My Stand: No. 3

Page Top

FER  ZIP  FILES  WITHHELD
FER Zip Files: With the agreement of John Vedder Wed, 04 Sep, 2002 – who did the original scanning – the zip files offer is discontinued as KBT now offers an FER CDROM. The Assembly in Four Aspects – a discontinued zip file – has now been added to Doctrine: The Assembly. It is hoped, as time permits, to post some of the other old zip files to Ministry: F. E. Raven.

To: Martin Arhelger,
arhelgerATgmx.de
Fri, 11 Aug 2000

As you should know, "My Brethren deals mainly – but not exclusively – with the history and ministry of JND, JBS, FER, CAC, JT" and "is intended to be a positive help to all my brethren, of whatever persuasion".

• One "important goal of this site is to contact other brethren with a legitimate and sincere interest in the history and the ministry of those" named above.

• In accord with that goal – and for the benefit of those who already appreciate his ministry – several files of the letters and ministry of FER are being offered.

• A blank email from you dated Wed, 9 Aug 2000, and headed "Zip Files" has been received. It does not itemize files, but it is undoubtedly a request for them based on the notice in Site News: Zip Files. [Notice subsequently deleted as offer discontinued.]

Your recent posting on pb-forum and pb-edify would justify ignoring your email.

• However, I feel that brotherly love and faithfulness requires an explanation – particularly to the valued guests of MB to whom this does not apply – of why those files will not be sent to you.

• The fact that you are not a "registered guest" as the offer specifies, and did not sign in as requested, is sufficient reason, but also an over simplification.

• In fact you strongly object to having your name identified with MB in any way.

• Your reasons and my reply of Mon, 29 May 2000 are on My Stand 1: Sonship of Christ 3.

• Earlier correspondence of Mon, 26 Apr 1999 is on My Stand 1: Sonship of Christ 2.

On July 18, 2000, an email from you was posted on both pb-forum and pb-edify. It is one of the items referred to on Opposers of My Brethren on this page. In it you said:

• "I am very thankful to Hilvert to have warned about the web-site of 'My Brethren' and the teachings of men like Raven, Coates and Taylor.

• "The teachings of these men are subversive of the faith and are not confined to some rare pages in their writings as some think.

• "The hideous denial of the Eternal Sonship of Christ is no singular fundamental error in this system and

• "C. A. Coates' books are not free about other doctrinal defects. CAC's exposition of the five books of Moses also contain errors …

• "F. E. Raven taught perverse and unscriptural things about eternal life ..." and CAC "imbibed Raven's mysticism".

Though slightly milder, your remarks are akin to the acrimonious accusations of another opposer on My Stand 1: Sonship of Christ 1.

From the quotation above it is clear that you have some or all of the letters and ministry of FER, CAC and JT.

• You have used them to attack those honoured and honourable servants of the Lord.

• Why then would you want the FER zip files? To say the least, it is inconsistent.

• In view of your antagonism your request cannot be considered as "a legitimate and sincere interest" to which MB is ever ready to respond.

Faithfully in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

"RAILED  AT,  WE  BLESS" 1  Corinthians  2: 14

One of the great pleasures of the work of 'My Brethren' is the correspondence with guests who – though many are from different backgrounds – are sympathetic with, and supportive of, the objectives of MB.

• It is an encouragement to learn of their experiences and exercises in a common desire to please our Lord; and

• it is a privilege to be able to be of help through the contents of MB, telephone contact, or by putting them in contact with others for strengthening of their faith.

But there are also sorrows through such matters as noted in Opposers of 'My Brethren'.

• I would like to take you behind the web pages and share another recent matter with you for prayer –

• for one, and perhaps others too, who have let their minds and spirits be corroded by continual criticism.
  "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who insult you and persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in the heavens", Matt. 5: 44-45.

Early this year I received – by regular mail – a private letter and a booklet by, and from, a person unknown to me. In my acknowledgment of June 13, 2000, I said:

• Your booklet has been on my side table and has been read thoroughly several times.

• I do appreciate and sympathize with you in the sufferings you have experienced in standing against the doctrine of "eternal Sonship", and in the relative isolation in which you and your wife find yourselves. Suffering for Christ will reap its reward.

• I agree with much that you say but there are several matters only alluded to which I do not believe will stand the test of Scripture. You will doubtless be able to identify these yourself. Present pressures do not allow me to go into them at this time.

• One thing that distresses me is what I perceive to be a spirit of bitterness toward various groups of brethren and various servants, because of the rejection you have experienced and because of their attitudes and their teaching.

• I can understand your concern but it does not come through as the Spirit of Christ. I regret to have to say this but brotherly relations must be built on honesty.

Yesterday, August 16, 2000, I received a 12 page reply.

• Although he said earlier that he did not have access to the internet, my correspondent had obtained two items from MB, My Journey and Decline and Departure.

• These items along with my above reply are the basis of a lengthy, detailed, and bitter tirade against
  • me personally – which I can well overlook –
  • 'My Brethren' and some of its contents
  • brethren of various persuasions, with whom MB has no connection except as brethren in Christ
  • many honoured servants and their ministry,

  and is a complete justification of the attitude of one who calls himself "a poor simple-minded believer".

