermons, participation in pagan holidays and ceremonies.

The Lord's ways clearly do not mirror man's ways – Isaiah 55: 9 and 1 Cor. 1: 25.

• His ways are simple and completely omit the need for man's interference whatsoever.

• Man's ways, on the other hand, contain a great deal of man's interference and very little, if any, dependence on our true Head, the Lord Jesus Christ.

• It's a sad day when the body tries to operate independent of direction from its Head, but it's happening more and more these days, I'm afraid.

My family and I constantly hunger for fellowship with other believers who are of a like mind.

• So many dear souls go as far as conversion and their spiritual growth ends there. There is no ongoing affection for Christ and no desire to learn the deeper things of Christ. How sad this is.

• For this reason, we do not hesitate to travel great distances to meet with others whose manner of conversation is centered around our Lord Jesus Christ.

• In May of this year, my family and I travelled to Toronto, Canada to finally meet and spend time with Gordon and Betty Rainbow and a small company of believers who gather with them in their home there.

• Last month, we drove to a small little village in eastern Illinois to meet with more brethren there.

• On both occasions, we were deeply blessed while in the presence of the Lord's brethren.

Amongst the brethren, we are as if we've known each other all our lives.

• There is never a need to get to know one another as we already "speak the same language" in Christ! What a joy this was for us to discover.

• Indeed, the Lord's body needs one another! While the rest of the world rejects us, we are to build up and edify one another especially in these last days as we wait for our Lord's appearing in the clouds to call us home.

• Sadly, this does not happen often enough in religious christendom.

• The brethren share a common bond – the Lord Jesus Christ – and this alone is our source of great love for one another.

• Never before have I experienced such a love as this.

Since my conversion, I am always eager to open my doors to all and any who wish to enter for fellowship in Christ.

• While we greatly desire to have other brethren with us each Lord's Day to worship our Lord in spirit and in truth, we remain alone at this time until
  • the Lord sees fit to lead us to other brethren in our locality who are of a like mind – Amos 3: 3.

• Indeed, this can be a lonely walk at times, but the Lord is good and has blessed us with much light even in our weak state of things.

• Perhaps you are finding in your own experience that separation from that which is false can result in a very isolated position for you.

• If so, I can identify with the pain and confusion this must be causing you.

A year ago, the Lord convicted my family and me to separate from a small company of believers whom we had been in fellowship with for four years and loved dearly.

• While this small gathering of believers claimed to be meeting in accordance with New Testament principles, the Lord began showing us where these believers were mixing man's ways with the Lord's ways more often than not.

• In order to maintain a clear conscience, we were forced to depart from this group when they refused to acknowledge the wrong doings that were taking place.

• This was a tremendous trial for us as we were pretty much faced with the decision of having to choose between maintaining our obedience to Christ or maintaining fellowship with believers who we were clearly able to see were going astray.

• We chose obedience to Christ and He has blessed us for this, but we will always miss the fellowship we once shared with these dear brothers and sisters in Christ.

When I first learned of the brethren, I was amazed at the tremendous amount of light these mighty men of God shared. Never before had I heard such teaching in any setting!

• The more I read and studied, the more I grew spiritually.

• There came a point in time, however, when I began studying the history of the brethren and I became so disenchanted with what I was reading.

• How could believers with so much light go so wrong in their relationships with one another?

• After much prayer and study on this matter, I have arrived at this explanation.
  • The brethren are really no different that any other believers in christendom in one aspect … they still have their flesh!

• There's no question that the Lord's ways remain trustworthy and true to this day. It's when men begin to mix their ways with God's ways that things start to fall apart.

• The Lord's pattern for the church is perfect. If we've failed in the church, it's because we've corrupted His perfect plan for the church – not Him! May we learn from the mistakes of others who have gone before us!

Repeatedly, I kept seeing instances where a brother in Christ would be esteemed by members of the body as being higher than others in the body.

• Before long, what closely mirrored the clergy/laity system resulted.

• One man desired the preeminence and gained it and the Lord's pattern for His brethren begin to decay – see 3 John 9. This is always something to watch out for.

• In other instances, I saw how legalism had crept in and corrupted the body. Another thing to constantly be on the alert for.

In studying the Scriptures, we were able to see that separation from this world and all it's evil ways – even if it's among our very brothers and sisters in Christ – is paramount if spiritual growth is to continue to occur in the individual believer.

• In reading your emails, I sensed that the Lord was leading you to depart from religious iniquity as well.

• Like anybody else, leaving that which was familiar to us was neither comfortable nor easy, but from a spiritual viewpoint, it was the best thing we've ever done!

• Indeed, we can declare as Paul did that we are able to count all loss as gain! – Phil. 3: 7f.

We now know that we don't need human appointed pastors, ministers, preachers, priests, etc., who obtained their credentials to preach the name of the Lord Jesus Christ from a man-made school of religion.

• Instead, what we need is total reliance on the Lord through the gentle leading of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth – Luke 12: 12.

• It was only when we made the decision to place our total reliance on our Head instead of depending on members of the body to further our spiritual growth, that true growth really began to occur.

