My Answer: No. 3

From: Phil Gasston
rgasstonATihug.co.nz
Kerikeri, Bay of Islands, Zealand
Fri, 27 Apr 2001

To: Murray Linton
Dear brother,
I was encouraged and very interested to read your remarks regarding bible readings and to note your request for comments on this subject.

We live in the very north of the North Island of New Zealand, relatively remote from the general "brethren" groups of the world.

• There has been much sorrow in this part of the world, largely due to there having been large exclusive brethren numbers which grew out of the colonial connection with Britain in the middle of the 1800's and the relative ease with which brethren were able to travel to NZ in those days.

• Some good men made the journey and with the evangelical gifting that they had the movement grew.

• Our distance from the source of most of the troubles meant that we were affected only by the later exclusive troubles rather than having divisions and break-offs all the way through the early 1900's.

I was connected, after becoming converted, with a small group of brethren who had largely come out of the exclusives and there were mostly a maximum of 10 to 15 believers in any of the meetings.

• One of the things that I enjoyed the most was the bible readings.

• No minister or priest, just a general inquiry into a particular chapter of the Word of God in which any brother could contribute of inquire.

• What I didn't appreciate was that very few groups of believers had such meetings thus the truth was not worked out, wrestled with, tossed about, chewed over, in the way I was used to in the bible readings.

• In fact most believers didn't have like occasions because they always ended up as one man's opinion or a platform from which to promote one's ideas.

Then we moved away from the meeting, settling in the north. This is when we really started to miss the bible readings as did our children (aged up to twelve).

• We met a lovely Christian couple with whom we began to meet to discuss the scriptures with a special focus on increasing our appreciation of the risen Jesus.

• This has now turned into a movement of the Holy Spirit in the town and we often have 15 to 20 along who are keen to know more of Christ
  • and who often remark that they have never known anything in their Christian lives like our Tuesday night bible reading.

Here are some basic principles that must govern us in our coming together around Gods Word.

1. A spirit of inquiry must govern us … "if we think we know anything, we know nothing …". Too often we come together with preconcieved ideas about what we should speak about and this always comes to nought.

2. An understanding of the Head, from whom flows all the wisdom of God to us as gathered, so as to subject us to Himself as we are together, for Christ will be in our midst "… where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them …".

3. An understanding of the presence of the Holy Spirit. This is what illuminates our understandings as together. That a person of the Godhead is present with us ought to set our spirits free for God to work. This would:

4. cause us to be subject to Him and to one another. It is wonderful to see God working through a brother in the reading who appreciates the principle of being available to allow Him to work. Sometimes the simplest question opens the way for the subject matter of the whole reading.

5. Christ has to be the desire of the heart. A thirst for Him. A desire to know more of Him in a living way. Too often we get caught up with what one brother here calls the "Hyerpercotles and Diacoletins" of the scriptures!
   • We concern ourselves with majoring on the historical details, and whilst these are important we sometimes tend to leave the Lord Jesus out and exchange Him, so to speak, with the mind of the flesh, which is sin and death. "…Christ in all the scriptures …"

We also have a bible reading on the Lord's Day. What a blessing this is.

• After the Lord's supper impressions of Himself, fresh from the service of God come out through His people and we are refreshed in Him.

The apostle Paul's instruction regarding when we come together needs to be the base line of our gatherings.

• Temple light comes by way of temple inquiry and the appreciation that things are worked out in the light of the whole Church of God.

• If we but realized that the confession of Christ as the Son of the living God, is the foundation upon which the Lord has been building His assembly and that we are able to gather together in the light of this amazing fact,
  • wouldn't it raise the whole level of the bible reading in spiritual importance in our affections.

I trust these scattered thoughts make some sense.

Yours in Jesus, Phil Gasston.

Page Top   Article Top

BREAKING  OF  BREAD
Murray Linton, Fri, 18 May, 2001 asks whether the breaking of bread should be near the beginning or toward the end of the meeting.

Tue, 29 May 2001

Dear Murray,
Your question as to the timing of the actual breaking bread, whether "near the beginning of the meeting" or "toward the end of the meeting" is an important one.

• You are correct as to general practice. Most 'open' and 'exclusive' meetings have the breaking of bread at or near the end of the meeting.

• I have looked at this a little in Studies: The Lord's Supper and the Service of God. In particular see the sections on 'Paul's Ministry' and 'The Assembly – The Introduction' which, to avoid repetition, I suggest you review.

Paul says, "For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the Lord's death, until he come", 1 Corinthians 11: 26.

• It may seem unnecessary to emphasize "the Lord's death" but it is the key to the whole matter. "For in that he has died, he has died to sin once for all; but in that he lives, he lives to God", Romans 6: 10.