In accordance with MB's Site Standards policy there would nomally be no acknowledgment of, or reply to, this letter.

• However, as my correspondent does not have internet access I am reproducing Site Standards below and, as a courtesy, will mail a copy of this entire page to him.

Messages – and Guest Book entries – will not be posted nor will they be acknowledged if they are disrespectful of Divine Persons, or the brethren or servants – of whatever persuasion – caustic, sarcastic or otherwise offensive, seem to be merely promoting personal prejudices or partisan views rather than an objective view of the Holy Scriptures and the history of the assembly, promote anti-scriptural or anti-christian views.

Page Top

MINISTRY  OF  C.  A. . COATES

To: Bernt Lindberg
berntlindbergATswipnet.se
Storvreta near Uppsala, Sweden
Wed, 13 Sep 2000

Dear Bernt,
You wrote, "I have received a copy of a message originating from www.pbgroup.net criticizing your website for mentioning CAC whose ministry the author considers misleading and blasphemous. I therefore wonder what information about CAC you have distributed".

• Your brotherly inquiry is appreciated. It is refreshing to know that there are still some – and others besides yourself, I hope – who will not accept reports without investigation.

'My Brethren' deals mainly – but not exclusively – with the history and ministry of JND, JBS, FER, CAC, JT and others who were in practical fellowship with them.

• The information on MB regarding CAC is in
  Biography: C. A. Coates,
  Ministry: C. A. Coates,
  Doctrine: The Person of Christ and
  Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ.

• My comments on earlier and recent attacks are in
  My Stand 1: The Sonship of Christ 1-3 and this page
  My Stand 3: Opposers of 'My Brethren' and
  My Stand 3: FER Zip Files Withheld.

The minds of many brethren have been so poisoned as to the ministry of CAC, FER and JT – particularly as to the Person and Sonship of our Lord Jesus – that it seems impossible for them to look at matters objectively.

• Many come to their ministry with preconceived notions and so – predictably – can only find what they think confirms their ideas.

• That some should now send warnings far and wide is not surprising. Such things have been going one for over 100 years.

• Email has only made it easier to spread such false assessments of spiritual ministry.

Believing, as I do, that there is only what is glorifying to the Lord Jesus and edifying to the saints in the the pages referred to above,

• I hope you will take time to examine them and compare them with the Scriptures. I'll be interested to hear your comments.

Thanks for visiting MB and for your candid inquiry. I hope you will visit again.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

USE  OF  THE  INTERNET
Although the following will not be seen by any who – for various reasons – disapprove of the use of the internet. It is posted here simply to put my position on record. Appended is a reply to Anonymous 2.

In earlier years there were objections – some remain as a "test of fellowship" – to many items:

• home ownership, home mortgages, newspapers, telephones, street cars, automobiles, musical instruments in the home, radio, television, aeroplanes.

• In the present some have objections to tape recorders, cellular phones, fax machines, computers and – of course – the internet.

• In many instances the objections were merely because the item was new and different, and were eventually quietly dropped.

• In some instances the objections seemed to have validity because of real or perceived moral or spiritual dangers, and the fear that some – if not all – would be unable to discriminate and resist the evils.

To: Anonymous 2
Wed, 02 May 2001

Dear "John",
… In my judgment, the forbidding of the use of computers and the internet – as well as of other electronic devices – is just another of the legal restrictions imposed since 1959.

• Such restrictions are part of a system of external control which ignores personal responsibility,
  • "not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ", 1 Corinthians 9: 21 –

  • and the exercise of "self-control" which is "the fruit of the Spirit", Galatians 5: 22-23.

Although the Corinthians were marked by looseness Paul does not emphasize rules but subjection to Christ.

• The Galatians were being led into legality and Paul meets this by warning not to be "held again in a yoke of bondage" and emphasizing the need to "walk in the Spirit", Galatians 5:1,16.

The threat of being withdrawn from – 'being as good as dead' and going 'into the world' – and the loss of family and friends, and possible financial hardship,

• is usually terrifying to any who have only known the security of 'the fellowship'. I say this feelingly and from experience.

There are governments and religious groups – large and small – which maintain control through fear.

• They appear strong but are inherently weak fearing the loss of control on which they thrive, and unable to lead others by moral qualities and spiritual authority.

• Their subjects or members submit to a code of regulations – which they may not understand or agree with – not from loyalty or conviction, but through intimidation.

All this puts you in a dilemma. You must either reject computers – for which you see a legitimate and honest use – or be forced to act deceitfully.

• Neither position is right, but the fault lies not with you but with a system that demands unconditional obedience to its ever increasing rules …

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

BITTERNESS  OF  SOUL

In accord with MB's Policies, a recent email – Sun, 11 Feb 2001 – would not be acknowledged, or even noticed, except for the sense of deep need marking it.

• The writer – who uses a pseudonym and is assumed to be a man – directs the message personally.

• However, Privacy of Email states that "Replies by the site correspondent considered to be of interest or value to guests may … be posted on the 'My Brethren' site"
  • and this is in the nature of an 'open reply', and it is also justified by the need of prayer.