• The Lord tells us in Matthew 11, "Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest". Indeed, we find our rest in Him and Him alone.

• There remains nothing for us in this lost and fallen world that rejected Christ nearly two thousand years ago and continues to reject Him still today.

• We must look outside this world for answers to our spiritual questions …

Peggy Paluga

Page Top

THE  MINISTRY  OF  F.E.R.
This guest article by John D. Vedder replies to my inquiry as to how his interest began and progressed. John, a frequent correspondent and fellow helper, had made several of his scanned files of FER's ministry available. Zip Files were offered to MB guests until KBT produced the FER CDROM.

From: John D. Vedder
jdvedderATpeoplepc.com
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
Sat, 19 Aug 2000

As for how my interest in the ministry of FER began, let me say a few words.

• Since it was over 35 years ago that I acquired his collected ministry, my recollection has faded somewhat regarding details.

• I do recall some visits to the Depot at Cooper Square in NYC during the early 1960s while living in New Jersey and spending some time looking leisurely at the materials available there.

Since FER was regarded with notoriety among the KLC brethren among whom I had grown up –

• though never on the basis of a firsthand perusal of his written ministry but rather on hearsay evidence only –

• I was interested at least to gain a firsthand impression of his ministry when afforded an opportunity.

• This led me to purchase his books along with those of CAC and some additional materials.

I was soon struck by how FER's ministry was not simply a rehash of that of prominent brethren his predecessors, but that it appeared to have an original component as well;

• this is lacking in so many of the secondary and tertiary brethren of a later day –

• one wonders why they bother to write at all since they have nothing new to say, and what they do say of profit has long been available in previous writers!

Since at the time I was especially concerned with "why we are where we are",

• I particularly noticed some of FER's incisive remarks and warnings about egregious ecclesiasticism and Brethrenism,
  • a morass into which various splinter groups of exclusive brethren were slipping ever more deeply;

• this was one positive aspect of his ministry about which I had never before heard a word mentioned.

• Rather than, for example, attempting to disguise outright sectarianism with disingenuous and delusive phraseology such as "circle of fellowship" –
  • a well-known phrase which originated coevally in one splinter group –

• FER was unsparing in pointing out the inconsistency of all such notions with the teaching of Scripture.

• Not only did he point out what was wrong, but he also presented a positive alternative – I found this very helpful.

• Later I learned that GVW had made some related, albeit briefer, remarks in his day.

As I read more of his ministry I was impressed with his emphasis on the present role of the Holy Spirit within us,

• and on a balance between the objective and subjective aspects of the truth, again something about which I had heard very little indeed previously.

I was also impressed with FER's ability to present some other, more familiar, subjects with a much greater degree of clarity and incisiveness than did others.

• In addition, his willingness to consider seemingly familiar subjects from an unfamiliar point of view was often refreshing,

• though obviously this can, and indeed did, generate controversy: he definitely does become iconoclastic and unorthodox at times!

Though I appreciate much of his ministry, I do not agree with all of it by any means.

• But it has long puzzled me how some could fiercely reject all his ministry while accepting that of those who continued in fellowship with him, such as JBS, CHM, CAC, etc.

• But I think I have now said more than enough in response to your query about how my interest began and progressed.

John D. Vedder

Page Top

OPEN  /  CLOSED

To: Beverly Liston
HierraHomeATaol.com
Los Altos, California, USA
Fri, 6 Oct 2000

Dear Beverly,
Welcome to 'My Brethren'. I hope you will return and explore the wealth of good ministry on MB.

I will try to be as frank in my reply as you have been in asking "about the stand of this site about the original split – open/closed", which may be a 'touchstone' for you.

• When I say "my brethren" as in the site title and elsewhere I mean all who are my brethren because they are His brethren – unless the context refers to a particular group.

There is no doubt that 1848 began a great and widening divergence among brethren.

• This and subsequent happenings cannot be merely overlooked but often there has been a hardening of attitude which has led to the breakdown of brotherly love and even to enmity.

• This cannot be right and is not advocated or condoned by 'My Brethren'.

A simple answer that I agree with one side or the other might be 'the truth', but it would not be 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.

• That simple answer is that I believe that the stand taken in 1848 by those commonly known as "exclusive" or "closed" was right.

• The Home Page states that MB is devoted to the history and ministry of those commonly called 'exclusive brethren'.

• Personal: Site Objectives says "My Brethren deals mainly – but not exclusively – with the history and ministry of JND, JBS, FER, CAC, JT".

However, an explanation of my stand in view of subsequent history and the present confusion can be found in:

• Studies: Christian Fellowship Part One: Differences as to Features of the Truth to the end;

• Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State of the Church: Revival and Recovery to the end.

I hope you will take the time to review those two items and look forward to hearing from you as to any questions they might raise.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

 

THE  POWERSCOURT  MEETINGS and Dave MacPherson's writings
Anonymous       Gordon W. Simmonds

To: Anonymous 3
[See Mailbox AB. Name Withdrawn.]
Mon, 16 Oct 2000

Dear —,
I would urge caution as to Dave MacPherson's writings. I have had his first book 'The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin' for many years, and since your letter have reviewed it again.