• The bread and cup – the body and blood separate – represent a dead Christ and, as JND well said, 'There is no such Christ now'.

• The 'remembrance' [or, memorial] is surely not only that He died – as the world remembers or memorializes their dead heroes – but as "the living One", Luke 24: 5, who "lives to God".

• In the assembly He sings God's praises – Heb 2: 12 – He appears before the face of God for us – Heb. 9: 24.

If we build up to the Supper and end with His death we ignore His present position and are like the disciples who "entered into the tomb" and then "went away again to their own home", John 20: 8-10.

If we understand that His death is the moral end of this world before God, then we must go on to His resurrection and ascension.

• Thus the Lord's Supper is not where we end – i.e. with His death and perhaps some acknowledgement that He has risen – but where we begin with Him as He is now.

• His precious life and His sufferings and death will never be forgotten. But all that He has accomplished for God will surely be the basis not only of the world to come but of eternity itself.

While we marvel at His holy life and His sufferings, we have no link with Him except as He is out of death.

• "Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit", John 12: 24.

• All our relations with Him – as His brethren, His bride, and with Him in sonship before the Father – flow out of His death and His resurrection and ascension.

• Our access through Him by one Spirit to the Father – Eph. 2: 18 – results from His death.

When I first came among the brethren I was convinced of the rightness of breaking bread early before I had any idea of the Scriptural basis.

• What I was introduced to at that time was the result of the ministry and experience of some 60 years or so. It can be appreciated quickly in simplicity of heart.

• However, I am very doubtful that those who have been accustomed to break bread near the end will easily appreciate or understand it by merely comparing one practice with the other.

• This is especially so as many are used to demanding 'chapter and verse', although they could hardly supply that for breaking bread near the end.

If we accept the OT order as an analogy, the altar – representing the Lord's death – is the first step in approach to God, not the last.

Peter spoke of "the sufferings which [belonged] to Christ, and the glories after these", 1 Peter 1: 11, compare Luke 24: 26.

• This indicates that occupation with Him and His sufferings in the Supper would be followed by occupation with Him in His many and varied glories.

In regard to the service – worship – of God flowing out from the Supper, check the relevant portions of letters of Feb. 27, Mar. 8, 27, 1999 in the Mailbox for Esli Forrest.

The foregoing is not necessarily all to which reference could be made. It is simply what has come to mind and I trust it will, in measure at least, answer your questions and be of some help. Your comments would be of interest.

Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

CHURCH  A  PERSECUTOR
John Vedder draws attention to FER's prophetic comments and wonders how such a state came about.

From: John Vedder
Sat, 26 May 2001

Dear Gordon,
… Speaking of FER, I recently found a quote of his which I thought was striking in view of events decades after his death. Perhaps you are already familiar with it; if not, it is:

• F.E.R. No; and therefore what you may expect is this, that there is no single Christian body that, sooner or later, may not turn persecutor, only let the conditions be open for it. I would not trust a dissenting body any more than the church, and I would not trust the church more than popery. (5: 353)

• In view of events subsequent to 1959 as detailed on your site and elsewhere, FER's observation is trenchant indeed.

• One might well asked why conditions were open for it, and who had prepared the way?

• As to "why conditions were open for it, and who had prepared the way" I have often pondered this.

• The only conclusion I can come to is a low state generally – JND and CHM spoke of a low state in their days, as JT also did – much as repeated itself in the Judges.

• There are remarks on this in History: Decline and Departure and Guests: My Stand 1: What went wrong? and Decline of 1950's.

Some have attempted to blame JTSr, but this seems unfair, unreasonable, and an evasion of our own responsibility.

• It would then be acceptable to blame Paul for the public ruin of the church.

• One man however influential cannot ensure a spiritual state among the brethren and, in JT's day, there were many more than himself who served prominently.

• There is no doubt that because of JT's long period of service – just as with JND's – brethren became complacent and wrongly looked on him as a universal leader and expected a replacement.

• Gideon refused the rule for him and his sons, but Abimelech wanted it. So it has been in our days.

• The low state of the people was the root cause in both instances and we have all suffered.

• The assumed saviour from encroaching worldliness became himself a scourge, and zealots flocked to his banner.

• Shame on us all for it led to the persecution of the righteous! And the end has not yet come.

Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

ONE  LEADER
Kyle Yoakum asks whether this teaching of W. Nee and W. Lee could have come from the brethren. Compare: Guests: My Answer 4: One-City-One-Church.

From: Kyle Yoakum
Thu, 24 May 2001

Dear Gordon,
… Perhaps you can help me with an issue. When I was in the Local Church (Witness Lee) group (1975-1989), I often heard that God used one man at a time for His move on earth.