• If he sees this, may he realize it is in view of blessing.

He writes rudely and makes numerous reckless, unfair and unsubstantiated charges against Mr. Darby, MB and myself.

• is extremely disrespectful of an honoured servant,
• uses rude and offensive language,
• charges me with condoning the atrocities of the system,
• pronounces a curse on MB,
• describes me as a puffed up egocentric,
• suggests I have Satan's approval,
• dismisses MB's Policies as legalistic,
• calls upon me to repent.

• Insofar as the charges affect MB and me personally – all is freely forgiven.

• Scriptures governing us in such situations are set out in Opposers of MB and "Railed At We Bless" above.

My concern, and I hope yours too who read this, is the state of soul and mind of one who could write thus.

• There are many accounts of suffering from the system, but few so full of anguish, bitterness and deep need.

It is evident that the writer has suffered intensely from that wicked system – perhaps far more than most of us have –

• for he has been deprived of all normal comforts.

• Suffering from the world is normal for the Christian, but suffering – unjustly and unfairly – from those who claim to be brethren is the hardest to bear.

The use of a pseudonym may indicate he does not want his good name connected with the bitter words he has used.

• Apparently he is impelled to lash out at anyone and anything that – in his judgment – has not repudiated that wicked system which caused him such great pain.

• If his pain is assuaged by venting his anger – in what may well be a desperate call for help – on one who would be his friend, it is gladly borne.

• MB's pages bear clear witness to the utter repudiation of that wicked system over thirty years ago.

How far he has searched MB is unknown, but apparently he has found neither comfort in sorrow nor lessening of grief, for himself and other sufferers – which humbles me.

• Despite whatever loss, if a soul is to find comfort it will be found – as have sufferers throughout the ages – in our Lord Jesus, who could say prophetically,
  • "I am overwhelmed: and I looked for sympathy, but found there was none; and for comforters, but I found none", Psalm 69: 20.

  • "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassions, and God of all encouragement; who encourages us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to encourage those who are in any tribulation whatever, through the encouragement with which we ourselves are encouraged of God. Because even as the sufferngs of Christ abound towards us, so through the Christ does our encouragement also abound", 2 Corinthians 1: 3-5.

Let us intercede for this precious and suffering soul that the Father's love, the grace of Christ and the comfort of the Spirit may fill his heart, and heal and restore his soul –

• banishing the soul corroding bitterness, as many of us have experienced

• – and that he might find saints with whom he will enjoy true love, and learn his value as one of the brethren.

Page Top

SONSHIP  AND  INCARNATION
Jonathan Crosby is "a Baptist pastor in Greenville, SC". As to our Lord's Sonship not being 'eternal', he says, "I have believed this doctrinal distinction for twenty years".

To: Jonathan Crosby
scrosbyAThome.com
Greenville, SC, USA
Tue, 6 Mar 2001

Dear Jonathan,
It isn't clear to me – since there is no mention of 'My Brethren' – whether your message addressed to "Dear Seeker of Truth" is a result of your visit,

• or whether it is a general message which you desire to share with others. It seems to be the latter.

There are, however, several items on MB which may have prompted your message:

• Doctrine: The Person of Christ
• Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ
• Guests: My Stand 1: The Sonship of Christ 1-3.

• If you haven't seen them I feel sure that they will be of interest.

It appears that, in the main, we agree that our Lord's Sonship is a result of the incarnation and that the doctrine of 'eternal' Sonship is unscriptural.

• I was already familiar with the similar view of Adam Clarke to whom you refer. Thank you for the references to several others of whom I was not aware.

I share your desire "to avoid any foolish wrangling". But as you have stated your position in some detail,

• I trust that you will not think I am "wrangling" by commenting on some statements which I believe are unclear or unscriptural.

• Several statements overlap and therefore I will not refer to them separately.

The term "the Word", John 1: 1,14, is one by which our Lord had become known among His disciples, Luke 1: 2; 1 John 1: 1-4.

• It is used in John 1 to designate the Person well known to them, not as a name or title of a Divine Person in pre-incarnate Deity.

• There were clearly mediatorial activities before the incarnation, as in creation and relations with men.

• But, as another has said, "The eternal relations subsisting between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are entirely beyond our knowledge".

Psalm 2: 7, Acts 13: 33 and Hebrews 1: 5, do not refer to the resurrection but – in contrast to Acts 13: 34 which does – refer to our Lord being raised up in fulfilment of God's promises to Israel.

• Romans 1: 4 may include the resurrection of our Lord but primarily refers to His power in raising the dead.

• The word is plural, meaning the resurrection 'of dead persons'.

"The incarnation united these two natures" is the ancient doctrine of the uniting of God and man in one person,

• but there is no suggestion in John 1: 14 that becoming flesh "united these two natures".

• The Spirit clearly chose "became flesh", John 1: 14 and "come in flesh", 1 John 4: 2, to guard the Person of Christ. There was no change in His Person.

• As has often been stated, the truth is: In Person He is God, in condition He is Man.

• One of the Divine Persons became flesh, came into the condition of Manhood, and He is His own Spirit.