• While he makes many quotations I believe his conclusions are merely speculative and unjust with the intention to discredit the truth.

• There is a sober and, I believe, accurate analysis of his speculative views on the internet. It is entitled 'Is the Pre-Trib Rapture a Satanic Deception?' and can be found on the Digital Berean site.

As to the Powerscourt meetings, I'm not aware of any cover up for they are referred to quite often in the historical literature concerning the origin of brethren – some of which Dave MacPherson quotes.

• You will find numerous references on MB in the letter of 'J. G. Bellett' and the paper of 'Miss A. M. Stoney' on History: Early Years.

• In addition, in the 'Letters of J.N.D.' in Volume 1, pages 5-7, there is a letter and an account of the 1832 meeting. In case you don't have the 'Letters', I am attaching the pertinent extract [not posted here].

I appreciate your reply, and would be glad to hear from you after you have had opportunity to go over the references given.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Gordon W. Simmonds

• One would not think that Darby colluded with Kelly as they were not walking in the same fellowship after 1881. Kelly's series in 1889-1890 – your page 178 – when he sought to discredit the Irvingites was well after that date.

• I am not a fan of Kelly because for one thing he rather abusively criticised the ministry of F. E. Raven who I believe, without making him a divinely inspired speaker, put out the truth. See my letters earlier this year on the website: www.mybrethren.org.

Finally, a small point: Revelation contains more than one vision and the visions are not necessarily sequential.

• Chapter 12 is a new vision and therefore the quotes on page 151 of your book regarding the end of Revelation three and the twelfth chapter are not necessarily contradictory.

• The beast which does not appear till chapter 13 as arising out of the sea is already active on earth in chapter 10 – see verse 7 – showing that the chapters do not give sequential history. Similarly in Daniel we get non-sequential visions.

There is a question as to whether it is profitable to pursue to great lengths the question as to whether Mr. Darby or the Irvingites initiated the Brethren teaching as to the rapture.

• Any dishonesty as to the matter will no doubt be settled at the judgement seat of Christ.

• The question for us is: 'What do the Scriptures teach about the matter?' and then: 'What are we teaching others?' Is it comforting, encouraging and challenging? See 2 Peter 3: 11 et seq.

Whether we ourselves die before the Lord comes or are amongst the living when He comes the disputes as to when He will come will not matter to us then.

• All that will matter then is that He has come and that we are with Him!

Greetings in Christ, Gordon Simmonds.

Page Top

THE  RAPTURE Regarding a 'post-tribulation' site

To: Bruce Norman
brucenorAThotmail.com
Location Unknown
Tue, 19 Dec 2000

Dear Bruce,
Thanks for visiting 'My Brethren' and for the link, which I have checked.

• I have long been aware of Dave MacPherson's speculations that JND and other brethren derived their views as to the rapture from the Irvingites.

It is amazing the time and energy that those who espouse a post-tribulation rapture – as also those who hold to a pre-tribulation rapture – wastefully expend on promoting their views.

• And it is a shame – whatever view is held – that the rapture should be debated and exploited in the public arena.

• If you have not already seen it, you may be interested, if not surprised, at some of the comments in Doctrine: The Lord's Coming.

For myself, as a result of study of the Scriptures and personal conviction

• I have no doubt that the saints of this dispensation will be removed before the tribulation.

• Whether this view was known or held generally in the first century or subsequently, or how and when – or through whom – it more recently came to light may be interesting but is quite irrelevant to the truth.

• Every lover of Christ ought to know that
  • the Lord's return for the saints before the tribulation is a moral necessity – indeed, a necessity of divine love.

Yours in our Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

AN  ASSESSMENT
Two letters in response to a request for information to help objectively assess an early history as a foster child of brethren

To: Peter Gerald
wr999ATaol.com
Cornwall, UK
Tue, 26 Dec 2000

Dear Peter,
At last, I address your questions. To avoid misunderstandings I would like to state the basis of my remarks.

• Your concern to evaluate your early history "objectively" is right.
  • A dictionary defines 'objective' as "dealing with outward things and not with thoughts or feelings, exhibiting actual facts uncoloured by exhibitor's feelings or opinions", in a word "unbiased".

• I will certainly attempt to be objective, but I think you will agree that is very difficult.

• You may well feel that I am not always objective but I ask you to consider what I say, for I can only speak from my personal knowledge and experience.

You say, "I am attempting to objectively assess some of the power structures and rules the EB's held in that period and what they hold today".

• To do so properly, a knowledge of the history and teaching of early brethren, to measure subsequent teachings and practice against, is indispensable.

• A review of the following pages on ‘My Brethren' should provide that knowledge.
  • History: Early Years – Recollections
  • History: The First 50 Years
  • Biography: J. N. Darby
  • Ministry: J. N. Darby Part One and Part Two.