• Lee would refer to OT figures like Abraham, David etc., and when it came to Acts pointed out how Peter gave way to Paul, etc.

• He shared how when W. Nee was alive he was the man and the mantle was passed on to himself once Nee was taken to be with the Lord.

• He also considered Darby as the unique one at his time.

• And I have seen it happen among brethren with whom I once walked. See History: Decline and Departure.

I hope this answers your question sufficiently. Please don't hesitate to ask if anything seems unclear and, of course, I look forward to hearing from you again.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

From: Kyle Yoakum
Mon, 17 Jul 2006

Dear Gordon and Jeff,
There is a new book published by Paternoster titled "Searching For the True Church" by Roger Shuff. The book is quite vast and covers many topics, mostly around 'Brethren', both 'open' and 'exclusive', in the 20th century. It's a very interesting read.

One thing Shuff says at the end of the book is there needs to be more scholarly investigation into how

• "Watchman Nee, as an intermediary through whom aspects of the thinking on connexial Brethren's James Taylor, Sr., may have been transmitted to Restorationism. The affinity between Nee's spirituality and that of Brethren has been recognized. (See Walker–Restoring the Kingdom, p. 235; David Lillie–Beyond Charism, pp. 49-50.)

  "Further research into similarities between the teaching of Nee and Taylor on spiritual authority may find it of significance that immediately following the conference in Birmingham in 1933, at which Taylor emphasised the 'apostolic' nature of the authority of spiritual leaders, Taylor and Nee spent several days together in each others' company crossing the Atlantic by steamer. (see Taylor–Letters)

  "Walker in turn suggests that the reemergence of a comparable view of authority within the Restorationsist wing of charismatic renewal in the 1970's owes a debt , in part at least, to acknowledgeed influence of Nee's writings upon Restorationsit leaders.

  "In 1933 Taylor, Sr. gave a conference dedicated to the subject of apostolic authority. In the decade following WWII, Taylor began to be regarded as the 'Embodiment of THE authority' and 'THE voice of the Spirit'. F.B. Hole of Glanton Brethren claimed that the Taylor stream of Brethren had "adopted the idea that God always has one particular man for the moment, to whose utterances peculiar value must be attributed ... and so the process developed and enlarged until the teacher for the moment became invested with almost papal authority by his admirers."

In 1948 Watchman Nee spoke much about spiritual authority and deputy authority, mostly using Old Testament references. I don't think Nee practiced such, though. He warned against hero worship, etc.<>

• However, Witness Lee did teach and practice that God used one man at a time for His move. Lee became God's man, deputy authority, The oracle of God, etc.

• My question is what influenced Witness Lee's understanding about such things?

God bless, Kyle Yoakum.

To: Kyle Yoakum
Tue, 1 Aug 2006

Dear Kyle,
Nice to hear from you again.

It's difficult to guess why W. Lee would have arrived at his hypothesis. As you may know, we disagree with the idea of 'one man' – besides the One Man, Jesus Christ! – and succesional leadership. The Scripture does not support it – nor do I think James Taylor, Sr. taught such.

• In fact, at the mentioned 1933 Birmingham meeting [See Ministry: James Taylor – Authority in Doctrine and Fellowship] he stated clearly,
  • "It is not intended to suggest that we have any such authority vested in any man now, but to show that there is authority".

• Whether he was regarded as the embodiment of the authority by unintelligent brethren I cannot say – if so, they were wrong to believe so, and I'm sure Mr. Taylor would have had none of that had he known.

I suppose it is possible that Mr. Lee passed along information he had misunderstood and developed on his own.

• But the real question is, if Nee or Lee subscribed to what JTSr supposedly taught – and I'm not saying he did – why didn't they follow or refer to him?

We're not sure what to make of the steamer trip,

• in light of the subsequent disagreement between Nee and Taylor, it seems irrelevant.

• It is very clear that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Nee did not agree with each other on some very fundamental points following Nee's visit. So, I am unsure of the affinity between "Nee's spirituality and that of the Brethren."

Yours in the Lord Jesus, Jeff Kuns.

Page Top   Article Top

THE  PRESSURE  OF  MODERN  LIFE
Joshua Cade, Fri, 27 Jul, 2001 looks for a way of escape from the materialistic slavery and rat race of modern life and is interested in strict codes of conduct and self-discipline. His reply is a commitment to face matters with God's help.

To: Joshua Cade
Wed, 1 Aug 2001

Dear Joshua,
… The pressure of "modern life" though different in detail from earlier times is basically the same as in other ages.

• We live in a hostile environment, the world that rejected and still rejects Christ.