"God is the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost" assumes eternal relationships, which cannot be known.

• We now know God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

• The test of Christianity is not the confession of the Father and the Word,
  • but of the Father and the Son, 1 John 2: 22-23, of Jesus Christ come in flesh, 1 John 4: 2, and that Jesus is the Son of God, 1 John 4: 15.

I am glad to have heard from you and trust you will review the above thoughts in the brotherly spirit in which they are shared.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

To: Jonathan Crosby
Thu, 15 Mar 2001

Dear Jonathan,
Thanks for your prompt reply. I have been delayed with a long case of the flu.

As you explore 'My Brethren' you will find that it is much more than your first impression of "a collection of private correspondence about important leaders in the Brethren movement from the past".

• The "Ministry" group is particularly important. While it consists mainly of addresses – which are simpler to reproduce for a web site –
  • the substance was largely worked out in bible readings similar to those you refer to in Nehemiah 8: 1-12.

• Many of these readings – going back over 100 years – are still available in printed ministry.

Yes, indeed, I certainly share your desire "desire to know and understand the proper sense of the Scriptures in every verse" and also in its context.

What seems to you to be a "quick dismissal of Psalm 2: 7" as applying to our Lord's resurrection is in fact a considered judgment.

• Our different understandings seem to arise largely from the word "again" in Acts 13: 23.

• You obtain this apparently from the KJV but as far as I can ascertain there is no warrant for "again".

To avoid repetition as to Psalm 2: 7, and it's quotation in Acts 13, I refer you to an article on another web site.

• I believe my friend Stephen Hesterman thoroughly examines and answers the point in question in his article A few remarks on 'The Eternal Sonship'.

I will be glad to hear from you from time to time, and thanks again for writing.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

REJECTION OF CERTAIN 'LEADERS'
Anonymous 2 says, "I do not understand your rejection of JTJr. You do not lead on to JHS or JSH, all Godly men".

To: Anonymous 2
Wed, 02 May 2001

Dear "John",
… My "rejection" of JTJr is not for personal reasons. For years I fully supported him.

• I have been with him in numerous meetings in this area, New York and Bristol, have visited with him in homes of the brethren, exchanged some letters, and spoke on the telephone.

• We were at the special meetings in New York just a week or so before his death on October 14, 1970.

• After my wife and I were wrongly "shut up" in the 1960's a local brother tried to permanently restrict me and appealed for support to Jim when he was in the city.
  • He just looked at me, said, "Who? Him?" and burst out laughing. That settled the matter and if anything more firmly attached me to him.

I remember well when Jim Symington first came east to serve in Ontario.

• He was then a shy and very quiet person. I have been in several meetings with him and visited in the homes of the brethren.

• Also I was in Dorking in 1964 when JTJr returned home early. He had been alluding to JHS as "Big Jim" – the media's own term for JTJr – throughout the meetings and left JHS to lead in the final Lord's Day reading.

• John and Bruce seemed to bewilder JHS. Soon after the notes were published, the trustees asked all the brethren to remove that final reading from the book.

I only met John Hales once or twice briefly when he was passing through.

Later Note: John S. Hales died on January 12, 2002, less than a month after the death of his wife Helen, December 18, 2001.

The above is mentioned to show that I have no reason to reject any of them because of personal relationships.

• What I do reject is the sectarianism and clericalism that developed and continues;
  • the proliferation of rules that have each been made a 'test of fellowship';

  • and the fanciful interpretation of the Scriptures, under their leadership.

• Evidences are the assumption of universal and successional leadership and that "We are the church";
  • promulgation of a succession of unscriptural regulations which, among other things, have unconscionably and cruelly separated husbands and wives, parents and children and caused great hardship to many of the brethren;

  • the introduction of many strange doctrines, e.g. regarding "the abandonment", unscriptural practices, e.g. public participation of women in the meetings, and the putting of the words of the "leader" on the same level as Scripture.

We have been well taught to go by 'facts' and 'principles'.

• The facts as to unscriptural teachings, practices and behaviour, and violation of Scriptural principles from 1959 to Aberdeen in 1970 have been well attested.

• Such witness has been rejected by the leaders who misled the mass of the brethren, myself included.

• See MB's History: Decline and Departure and History: Wrong in Principle? where many of these matters are covered.

• In retrospect, I have no doubt that from around 1959 there had been a general and irrecoverable departure that was ground for individual withdrawal based on 2 Timothy 2 …

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

RECONCILIATION OF BRETHREN
Anonymous 2 says, "I believe in the eventual reconciliation of all those who call themselves Brethren even though some of what I see in other places links with what you call a licence to do as they please". See also My Stand 2: Aberdeen 5: Reconcilation …

To: Anonymous 2
Wed, 02 May 2001

Dear "John",
… Your belief "in the eventual reconciliation of all those who call themselves Brethren" is praiseworthy but idealistic and most unlikely.

• You may only think of those groups – formed since 1959 – known to you of a similar background but the differences are very deep.

• In the widest sense your hope would have to embrace all 'open' and 'exclusive' groups.

• Many of these have been separated for 100-150 years and are committed to opposing practices and doctrines.