Some matters which came up in those early years have influenced the teaching and practice of brethren ever since. They are

• the weekly remembrance of the Lord Jesus,
• the rejection of Christ by the world,
• the identification of believers with Him in His death
• the operations of the Spirit in the assembly,
• the displacement of the Spirit by clericalism,
• the heavenly origin and destiny of the assembly,
• the return of the Lord for the saints before the tribulation,
• the public ruin of the church and widespread sectarianism.

Information on more recent developments is available on the following pages on ‘My Brethren'.

• History: Decline and Departure (1953-70)
• Guests: My Stand 1: The Decline of the 1950's
• Guests: My Stand 1: What Went Wrong?.

In every divine movement there have been human decline and failure.

• Sadly in spite of the greater Scriptural knowledge, this has been so among brethren, in varying degrees, from Bethesda in 1848 through to the present day, leading to humbling divisions.

• As in Judges, spiritual leaders raised up by God have been used from time to time to stem, or occasionally to reverse, the tide.

• There has also been the rising up of unspiritual men as Abimelech, Gideon's son, and Absalom, David's son, who have caused much damage.

• Paul warns as to such arising after his departure in his charge to the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20: 29-32.

As stated in History: Hymn Book 1: 1962 Revision,

• "After JTSr's departure to be with Christ in 1953, there was an unprecedented, relentless and extended struggle for preeminence in leadership and teaching.

• The outcome was the undisputed dominance in 1959 of —. The harsh legal line subtly introduced brought great public reproach and incalculable suffering to the saints.

• Conscientious brethren and servants, who protested, were ruthlessly excommunicated by his partisans. Others, to their shame, were deceived by smooth words or capitulated through fear of consequences.

• Many are still in that wicked system, including younger ones who have known nothing else". The line begun in 1959 has been continued by successive leaders.

It is important to differentiate various groups of brethren arising out of separations which have taken place from 1959-1960 onwards, and different positions on some matters. I will use ‘A, B, C' to broadly distinguish them.

• ‘A' gives my understanding of the ‘classical' teaching and practice of brethren. As far as I know this is still held by all groups today unless there are comments under ‘B' and/or ‘C'.

• ‘B' refers to the teaching and practice introduced in the late 1950's and early 1960's through 1970, if different from ‘A'.

• ‘C' refers to the later teaching and practice of those you call "modern day EB's" – the largest group and those now known in the public press as "exclusive brethren" – if different from ‘A' and ‘B'.

Many brethren separated from the main group of "modern day EB's" in the early 1960's, and later in 1970.

• Such brethren, whether continuing in larger or smaller groups, generally refuse all the legal teachings under ‘B' and ‘C'.

Now to respond to your specific questions:

"Can anyone become a member?"

• A: There is no membership of brethren. The only membership recognized is that of the body of Christ. Any baptized believer who is not otherwise disqualified is welcome.
  • Disqualifications include, but aren't necessarily limited to, such fundamental matters as holding false doctrine as to the Trinity and the Person, Manhood and atoning work of Christ; being in an unequal yoke – religious or commercial; lack of practical separation from the world; unsettled moral matters; bankruptcy.

• B, C: Assent to an increasing number of extra-scriptural rules is also required.

"What role do women play in the modern day EB's?"

• A: Women have always had an honoured place among brethren. Many have been noted for their spirituality, and some have excellent hymns in the hymn book.
  • The only restrictions are the well-known Scriptural ones relating to the order in creation and order in the assembly.

  • Their primary roles have always been raising children and ruling the household, and spiritual support in the meetings.

  • Since the early 1950's, women (and children) have attended the care meetings.

  • See: Studies: Christian Fellowship 1: Participation of Women.

• B: At some point women were encouraged to take part in meetings – unscripturally – by giving out hymns.

• C: Reports, which I cannot confirm, state that in recent years women have been demeaned and relegated to a type of servitude.

"Do they still believe in corporal punishment as they used to do and as such practice it by physically thrashing and belting their children as a form of punishment?"

• A: I am not aware of any teaching advocating, or general practice of, corporal punishment as you outline. Children are to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and not provoked to wrath.

• B, C: There have been exceptions. I only know of one instance but, when the matter became known, the father was rebuked publicly and the violent conduct ceased.

"Can black people become members? This is particularly important in multi cultural societies like UK."

• A, B: All believers, black or of other races, not otherwise disqualified, have always been welcome. There may have been individual cases of racial prejudice but this was not the general rule.
  • There were large numbers of black brethren in Barbados, Jamaica and New York, and smaller numbers elsewhere.

  • We have stayed in the homes of black brethren and entertained them in our home, and enjoyed their company. We have also broken bread in an all black meeting in New York.

  • There were a number of black brothers who ministered very acceptably among the brethren in special meetings.

• C: No information.

"What are their views and rules on gays and lesbians as members of the EB's?"

• A, B, C: I am not aware of any specific teaching. If the subject arose, they would go to the Scriptures for guidance, as in all matters.

"What are their rules and views on arranged marriages to keep the bond of being exclusive?"