• The world is dominated by the god of this world. His tactics change from time to time using commerce, education, politics, prosperity or poverty, entertainment and other devices, especially religion,
  • to enslave men alienated from God,

  • and to depress, distract and divert Christians whose commitment to Christ is waning,

  • or who only accepted the benefits of a Saviour but never practically acknowledged His lordship in their lives.

Page Top   Article Top

THE  BREAKING  OF  BREAD May an unbeliever attend the meeting?

Percy Struthers, Sun, 30 Jul, 2001 writes, "I am interested in your opinion as to whether it is permissible to have an unbeliever attend the breaking of bread meeting, that is to be in the same room as believers. I am not talking about partaking of the emblems, but to attend the meeting at all. I look forward to your comments and if you could tell me also the Plymouth Brethren stance on this question I would be much obliged".

To: Percy Struthers
Wed, 1 Aug 2001

Dear Percy,
… This reply has become somewhat lengthy because of various ramifications and I ask your patience.

• Also, as my answer will be posted on 'My Brethren' and some guests will probably approach it from a different point of view than you or I,

• it will be useful to define "unbeliever" which in the present time may be used and understood in various ways, as one or all of the following.

My own view is expressed in the following extract from Studies: The Lord's Supper and the Service of God – which I recommend you read:

• The Lord instituted the Supper in seclusion with His own. John 13: 21-30; Luke 22: 15, 28.

• Under Paul's ministry it remained a private occasion, as it had earlier under the twelve.
  • Acts 2: 42-47; 5: 11-14; 20: 7-12; 1 Corinthians 10: 14-22; 'in assembly', 11: 17-34.

• The subsequent anomaly of uncommitted persons or unbelievers being present is without any precedent or apostolic sanction.

• 1 Corinthians 14: 22-25 refers to "the whole assembly come together in one place", a different occasion to which outsiders might come in.

I believe the above sets out the normal Scriptural position, but without noting other considerations such as the rightness of the presence of dependent children with their parents.

Some persons brought up in Christian households – whether true believers or not –

• may want to continue to attend much as others 'go to church', without any exercise or commitment being mere spectators.

• Others person may want to come – and go – out of mere curiosity.

• If the true character of the Lord's Supper were under-stood neither of these situations would be condoned.

Believers who have given evidence of genuine exercise as to the ruin of the church publicly and of a desire to follow a path pleasing God might be welcomed to attend

• in the expectation that in a reasonable time it would lead to their commitment to the Lord in the breaking of bread.

Because of the breakdown we few here in Toronto have no formal ties with others elsewhere at this time.

• We welcome brethren from other cities – who have no links here – and who are of the same background and who value the Lord's Supper to attend, even though we do not break bread together.

There are doubtless points that have not been covered, but I trust this will be sufficient to answer your inquiry.

• I hope to hear from you, not knowing what your own position is on the question or your current connections.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

From: Percy Struthers
Wed, 8 Aug 2001

Dear Gordon,
Thank you for your answer. It is in line with my own beliefs and practices ….

Yours in Christ, Percy Struthers.

Page Top   Article Top

FINDING  A  SUITABLE  FELLOWSHIP One Brothers' Dilemma
In the Guest Book for Thu, 16 Aug, 2001, Cecil Weston states his problems in finding a fellowship suitable to the Lord.

To: Cecil Weston
watcherdrew44ATaol.com
Capitol Heights, Maryland, USA
Tue, 21 Aug 2001

Dear Cecil,
Welcome to 'My Brethren'. I sympathize with you in your experience with 'open' meetings and your desire to find "a fellowship suitable to Himself".

• You seem to indicate that you might find such in "one of the 'separated' meetings" whatever you may mean by that term.

• If you refer to the so-called 'tight-open' meetings you may be interested in my comments in My Answer 1: Who May Break Bread? An inquiry as to the 'Assemblies'.

• However you seem to be referring to those meetings commonly called 'exclusive'. There may not be any in your area and, in any case, the matter is complicated by divisions and the resulting differences in doctrines and standards.

I cannot and do not speak for all – or perhaps for any – 'exclusives'.

• There is no doubt that generally their position is more scriptural than that of 'opens', but I am convinced that

• the majority of present day exclusives have departed, in varying degrees, from their original principles and have become sectarian.

That being said, most, if not all, exclusive meetings would be unlikely to consider a desire to break bread with them as genuine if the person insisted on continuing breaking bread in an 'open' meeting without any previous period of separation.

• Until they had opportunity to get to know the person they would be most unlikely to accept the person simply on his own testimony.
  • The reasons for this are both historical and practical.

• Historically, to 'exclusives' the 'open' approach was based on – what exclusives judged to be – an indifference to the honour of the Lord and an independence of others, which has not changed over the years.