• Most are irreconcilably opposed to teachings which I believe we both value including the truth of eternal life, the Person and Sonship of Christ, prayer and worship to the Spirit, the Lord's Supper leading to the service of God, the baptism of households and other matters.

One of these groups, unalterably opposed to reconciliation of groups and only approving individual recovery on its own terms, had a serious division in 1992.

• Others have effected reunions which have not endured.

• The largest reunion of various exclusive groups which began in 1926 continuing through to 1974 has developed serious problems and a widespread division began in 1999.

• In view of this and the continuing development of new rules by some, and the hardening attitude of other exclusives, a general reconciliation is improbable if not impossible. The 'open' situation is almost completely heterogeneous and will undoubtedly remain so …

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

MATTHEW  18: 20 Interpretation and Application
"For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them". A friend asks for "counsel concerning 'being gathered to the Lord's name' in the context of Matthew 18: 20, and where the Lord Jesus places His name by establishing local meetings". See also My Answer 4: Matthew 18: 20

To: [Name Withheld by request]
Fri, 08 Jun 2001

Dear —,
In looking at any scripture – especially one such as Matthew 18: 20 which has been both used and misused –

• it is important to distinguish between the primary interpretation – or meaning – and secondary applications.

• This is a principle followed by the Spirit throughout the Scriptures and is explained in JND's footnote 'c' to Matthew 2: 23:

• " 'That that might be,' ch. 1.22; 'so that that should be,' as here; and 'then was fulfilled,' ver. 17, are never confounded in the quotation of the Old Testament.
  1. The first is the object of the prophecy;

  2. the second, not simply its object, but an event which was within the scope and intention of the prophecy;

  3. the third is merely a case in point, where what happened was an illustration of what was said in the prophecy".

Matthew 18: 20 does not stand alone and should not be considered alone.

• It is a conclusion to verses 15-18 which have to do with discipline

  and to verse 19 which has to do with prayer.

• It is also a statement of fact "there am I", not a promise e.g. 'there will I be'.

• His presence is not automatic. It is conditional on being "gathered together unto my name".

• The "two or three" is a well known number employed in the Old Testament for competent testimony or witness, and for effective support as in Eccl. 4: 12.

• The words "gathered together" imply that those gathered are in agreement, of one mind.

• His name implies – as can be seen throughout the Acts – that He is absent but known as glorified in heaven.
  • We as here, where He is no longer, are to be in accord with His name – with Him as and where He is – and with His interests here.

• Then there can be discipline ratified in heaven and effectual prayer.

• His presence is not continual – as that of the Spirit who remains in the assembly – but only on each occasion as the conditions are met, although it may be repeated.

• That is, I believe, the primary interpretation of Matthew 18: 20.

A secondary application – to be valid – must flow from and be in agreement with the primary interpretation.

Matthew 18: 20 has been a comfort and resource to saints for many years especially in going outside the camp of organized religion,

• and in days of breakdown and weakness when numbers committed to His interests have been severely reduced.

• This is a valid application, although many mistakenly think it is the primary interpretation.

• Nevertheless, the primary condition of being in accord with His name, His interests here, has not changed or been abrogated.

There are however invalid applications:

Some display that verse on the notice board on their meeting rooms, claiming that they are gathered to His name.

• Obviously it cannot apply when persons are not actually gathered.

• In such instances it may be no more than a claim to be undenominational, but many such groups are actually marked by sectarianism in one form or another.

Some would not put it on their notice boards, but nevertheless pretentiously claim that they alone – by reason of their historical position – are gathered to His name,

• as if they had the proprietary rights to His name and His presence.

• In many instances their position is based on violation of Scriptural principles and unrighteous actions, completely out of accord with His name.

Concerning "where the Lord Jesus places His name by establishing local meetings" needs examination. This concept seems to be derived from certain Old Testament Scriptures.

1. Following the instructions to Moses as to the altar of earth, Jehovah said,
   • "In all places where I shall make my name to be remembered, I will come unto thee and bless thee", Exodus 20: 24.

2. In Deuteronomy 12: 5 and elsewhere in that book there are these or similar words,
   • "the place which Jehovah your God will choose out of all your tribes to set his name there", i.e. Jerusalem.

Neither of the above scriptures have any literal application to us. The spiritual application would seem

1. in the first instance to be to the assembly wherever saints are truly gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus and all that implies as in Matthew 18: 20, and

2. in the second instance to the God's sovereign commitment to the whole assembly as distinguished from rival positions and human imitations.

I am not aware, even in apostolic days, of any thought of the Lord Jesus placing His name by establishing local assemblies.

• Such a concept if put forward in the present – nice as it may sound – should be shunned as pretentious and unscriptural.

I appreciate your confidence in asking for my thoughts and trust the above may answer your need at the moment.

• The subject is better spoken of directly. If you wish to go into any details by phone let me know.

Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

In a subsequent telephone conversation I was asked what I thought about 'taking one's place at the Lord's Table'.

I pointed out that this was a common but invalid application of 1 Corinthians 10: 15-22,

• often – but not always – connected with a pretentious claim to exclusive possession of the Lord's Table.