• A: Marriage to an unbeliever, or to a believer not in fellowship, was always discouraged.
  • Apart from it being an unequal yoke, such a marriage would never be completely happy if the two were not agreed, would confuse children and might even lead to divorce.

  • Existing marriages, before coming into fellowship, were accepted.

• B: One who entered into such a marriage after coming into fellowship would be excommunicated – perhaps even if repentant.

• C: As far as I can determine, arranged marriages did become the rule in the 1970's and some have been disastrous. Our niece, refused an attempted arranged marriage, which would have meant moving to New Zealand, and left the "modern days EB's".

"What are their views on contact with people on the outside: neighbours, other church people, children at school with their children, and other simple matters like talking to outsiders?"

• A: Such contacts have been considered normal and giving opportunity to represent God in His love to the world. They contribute to the spread of the gospel and of principles of gathering.
  • Such contacts were only disapproved if they could lead to spiritual damage, worldliness or religious involvement.

• B, C: Such contacts were strongly discouraged and finally forbidden, becoming grounds for excommunication.

You say, "I move with the winds and clouds of freedom from any particular belief system (as I refer to them) which have been made by man primarily to satisfy man's needs".

• It is right to be free from human religious systems, but Scripture is clear that the early believers "persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers", Acts 2: 47.

• Peter and John, when released, "came to their own company", Acts 4: 23.

• The Hebrews, in danger of slipping way, were exhorted, "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the custom is with some", Heb. 10: 25.

• In view of the "last days" and "difficult times" Paul exhorts, "pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart", 2 Timothy 2: 22.

Certainly we are to have and maintain our individual links with the Lord Jesus, but a believer pursuing a lone course, unless compelled by circumstances, is not envisioned.

• The "winds and clouds" are unfortunate figures in view of Jude 12.

Undoubtedly hypocrisy and arrogance characterized some, and increasingly so.

• But it was not true of all or even of the majority, most of whom were, and many still are, held in bondage

• through fear of excommunication with the threat of loss of family and friends, and of financial difficulties through loss of employment by other brethren.

Certainly the spiritual cruelties practised by the zealots of the legal system do not in any sense represent the Lord Jesus in His love to His own or to those He would draw to Himself.

• They will answer to Him, as we all surely will do, at the judgment seat of Christ.

Peter, I answer your inquiry, of course, from the standpoint of one who is convicted that the movement which commenced around 1828 was indeed a divine movement,

• that the Scriptural truths which have come out through the ministry of many godly servants – excluding, of course, the zealots of the legal system – are of God and therefore demand my acceptance and practice.

I have tried to reply objectively and conscientiously before my God and trust this will be of some value to you in your quest. And I will look forward to hearing of your progress.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

To: Peter Gerald
Thu, 28 Dec 2000

Dear Peter,
Thank you for your kind remarks. I'm glad to have been of some help.

Regarding your further questions, you say, "from my experience from my initial days and in the present time the Exclusive Brethren seem to want to make use of 2 rather harsh words … 'evil' … 'persecute' ".

There are two things to keep in mind as to this:

1. It is my understanding that some – certainly not the majority – among brethren in England were, and perhaps are still, marked by more extremism than elsewhere.
   • How far back this went I am not sure. It was kept in check during the positive and powerful ministry of James Taylor Sr., but began to emerge shortly after his departure in 1953.

2. The Scriptural usage of these words – "evil" and "persecute" – as well as any additional meaning some may attach to them – needs to be investigated.

The word "evil", may be used to describe the works of those who refuse the light of the gospel, John 3: 18-21;

• the workings of our sinful human nature, Rom. 7: 21;

• explicit 'moral' evil which when, and while, unjudged would require exclusion from fellowship, 1 Cor. 5;

• "evil workmen" in the Christian profession, Phil. 3: 2;

• what is Satanic or demonic – and in other ways.

I am not aware of "evil" in any of the above senses being indiscriminately "used by the EB in the context of those outside the EB's are evil" in earlier years and up to JT's departure.

• However, in 1970-71, just before we withdrew, various derogatory terms began to be applied to brethren who had withdrawn from fellowship over the Aberdeen events.

• This may well have been extended to cover other believers but – of this, if it is so – I have no personal knowledge.

The classic and traditional application of "evil" has largely been to

• ecclesiastical "iniquity" and the "vessels … to dishonour" to the Lord in the "great house" of profession, 2 Tim. 2: 19-22. For this use and meaning see Ministry: J. N. Darby - Part Two: Separation from Evil, God's Principle of Unity;

• being "diversely [unequally] yoked with unbelievers", 2 Cor. 6: 14 - 7: 1 and thus being out accord with the holiness of God – see Doctrine: The Unequal Yoke.

• I believe both of these applications are just. However to refer to any believer – I purposely exclude an unbeliever – as evil for no other cause than "he does not follow us" is clearly wrong and sectarian, Mark 9: 38-41.

As to "persecute" you say that "the word is used by the EB's against those who challenge their view, or have a contrary view". I have no knowledge of such a use.

• In the 1800's the early brethren came under attack from the ecclesiastical establishments who felt threatened by this new movement.