• Practically, it would be important to them to be assured that the person desiring to break bread had a judgment as to the 'open' situation – or the denominations if applicable – and a conviction of the scriptural basis of their own manner of gathering and a commitment to continue with them, as well as being personally without charge.

• From what you say – especially your remark as to "their golden scepter" – it seems that you would consider such an approach totally unacceptable and "the price" too high.

At the same time, if one were thinking of such a move it would seem unwise to do so without being fully acquainted with the origin and history – as well as being assured of the scripturalness of the principles and practices – of those with whom he was considering walking. This would surely take time.

To my knowledge, there is no Scriptural basis for your belief "that until a proper meeting can be found, one should break bread with the closest to the truth one can find, barring any gathering which denies any of the fundamentals of the faith".

• Paul's directions for the last days – in 2 Timothy 2 – do not contemplate or provide for such a situation.

• He calls for individual faithfulness – with the expectation that such will find companions even in difficult times.

• If such cannot be found, then an individual path of faithfulness and separation is surely honouring to the Lord, rather than compromise for the sake of companionship.

• We are never exhorted to look for "a proper meeting" – if such ready made situations actually exist – but to be faithful ourselves.

While I am convinced of the importance of the breaking of bread it is not merely for the individual who partakes.

• It should be done with the Lord as our object, and therefore should not be connected with any practice or situation which dishonours Him.

It seems, Cecil, that you are faced with a dilemma that can only be resolved by a modification of viewpoint – either your own or that of those with whom you may at some time desire to break bread.

• From your statements of your convictions and my knowledge of various meetings, both seem unlikely.

This may seem to be an unsatisfactory reply to your situation but if my understanding of your letter is correct I could not reply otherwise.

I'll be interested to hear how your exercises work out.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

WHAT  IS  MINISTRY?
Jeff Kuns says, "The letter that follows is my response to — as to why I'm a little distant about the Christian bookstore". He adds, "The letter seems to have been well received".

From: Jeff Kuns
jkunsATncws.com
Grass Valley, CA, USA
Wed, 12 Sep 2001

Dear R—— and S——,
In connection with what R—— and I covered regarding 2 Timothy 2: 19-22, my impression is that it’s connected with 2 Corinthians 6: 14-17:

• "Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers; for what participation is there between righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship of light with darkness? and what consent of Christ with Beliar, or what part for a believer along with an unbeliever? and what agreement of God’s temple with idols? for ye are the living God’s temple; according as God has said, I will dwell among them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be to me a people. Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and touch not what is unclean, and I will receive you; and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" quoting Isaiah 52 in the last part of the passage.

• It is interesting that Isaiah 52: 1 says, "Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean".

• So that it is not only the thought of the world or the nations we have, but also those under their influence.

Before I came to that impression there was another part of 2 Timothy 2 that I went through first. Verse 20 says,

• "But in a great house…". I have understood this in connection with the parable of the mustard seed in Luke, the "great tree" the mustard seed never should have become – Christendom in the state we find it today.

• We should not be in the habit of looking at prophecy only in terms of the world and events in and around national Israel.

• As a consequence of this occupation the bearing of scripture on the way the house would eventually become is lost to many. As someone has said,
  • Christians generally understand scripture only in the light of what they see around them.

• But if we are in the last days then the vast majority must be apostate, and we are in no way immune from it except we are saved from it by the Lord – it is only in dependence on the Spirit of the Lord that we might be shown where and to keep us preserved.

Ephesians 4 comes to mind in addressing what is truly given and ought to be useful for the body, but also addressed is what actually proceeds out of the "great house" – and under these broken circumstances would not all of it be labeled ministry?

• In the natural way of thinking, dependence on God is not practical or expedient, so what else would the worldly do but promote their natural ways and natural thoughts?

"And he has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers".

• I see in scripture what He gives, but what do we have? – seminaries to train, committees or elder boards, congregational election, and constitutions and creeds and systematic theology to guide in doctrine.

• Perhaps worse, one institution recognizes very little of what comes out of another institution.

• All of these things are here proved to be an invention after the ways of men and also disprove the spirituality of those assembled – for if a minister is gifted of the Lord, how is it that he’s not received everywhere where there are the spiritual.

• If the spiritual were there, a minister of the Lord certainly would have the same reception at —— —— as he would at the —— church down the street.

• This is not the case and cannot stand the light of the Scripture or the searching of the heart – they all fail somewhere because they are in the wisdom of men.

Nevertheless, the material being put out from these various systems serves to support their continuation and the infighting that results.

• The reason the great majority don’t see the reality is due to the lack of a responsive relationship to their Savior and a sort of autonomous, very American way of understanding spiritual intelligence.