• Normally – and in this day of breakdown, necessarily abstractly – all members of the body of Christ are viewed as publicly identified with the Lord's death.

• The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10: 15-22 is in Studies: The Lord's Supper and the the Service of God: The Supper and the Table – The Distinction.

Page Top

HYPER  ECCLESIASTICISM

Alan Raine asks: 1. "I would appreciate your opinion on the T.W. group which has been referred to as 'hyper ecclesiastical' but which I none-theless seem to be drawn to. However I cannot see how the 'One Body' and ecclesiastical separation can justify the implication that the Spirit is either only present or predominantly present in a very select group. That has been a stumbling block for me to prevent further association with PB assemblies". 2. "What is your understanding of the question of the "eternal sonship" and what is your position?" David Hoag inquires re 'Hyper Ecclesiasticism'. Michael Moore comments on the TW position.

To: Alan Raine
araineAThome.com
Sarasota, Florida, USA
Fri, 25 Jan, 2002

Dear Alan,
Finally I have time to devote to your inquiries. This may seem to be an unduly long reply and I ask your patience as I review matters.

• I'm sure you want, and I desire to give, an objective "opinion" but it must be admitted that our personal experience will have a subjective influence.

• Therefore, to hide nothing, it may help to relate my personal knowledge.

My first contacts with those known as TW was as a rather young believer in the late 1940's, while I was still connected with an 'open' meeting.

• I was seeking for some who walked according to the Scriptures as I had learned them through the writings of JND and CAC, and visited several different types of 'exclusive' meetings in this quest.

I attended local TW meeting several times and at least one of their conferences. In addition I enjoyed the hospitality of some in their homes.

• Individually I found them to be estimable brethren.

• The local meetings however were, in my judgment, quite ponderous and dull. The high point of one reading meeting was when a brother stood up in the course of it and read from JND's 'Synopsis' to settle a doctrinal point!

• The conference was quite large with fair participation in the readings, but the lack of definite and gifted leadership resulted, again in my judgment, in an unsatisfactory assortment of remarks and/or opinions.

• After some weeks, based on this experience, I discontinued attending their meetings.

In the years following I have had occasional contact with some who had left them and some still with them. Again as individuals they were quite estimable.

• A few however seemed intent on poisoning the minds of a young brother – then in Singapore – against us and the ministry of some servants now featured on MB. See Studies: Vital Truths which also bears on your supplementary question.

• Another young brother – in Malaysia, who had been here for his education – had unhappy experiences with them. See Studies: Fellowship, the early part.
  • Neither of these situations proves much generally but they were unhappy, unexpected and confusing experiences for the young men involved.

Recently, a family who made contact with me through MB, and who had been meeting alone as a family, felt a need for wider fellowship and for some months attended a nearby TW meeting.

• I'm not sure whether it was of the 'Perth' or 'Nepean' TW group, arising out of a 1992 division.

• In any case while they enjoyed the company of those brethren, and still maintain some personal contacts, they have ceased attending. This was largely because of the ecclesiastical claims that were being pressed.

• You can see my replies to some of their questions in Guests: My Stand 3: Matthew 18: 20, Interpretation and Application earlier on this page.

As to the TW being "hyper ecclesiastical" – your term – I would have to agree.

• From conversations and reading of some of their literature there seems no doubt that they make very high church claims, especially as to having sole possession of the Lord's Table, at best an unintelligent pretension.

• Compare 'The Supper and the Table – The Distinction' in Studies: The Lord's Supper and the Service of God.

• Along with this there seems to be the somewhat self-serving claim that they have always been right in every division.

See also Doctrine: The Public Ruin of the Church in which JND sets out what brethren I have been associated with, at least, have always held.

• This, plus the ruin of 'brethrenism' through many divisions, exposes the unscripturalness of any and every claim. Pride in position should give way to humiliation for failure, for all.

The "implication that the Spirit is either only present or predominantly present in a very select group" is the result of pure pretension.

• Paul's ministry makes it clear that the Spirit came to, and resides in, the one body as a whole.

• However, it cannot be denied that clericalism and sectarianism quench the Spirit in His normal operations.

• However, in His sovereignty He may well, in some situations, act beyond our expectations.

• It would be better to say that there are situations, both individually and collectively, in which the Spirit may be freer than in others.

• Rather than make claims, we should individually and collectively seek to provide the conditions in which the Spirit can be free, unhindered by the flesh in any of its manifestations.

Historically, the TW group is a part of the earlier group which separated from Mr. F. E. Raven and other brethren, including Mr. C. H. Mackintosh.

• This separation appears to have been motivated by personal feelings against FER and a mistaken belief that his ministry, and that of Mr. J. B. Stoney, was unscriptural.

• A fair assessment of the issues involved is given in G. W. Ware's History: Later Contentions for the Faith: Bexhill and the Attack on Mr. F. E. Raven - 1890 and in History: The Champney Letter & Events in Ealing.

2. "What is your understanding of the question of the "eternal sonship" and what is your position?"