• FER, JBS, CAC and JT and the brethren with them were attacked – I use the word advisedly – by other brethren who disagreed with certain of their teachings.
  • This continues right up to the present. See
    My Stand 3: Opposers of 'My Brethren' and
    My Stand 3: Ministry of C. A. Coates
    and the links to other pages on MB.

• Both of the above could possibly be considered as persecution.

But the fact that those you call "modern days EB's" have come under public notice in the media because of the cruel practices of the legal system towards some brethren and because of the Aberdeen events – dishonouring as it is – can hardly be called persecution.

• It was the harassment, persecution and excommunication of innocent brethren that brought them first to the attention of the media. And when the infamous Aberdeen events became known, their leader entered into exchanges with the media.

The fact that I and others have withdrawn from them, challenging their unscriptural practices and wrong teachings cannot be called persecution.

You remark "I … at the age of 18 was called to military service and refused to become an objector".

• It was understandably a difficult position for you, and the brethren.

• The Lord Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, My servants had fought …", John 18: 36.

• As one of His followers I would have to, conscientiously before God, object to taking up arms for the purpose of taking the lives of other men. I came to this conviction before I knew anything about exclusives.

• While it might take place – for Christians of opposite convictions on such a basic matter to partake together of the emblems of the Lord's death would seem to be a moral impossibility.

• See the experience of brethren in Canada during World War II in History: Conscientious Objection to Bearing Arms - 1943.

I trust that I have responded to all your concerns, and will be interested to hear what you finally come to in assessing your early history.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

DIVORCE  AND  REMARRIAGE

To: David Addison
addisonATdmcom.net
Delhi, NY, USA
Thu, 25 Jan 2001

Dear David,
… Regarding the "doctrine of 'no divorce and remarriage'", you inquire

• "Do you have any information as to which brethren group split on this issue, or did it happen more than once, and when?"

• As far as I can determine there has been only one division on this issue among those commonly called "exclusive brethren", at least up to 1936.

"The History of the Brethren" – 1826-1936 – by Napoleon Noel gives details of the 'Tunbridge Wells' group

• which originated in a division in 1909, and had at least three major divisions before 'The Renton Cleavage' – no connection with the 'Aberdeen-Renton' group.

Noel gives details of 'The Renton Cleavage (1930)' in Volume 2: 701-21.

• Briefly, divorce and remarriage, under certain condi-tions, had long been accepted in the TW group.

• A married couple, one of whom had been previously divorced were in fellowship in the Renton (near Seattle) meeting for some time. Some locally and further away objected to this.

• Names connected with the objection are A. Dawkins originally of Bremerton, Washington, Eugene Bauder of Renton and Alex Fleck of Vancouver.

• A division ensued in which a relatively small number of the TW meetings, in North America and elsewhere, supported the anti-remarriage doctine.

I would be interested to hear if the 'anti-remarriage' group still exists and, if so, whether you or your father are still connected with it.

• If not, some details of your own history and connections will be welcome.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

From: David Addison
Thu, 25 Jan 2001

Dear Gordon,
The brethren group (anti-divorce? but definitely anti-remarriage) which I knew as a boy (I am now 60) met in northern Philadelphia PA and in Binghamton NY.

• I believe the Binghamton group was an outgrowth of the Philadelphia group and in particular the evangelistic efforts of Thomas Hughes, who was a full time evangelist and one of the leaders in the Philadelphia group.

• Both groups have discontinued meeting but there are still a few individuals from each group who maintain their original position and who are in contact with each other.

• A brother and his wife from the Binghamton group visit me maybe once a year on an informal basis. Another brother and his wife from the Philadelphia group are in a similar situation. The Binghamton group stopped meeting probably around 1991 or 92.

• My father who was in the Binghamton group, lives now in Florida, maintains his original convictions, but is not associated with any group.

• I grew up in the Binghamton group and it was through them and my family that I came to trust in the Lord as a boy of about 12. I remember reading CHM's Pentateuch when I was 14 and I haven't found much to match it since then!

• I was never officially part of the Binghamton group and when I was about 18 I left the area for a job in New Jersey …

  The balance of David's reply is in the Mailbox.

I hope the above is useful to you in some way.

Regards in Christ, David Addison.

Page Top

PRESENT  DAY  GATHERING

To: David Addison
addisonATdmcom.net
Delhi, NY, USA
Sat, 03 Feb 2001

Dear David,
You have posed an extremely important question as to the "doctrinal basis" on which believers leaving denominations should meet.

• "Should the original brethren movement be declared 'in ruin' and any future meetings be apart from it. Or should each new group try to align with what went before …

• I'm wondering about all those questions that that tore apart the brethren during the past 150 years. I would hope those issues would not have to be revisited, however I'm sure they would come up eventually."

Yes, I have had to give serious consideration to this matter. For a fuller setting out of my thoughts than I can give here, please check MB's

• Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State of the Church – this represents my current judgment as to how we should walk in the present situation,

• Studies: Christian Fellowship: Part One – some of the sections are also pertinent.