• Dependence is instead on the leaders, clergy, or specialists on some theological topic or another – and the results I see are dullness, apathy about the vessel of testimony, and distance with the Lord Jesus.

• Eventually, the scope of the Scripture is ignored and the particulars elevated so high that we have something resembling the history of the world’s philosophical movements instead of "the pillar and base of truth" which we could not, I hope, conceive as changeable;
  • more Bible worshippers than living stones; more seeking personal enrichment than holding fast the Head in the place where their Lord has been rejected.

It is Christ alone, by the Spirit, who gives gift with a view to our edification and the coming of all to the unity of faith

• and "in order that we may be no longer babes, tossed and carried about by every wind of that [I read: the kind of …] teaching which is in the sleight of men, in unprincipled cunning with a view to systematized error".

• Then it must follow that the pretense of ministry and/or office through any other channel is not just presumption but sin against His office.

I want to be clear on two or three things here.

1. First, separation is not my claim to be the 'only real' church, nor is it a rejection of Christians;
   • it is separating from certain things that Christendom finds itself a party to and this is for the maintenance of testimony.

2. Second, I am not against books as such, or the sale of them. But in the light I don’t care so much about how 'orthodox' the speaker is found to be, but is he holding to a system as well?
   • Does he even perceive the ruin? If he finds his ground in the churches and chapels is it really possible for his teaching not to leaven in some way? I could not promote him.

3. Lastly, I share in the responsibility of the problem in Christendom, I have promoted it before and may be still in some way or another, so I have to walk with that in mind. We must be caring about explaining the whole thing or we may become guilty of it.

Not to intentionally increase the burden, but we haven’t touched on the subject of the sale of ministry for material gain.

• It is highly commendable that there isn’t the desire to make money from the bookstore, but clearly the scope of the problem is larger, furthermore the retailer doesn’t make most of the money.

• There is a principle in the Lord saying, "make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise" – that is my personal conviction on 'Christian books and music' etc.

• Also, by way of personal testimony, I discovered that I missed the preaching and music because it was entertaining; I thought it was an occasion for learning but what I learned went right into my head and stayed there – what you might call a 'heart bypass'.

• I’ve even found myself getting bored because there was nothing new to analyze, this is myself I’m speaking of here, but it may be more common.

• Still, I don’t think I can justify making it entertainment; come to think of it, the effect of so-called spiritual entertainment is probably worse than worldly because of its subtlety.

I really hope I haven’t left more questions than I have answered. Furthermore, I don’t want you to think that my distance is because of ill thoughts toward you. That was not my feeling about it, and never will be.

The thing that is clear is that spiritual intelligence is wanting in us all, particularly over walking separate.

• But there is no question that "if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body will be light" and it’s my hope that all of us might be helped toward the Lord, toward understanding of the mystery, unmoved from the hope of the glad tidings and all to His glory.

In our Lord Jesus, J.L.K.

P.S. Articles attached may be of interest.

Jeff attached the following items: Ministry: J. B. Stoney 2: The Difference between Spiritual Ministry and Carnal Ministry: C. A. Coates 2: Influences - Joshua 23

Page Top   Article Top

HOW  OTHERS  SEE  US
John Weightman wonders about the consistency of MB's position on clericalism and sectarianism.

To: John Weightman
JWeigh6523ATaol.com
Berwick upon Tweed, England
Sat, 29 Sep 2001

Dear John,
Thanks for visiting 'My Brethren'. I'm glad you found MB easy to navigate. No matter how good the content of a site may be, it may well be ignored if there is difficulty in navigation. I hope your first visit will not be your last.

You say, "Two things very much intrigue me about the content of your site and I would be very grateful if you were able to enlighten me".

• Your comments are of special interest because they allow me – and those of similar background – to see how others view us, and afford an opportunity to attempt to clarify some points.

• I'll quote your remarks in order followed by an explanation. In some instances I may quote from articles on MB –some my own– for simplicity. If you have already viewed them, please excuse the repetition.

"Firstly, there is both actual criticism and a general dismissal of what I believe you would call 'denominational churches'."

• What may be called "criticism" and "dismissal" is not intended to be unbrotherly but because of the conviction that the basis of denominations is antiscriptural.

• When "sectarianism" is used it is not in the same sense as in news reports, for example, of the deplorable situation in North Ireland, but as follows:

• Sectarianism Sectarianism is the formation of partisan groups on a wider or narrower basis than the body of Christ. Such groups often identify themselves by various unscriptural names, denying the sufficiency of His Name or arrogate to themselves names which belong to the whole assembly. They gather around the teachings of men, various practices as to baptism and church government, or on the basis of nationality. Sectarianism dishonours the Name of Christ, denies the unity of the one body, separates brethren unscripturally, fosters ecclesiastical snobbery, incites contempt for other believers, and causes the world to mock. From: Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State of the Church.