There is no doubt in my mind, as the earlier reference to Studies: Vital Truths indicates, that "eternal sonship" is both

• unscriptural and – in many instances unintentionally – derogatory to the Lord Jesus, and to the declaration of God in the New Testament.

• You will find this matter covered in Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ and the references shown in the 'Introduction' as 'Related Pages'.

• Some in the TW and groups of similar origin – both as to FER's ministry on eternal life as well as, what I believe is, the truth as to our Lord's sonship – continue to make wild and bitter attacks on their brethren who conscientiously differ from the pronouncements of the ancient ecclesiastical creeds.

Now Alan, as you know, whatever your decision and course as to the TW group is your own responsibility.

• I have attempted to openly, fairly and perhaps too fully, answer your inquiry and only ask that you review the references I have given before making any decision. If you need clarification on any point just ask.

• Of course, whatever your decision, as one of my brethren I will be glad to hear from you from time to time and to learn of any decision you make.

• I appreciate your confidence in asking my opinion, and trust that you will have no regrets for doing so.

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top     Article Top

David Hoag

To: David Hoag
BubbaHoagATmsn.com
Holyoke, Massachusetts, USA
Tue, 25 Feb 2003

Dear Brother Gordon,
… I did read the postings you referred me to, and found them to be very interesting, yet somewhat confusing.

• Hyper Ecclesiasticism above
  
• Notable Divisions below

I have never heard of the term "hyper-ecclesiasticism" before, and yet from the definition you gave I clearly recognized it as something I'm very familiar with.

• Certainly, the churches with which I have been associated all my life would not use the term, nor would they specifically or directly teach that they were the only true church
  • – although some did claim direct lineage from the New Testament churches.

• But the implication was always present in both doctrine and attitude.
  • One preacher, responding to the question of what he would be if he wasn't a Baptist, said he'd be ashamed.

• Most gave lip service to the fact that you don't have to be a Baptist to be saved, yet by their preaching, one would question if it were possible to be saved if not a Baptist.

• Even among Baptists the salvation of one was questioned by another on the basis of which association one belonged to, or what seminary they went to, etc.

• Each Church, and each association implicitly claimed for itself the exclusive corner on the market when it came to the Truth of God's Word.

So I think I understand that much of the matter. But what I don't understand is how being exclusive – as opposed to being 'open' – is different.

• Isn't it by implication saying that 'those who disagree with us are wrong'?

• Without question, those outside the Church cannot make any distinction, but quite frankly, I find it rather elusive myself.

• If it is simply a matter of humbly acknowledging mistakes and imperfection, then that much I do understand.

• But to withdraw from fellowship on the basis of minor doctrinal disagreement seems to be counter-productive to maintaining unity in the Body of Christ.

I realize I took the long way to get to the point, and I may not have even presented the question clearly. But I hope you do understand the question and forgive the lengthy letter.

I'm looking forward to your reply as well as further correspondence. Thank you for your work and commitment to the Lord and His Body.

In the Grace of Our Lord, David.

To: David Hoag
Wed, 26 Feb 2003

Dear David,
Thanks for your full reply and for your question as to "hyper ecclesiasticism". Be assured, I won't consider any questions from you as "as quarrelsome or as arrogant challenges".

Your remarks on the views of "the churches with which I have been associated all my life" are enlightening and

• show clearly that, while terminolgy differs, any group may become guilty of similar pretentious claims.

"Hyper ecclesiaticism" – although intelligible – is not a term I would ordinarily use but

• – for mutual understanding – I was responding in the language of the guest who made the inquiry.

• Your question is "how being exclusive – as opposed to being 'open' – is different" from being hyper ecclesiastical.

• For background, see the sections on 'Plymouth, Bethesda, "Open" Fellowship' and 'The Bethesda Circular' in History: Early Contentions

• and 'Plymouth', 'Bethesda', 'Exclusivism a Duty' in History: The First 50 Years.

Hopefully these articles will clarify that the origin of exclusive vs. open had nothing to do with merely saying "those who disagree with us are wrong".

• It had to do with whether those holding – or associating with those who hold – false doctrine as to Christ could be received in fellowship at the Lord's supper.

Sadly, over the years there have been divisions among exclusives – for what one side or the other, would consider substantial cause – and not merely "on the basis of minor doctrinal disagreement".

• This has led some groups to feel that they have always been right and – whether or not this is actually so – led to 'hyper ecclesiasticism' which is certainly not right.

• In my judgment, many of the divisions may have been averted if there had been humility, lack of personal feelings, and willingness to listen to the other side.

• That this has not been so is humbling to some at least, and is certainly no cause for pretension.

A few 'open' meetings maintain a kind of circle of fellowship but the majority are independent, and there are many minor/major differences among them – each having there own standards.

• Most among them know little, if anything, of their history and over the years have become little different from general evangelicalism.

I agree that "to withdraw from fellowship on the basis of minor doctrinal disagreement seems to be counter-productive to maintaining unity in the Body of Christ" but

• the exclusive/open division wasn't over a minor matter.

As to later divisions, most exclusives would likely contend that the reason for them separating from other exclusives was not minor, in their judgment at least.

• Behind it all can be discerned the operations of the enemy, and the workings of the flesh, to divide and to bring dishonour on the name of the Lord and the truth of the one body.