From investigation and experience, there is no doubt in my mind that as a testimony and in practice the so-called 'brethren movement' has failed.

• But, as you are aware, there are many groups of various origins extant – some relatively large and others quite small – who maintain their historical connections.
  • Just as there are overcomers in each of the seven assemblies, doubtless there are some faithful souls in all these groups who bear the shame of the failure and long for recovery.

• Possibly the largest of these groups is a reunion of sections of earlier divisions – recently re-divided.

• Others are the continuation of the main segments of earlier divisions. Some are mere fragments.

• There are also some scattered small companies that have no formal connection with others.

Most sincerely believe that they alone are in the right position and that all others have, in various measures, departed from the truth.

• Others may be humble enough to admit they have made mistakes.

• Some maintain what has been aptly called "the continuity theory", which has two variations:
  1. "We" – whoever that may be – have always been right in every issue and thus are the only valid continuation of the original movement in its purity. Sometimes this is bolstered by the claim that "we" have sole possession of the Lord's table, or some similar pretension.

  2. "We" – whoever that may be – may have made some mistakes, usually minor, but even when wrong we were always right, the Lord has always been with us and we have only acted when He has done so.

• I know many in various groupings, and value them as my brethren, but I cannot with a good conscience identify myself with any of those groups.

At the same time, I cannot deny my own background and experience, or reject the truth as it has been recovered over may years. Therefore I am convinced, as I said in 'Our Responsibility ...', that

• "the latest recovery of the truth, however, clearly remains as the final opening up by the Spirit of the apostolic teaching. It is therefore the light in which we, and all Christians, are to walk".

• This is what I am attempting to set out and draw attention to in the ministry presented on 'My Brethren'.

Therefore I would say that the "doctrinal basis" on which believers leaving denominations should meet is

• the original ground of brethren, i.e. the one body, guarded by 2 Timothy 2: 19-22, separation from evil necessitated by the public ruin of the church.

• To that I would add that all the light which has come out in the ministry of the recovery should be searched out, held and treasured.

In my understanding it would be wrong to join any party formed on narrower or wider grounds.

• This would exclude most if not all of the major and even lesser continuing groups of brethren.

• This does not mean that I advocate isolation or independency, but that expediency and the desire for a wider fellowship should not override principles.

It would be equally wrong to ignore the truth which has been opened up so fully as to

• Christ and the assembly,

• the Lord's Supper and the service of God,

• and the mediatorial economy in which the Divine Persons of the Godhead have been pleased to make Themselves known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Of course it might not be possible or desirable to ignore "all those questions that tore apart the brethren during the past 150 years".

• But to unnecessarily or prematurely occupy believers coming out of the denominations, with no background among those known as brethren, with such matters would likely damage some at least.

• You are certainly right to "hope those issues would not have to be revisited, however I'm sure they would come up eventually".

• It is important that you be clear as to those matters and that you can build up your brethren in the truth in a normal way so that if and when any of them have to be faced they will not be discouraged or disillusioned.

I would like to comment of the possible problems of such a group of believers leaving denominations meeting together.

No matter how "serious" they are if, as you say, you begin "meeting in my house in order to remember the Lord" with believers who want to start a home 'church'

• because "things aren't going too well in their denomination church, they don't like the pastor" etc., their present discontent may continue, and cause the group to fail.

You say, "I am not talking about the basics of the faith, or the principle of gathering to Him alone, or the gifts of the Spirit for ministry".

• I gather that you yourself are quite clear as to these matters. However those who may say "let's start a home 'church' separate from the denominational church" may not be as clear as you are.

• Without knowing exactly where each one stands and without instruction in, or correction as to, these important matters you are extremely likely to have serious problems in short order.

• Some, happily, may be amenable to Scriptural instruction both before and after such a meeting is started.

• Others, however, may have formed strong unscriptural opinions and either be dissatisfied and leave if things do not go their way, or cause dissension leading to others leaving or to the group disbanding.

David, I'm not being merely negative and discouraging. In such matters, which I believe we both agree are serious as relating to the honour of our Lord Jesus, it is essential to be realistic.

• In the early years of brethren, trouble arose – leading to the disastrous open/exclusive division – because of the underlying existence of major differences "about the basics of the faith ... the principle of gathering to Him alone ... the gifts of the Spirit for ministry". Some of these differences took years to come to the surface.

None of the above is meant to discourage going ahead with such a meeting if there is real exercise.

• But caution is needed, and a commitment to continue yourself whatever the outcome.

I apologize for such a long reply, and hope the above will provide some help and support for your own exercises, with which I am very sympathetic. Your comments will be welcome.

Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

HAPPENINGS  OF  1959

To: Chris Dann
chrisandjanineATinternet.co.nz
Woodville, New Zealand
Sun, 04 Feb 2001

Dear Chris,
In reply to your questions:

"Is this web-site primarily about 'exclusive' brethren cf 'open' or Plymouth brethren?"

'My Brethren' deals mainly – but not exclusively – with the history and ministry of those commonly called 'exclusive brethren',

• particularly JND, JBS, FER, CAC, JT and others who were in practical fellowship with them for the years c. 1827 to 1959.