You say "I would be interested to know if any of the writers are actually familiar with any churches apart from their own".

• This site is far from–and may never be–complete. Almost all of those whose biographies and/or ministry now appear – or may later appear – on MB lived from c.1800-1970.

• While I don't have full personal details on all, I do know that about half of them originally belonged to the denominational churches of their day, in particular the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, Baptist churches.

"Secondly, there is a general strong condemnation of not only 'clericalism' (which has a very specific meaning), but also the whole idea of such things as 'minister' or 'pastors' ".

• Yes, "clericalism" certainly "has a very specific meaning" on MB and is believed to be antiscriptural – as are 'ministers' or 'pastors' in the official ecclesiastical sense, which confuses gift with local service – for the following reasons:

• Clericalism Clericalism is the assumption of a privileged and exclusive position in the leading of worship, the exercise of ministry or administration, by certain persons as distinct from other members of the body of Christ. It is not based on divine choice and spiritual qualifications but on a secular-style education and human approval. Clericalism sets aside the sovereignty of the Spirit in the assembly, the rights of the Lord over His servants, the priesthood of believers, and the functioning both of the gifts and of the body. From: Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State of the Church.

"This is all very well but throughout the site quotations are made from men you appear to describe as 'servants' ('minister' by another name?) mainly only by initial. This suggests they are sufficiently well known to most people that names are unnecessary".

• As one of its main objectives, MB is devoted to featuring the ministry of certain 'servants' and so it is should be expected that their ministry will be quoted extensively on the Ministry and Doctrine pages and elsewhere.

• They are not referred to as 'ministers'– which has generally lost its original meaning – as those unfamiliar with them might easily confuse them with clergymen who are often accorded 'minister' as a title.

• Yes, most of those referred to are well enough known by many guests so that only initials can be used. This also reduces typing. However, names are also used, but would likely still be unfamiliar to those of a different background.

"Indeed, your very opening page starts with a quotation from 'JT' in advance of the use of scripture".

• The quotation from JT – James Taylor, 1870-1953 – is not actually "in advance of the use of scripture". It refers to the scripture at the head of opening page:
  • "My brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it", Luke 8: 21.

• The quotation from JT is intended to clarify the stance of the 'My Brethren' web site.

"There is scarcely a thought put forward without a quotation from one of a very few names. This seems very much to me that you have your own ministers/pastors/clergymen".

• As mentioned one of the objectives of MB is to feature the ministry of certain servants both for general edification and to explain certain doctrines which have come under attack.

• While we deplore 'clericalism' – as defined above – we gladly recognise the sovereignty of the ascended Christ in giving gifts for the edification of the assembly
  • and the sovereignty and power of the Spirit in the direction and service of those gifts.

• Those mentioned served their brethren both locally and further afield without official status. Indeed there are none who could give them official status.

• Several had at one time been official clergymen but – out of conviction from the Scriptures – gave up such positions.

• The judgment of the 'notion of a clergyman' being in opposition to the recognition of the place of the Holy Spirit in the assembly has been set out by one who was himself once a clergyman in the Church of Ireland. See Ministry: J. N. Darby 2.

This has become rather longer that I would have liked but I hope it will help MB and its contents to be more intelligible to you, especially in any further exploration. Your comments will be welcome.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

SIR  ROBERT  ANDERSON 1841 - 1918
Bob Johnson wants to clear a brother's name.

To: Bob Johnson
robert.johnson.02ATsnet.net
Thomaston, CT, USA
Tue, 23 Oct 2001

Dear Bob, … Your inquiry and concern – which I share –
as to the report of Sir Robert Anderson being a Mason has been posted in the Guest Book.

Hopefully it will attract some informed response. Please let me know of any pertinent replies so that details can be posted on MB.

Membership in the Masons and other secret societies has always been condemned by those brethren commonly known as 'exclusive', based on 2 Corinthians 6: 14 - 7: 1. [See reply of July 10, 2004 to Pascal-Eric Chomel. JLK]

I'm not familiar with the 'open' attitude but suspect it would be the same, and therefore the charge against RA seems incredible.

The Scriptural principles involved are that we are not to receive a false report, and that any accusation – as this surely is on someone who cannot refute it personally – must stand on the word of two or three witnesses.

• From your contact, it does not seem that Mr. Epperson followed this procedure. I do not agree with him that "sometimes in research you have to take peoples' word for information especially historically".

• As said in History: JND: An Unfriendly Appraisal, I believe "A historian's chief responsibility is to present thoroughly researched and authenticated facts, objectively and free from personal bias. On this rests his right to public recognition as a scholar, as well as his personal integrity". Simply to accept one person's word is not good enough.

• If, for any reason, a single report seems to be so substantial that it should be noted, it should be made quite clear that it is unsupported by other witnesses and an explanation given as to why it appears substantial.

• This type of report should be used sparingly and with the greatest caution. If it tends to blacken an otherwise good reputation – as the charge against RA does – it should not be used at all.

On another matter, I am only familiar with RA, and his extensive ministry, by report but understand that he received his KCB on his retirement and in recognition of his services in Scotland Yard ['Chief Men among the Brethren': 192].

• It is surprising that anyone following in the train of those of whom Paul could say "we are become the offscouring of the world, the refuse of all" – 1 Cor. 4: 13 – and who "pursue, looking towards the goal, for the prize of the calling of God in Christ Jesus" – Phil. 3:  14 – would accept worldly honours.

• Mr. F. E. Raven (1837-1903) – a contemporary – whose ministry appears on MB, was in a similar situation to RA. His conduct was in keeping with the Scriptures quoted.
  • FER served as Secretary of the Royal Naval College for 25 years. On his retirement he was offered, but refused, a knighthood for services rendered to the British Admiralty.

Yours in our Lord, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

HOW  TO  BE  SAVED
Patty Bjork asks, "Please tell me how exactly to be saved. Do you have to pray the 'sinner's prayer', or just believe??"

To: Patty Bjork
chambyltAThotmail.com
New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Thu, 28 Mar 2002

Dear Patty,
Welcome to 'My Brethren' and thank you for your question as to "how exactly to be saved".

• I have asked my associate Jeff Kuns to reply. We will be praying that his answer below will be of real help to you. If anything doesn't seem clear, please feel free to ask about it.

• We are concerned for your eternal and spiritual welfare, and look forward to hearing from you again.

In the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

The following is Jeff's reply to Patty.

Dear Patty,
There is no reason to believe that repeating a 'sinner's prayer' – as you would repeat a 'pledge of allegiance' or a national anthem – will save you.

• It is putting one's trust into a prayer not into Jesus Himself; it is not believing that He was raised, it is merely praying that you believe He was raised, and if you do not believe that He was raised then the prayer is rather a lie, and that to God.

• I would not like to have put my belief into myself, what I myself have done to satisfy God.

• I object to it because it is a mockery of the power of God which shines out in the person and the work the Lord Jesus.

• The security it provides is only that of a soothed conscience that God will, no must, be satisfied with your 'prayer' – this is not right at all. So I would consider it very important to understand that.

But with that said – there are many examples in the gospel accounts of men and women who had a need that only God could meet – people who rightly judged their condition and the ability of Jesus to meet that.

• They saw their own sinfulness and that they were prevented from acceptance with God, and therefore, were not free to worship Him.

• They were honest about it and cried out for His help, as it was something that they could in no way accomplish themselves.

• Those who cried out to Jesus are pictures, or examples, for you and me to see that He had compassion on them and could indeed save them.

• One of them said to Him, "If thou wilt thou canst cleanse me".

The apostle Paul wrote "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from among the dead, thou shalt be saved.

• "For with the heart is believed to righteousness; and with the mouth confession made to salvation. For the scripture says, No one believing on him shall be ashamed.

• "For there is no difference of Jew and Greek; for the same Lord of all is rich towards all that call upon him. For every one whosoever, who shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved".

Peter said "Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

• He did not say, 'pray this prayer' but "Repent" – can you see the difference?

• One is active and living in belief – it acts because it believes – one is only profession.

Jesus was asked, "What should we do that we may work the works of God?" And His answer was,

• "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he has sent".

The effect that Jesus had on men and women was such that they immediately followed Him. This is what happens when His sheep hear His voice.

• Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they shall never perish, and no one shall seize them out of my hand.

• "My Father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one can seize out of the hand of my Father".

• They hear Him and then they follow him.

The two gospel messages on 'My Brethren' would be good to study for an answer to this most important of all questions:

• Home Page: Eternity – What is your Plan?

• Home Page: What is a Christian?

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Jeff Kuns.

Page Top   Article Top

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WEB SITES
Edith Bowie asks,"what the difference is between your web site and Dick Wyman's?"

To: Edith Bowie
Wed, 19 Jun 2002

Dear Edith,
I certainly don't want to evade your question. However, my thoughts on the difference between 'My Brethren' (MB) and Dick Wyman's 'Exclusive Brethren Information' (EBI) [discontinued].

• might well be misinterpreted and even be considered by some – I don't mean you – as biased and self-serving.

• It would be far better for you to make your own determination. There are several comparisons you can make to arrive at the difference.

Page Top   Article Top

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