• Inquiries regarding developments after 1959 have led to the inclusion of subsequent history. Some post-1959 ministry had already been included, and this practice will be continued.

• References to other 'exclusive' groups or to 'open' meetings are only included for general information or if they bear directly on the main purpose of MB.

"Where are the details on your site about what happened in 1959 etc?"

'My Brethren' is a growing site – opened in November 1998 – and, as yet, does not cover all historical developments.

• There are, however, a number of documents available dealing with the events of 1959 and following which will be posted as time permits.

• When these are posted you will find a notice on Guests: Site News: New Activity.

Although there is no specific '1959' page yet, there are several others pages where you will find some details:

• History: Decline and Departure (1953-70). See the first article, CLN's paper 'Recent Developments' for the background up to 1959 and developments up to Nov. 1960. The other articles deal with events 1959-70.

• History: Wrong in Principle?. See Jim Soukoreff's article 'What is True Assembly Ground?' which deals with the happenings at the London 1959 meetings and subsequent events in the 1960's.

• Biography: G. R. Cowell (1898-1963). See the sections 'His Foes' and 'His Trials'. GRC was at the centre of the storm in London 1959 and immediately following.
  • At the moment all Ministry: G. R. Cowell is pre-1959 but I hope to add some later ministry.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

THE  DARBY  BIBLE
Chris asks, "Do you have strong views on the use of the 'Darby' version of the bible? Do you have info available on it?"

To: Chris Dann
chrisandjanineATinternet.co.nz
Woodville, New Zealand
Fri, 09 Feb 2001

Dear Chris,
… I have used Mr. Darby's translation as my main Bible for personal study and in meetings for well over 50 years, from the time I was 18 or 19.

• However, I do occasionally refer to other versions, NKJV, NASB, NIV and of course the KJV – and have tried to keep current on translations in general.

• In spite of its now somewhat archaic English, JND's translation commends itself for its accuracy – fairly widely recognized – which both older and later versions sometimes obscure.

• The brethren with whom I meet here, as those with whom I spent most of my early Christian life, use the JND bible in the meetings. If someone quoted another version for clarity no one would be offended.

• You will have to decide for yourself whether or not I "have strong views on the use of the 'Darby' version of the bible?"

MB's Guests: Site News: Links has a link to a site which give the complete text of the Darby bible – as well as other versions – with full search capabilities.

• The print version – see Guest: Site News: Bibles and Books: Kingston Bible Trust for source – contains considerable detail as to the translation itself. I don't have this available in computer text.
  • Note: January 2004: History: Darby Bible 1 now has all the notices in the 1961 edition published by Stow Hill / Kingston Bible Trust.

  • Note: April 2004: History: Darby Bible 2 now has the complete text – apart from notes – of the 1961 New Testament.

I trust this will be of some value to you, and look forward to further contact.

Yours in our Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

OBJECTIVE  AND  SUBJECTIVE
John asks, "Could you also explain 'subjective' and 'objective' school. After being in meetings for a while this is self-explanatory but would like to hear your views".

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

Dear John,
… As to "subjective" and "objective" the problem is that groups or individuals over-emphasize – or only recognize – one side of the truth at the expense of the other.

• The group you were with told you that the ministry of JBS was "too subjective". I have also seen such remarks and that his ministry – and that of FER, CAC and JT – is "mystical".

• If you have read any amount of such ministry it should be clear that "too subjective" really means 'too demanding'.
  • As a young man, a brother tried to get me to read JBS but I gave it up – only for a few years, thank God! – because it was 'too demanding' for me.

• When people speak of it as "mystical" it seems to be an admission that they read the Scriptures superficially and self centredly and therefore cannot understand it.

"Subjective" usually refers to the Spirit's work in oneself and the resultant exercises, although some wrongly equate it with self occupation.

"Objective" generally refers to what is outside of yourself. It can refer to principles and outward order, the terms of the truth or to the work and present position of Christ or our place in Him.

• There is nothing wrong with this unless we are not affected inwardly as the Spirit strives to bring us into conformity with the truth and the work and position of Christ and our place of blessing in Him.

What is needed is balance in all things. Pushing one side at the expense of the other results in spiritual deformity and despising those who push the opposite view.

• I am convinced that the ministry of JBS – and others referred to – was neither too subjective nor too objective. It was balanced.

There are several helpful reference to "Objective and Subjective" in the ministry of JBS. See volumes 6: 251, 301; 8: 178, 474; 11: 265. Here is one of them:

• "Objective is – everything is done for me, all is pure grace. Subjective is – the Spirit's work in me; you must not separate them.

• "The Spirit effects in me what Christ has done for me. The Spirit makes it all good to me, He sheds the love of God abroad in our hearts.

• "No one will be happy till he is clear of the old man in his own eye as he is clear of him in God's eye. In the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, I am free from the law of sin and death. If you have gone the road you will know it", JBS 8: 474 …

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Your guest entries and messages will show that the continuation of My Brethren is important to you.

Page Top