I'm not sure, David, whether this has sufficiently explained the situation, but look forward to hearing from you again. I'll be glad to try to answer anything further on this or other matters.

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top     Article Top

Michael Moore

From: Michael Moore
wikkidpersonAThotmail.com
Almonte, ON, Canada
Tue, 27 May, 2003

Dear Gordon,
I read with great interest your comments as to the Nepean / Perth TW's. I was raised in that group and broke bread with them for 15 years before being put out for poor attendance,

• inwardly questioning their doctrine as to Matthew 18: 20 and writing a parody of their Messages of the Love of God pamphlet – which I felt was ridiculous and inappropriate for use as an outreach tool, though it is commonly used as such around here.

I was attending in Nepean during the events leading up to the division, and then moved to nearby Smiths Falls – 20 minutes from Perth, 40 minutes from Nepean – while the division actually happened.

I note one inaccuracy I wanted to point out in your characterization of these brethren.

You rightly judge their spirit in claiming some special position before God as regards the Lord's Table, but it should be noted that:

1. They do not claim the absence of the Spirit at other tables, but instead claim that Christ is present in a special and superior way at their gatherings, and that,
   • if Christians truly listened to God the Father's Will, they would realize that their gatherings are the only really correct place to gather in His Eyes.

   I do not find either of these claims any less audacious than claiming the Spirit in some special way, you just got which members of the Godhead they traditionally invoke slightly skewed.

2. They do not claim to "own" or "be" the Lord's Table exactly, but instead word it that they are the "only correct representation of it".

   In spirit, this amounts to a fairly similar attitude, but this is their real wording of the position.

How will we all look one another in the eye in Heaven?

Sincerely, Mike Moore.

To: Michael Moore
Fri, 30 May, 2003

Dear Michael,
Welcome to 'My Brethren' and thanks for your remarks regarding the TW position. As a recent 'insider' your comments are both interesting and especially valuable.

• I have had some experience of how 'outsiders' have often misunderstood and misinterpreted both the teaching and practices of those brethren whose history and ministry is featured on MB.

There are 2 points:

1. Re "the implication that the Spirit is either only present or predominantly present in a very select group".

• MB's guest Alan Raine was given that impression by his contacts and it was that implication which I addressed.

• It may be – as is often the case – that his contacts were not as precise in their statements as they might have been and thus gave Alan an inaccurate impression for which he is not responsible.

• In any case I agree, as Alan probably would, that either claim is "audacious".

2. As to the Lord's table you state the TW position as claiming to be – in quotes – the "only correct representation of it".

• Is this from your own experience or is it an actual quote from some document – 'official' or otherwise?

• I agree that "this amounts to a fairly similar attitude" as that of exclusive possession of the Lord's table.

• By the way it seems clear that they do not understand the scriptural view of the Lord's table.

My understanding was partly based on impressions of conversations with close friends who had once been identified with the TW's.

• Of course their association was over 50 years ago, and TW views may have somewhat moderated in that time, or my memory might be faulty.

However, I also based it on an 'outsider' statement. I refer to the well known but somewhat sensational Napoleon Noel's 'The History of the Brethren' published in 1936.

• Noel's assessment and interpretation of brethren featured on MB is extremely biased and unbalanced as it might also be as to the TW position.
  • As a matter on interest I purchased the two volume set in 1948 for a mere C$2.40!

• Page 655 says: "Among the high ecclesiatical claims of Tunbridge Wells; the claim of assembly infallibility and the claim of the exclusive possession of the Lord's table are twin doctrines, and there could not be a semblance of a foundation for the latter without the former".

Thanks again, Michael, for your interest and comments. I hope you will visit MB again and explore some of the fine ministry.

In the Lord, Gordon.

From: Michael Moore
Fri, 30 May, 2003

Dear Gordon,
All of my comments relating to brethren teaching come directly from years and years of conferences, pamphlets, addresses and hearing declarations of belief to newcomers.

• There are no official documents of any sort with the TW, apart from letters putting people out of fellowship. This adds to the difficulty in pinning down doctrinal anomolies and problems.

I have always and only heard TW brethren specifically say things like this:

"Well, the Holy Spirit may choose to work through other christians, but the bible tells us that the Lord has chosen a place 'to put his name there', so we can't simply go to any place we like and expect the Lord himself to be in the midst.

• "The Lord Jesus Christ is not 'in the midst' at tables of men in the same way as He is 'where He has placed His Name', and it is important to remember that we don't 'gather' to the Lord's name, we are gathered. Matthew 18: 20. The Holy Spirit does the gathering, not the intellect of man.

• "We are in a privileged position, being no more spiritual or godly than other christians – far from it! – but we are blessed in having heard the call to where the Lord has placed His Name and we simply obey His directives and recognize His choice.

• "God is not the author of confusion. How could both sides be following His Will in the event of a division?"

You see here that the arguments imply that we are the only group being gathered to the Lord's Table, and that we are in a privileged and superior position to all other Christians, but the wording is carefully chosen to place the boast in God's lips.

• Any TW asked "Does your group claim to be the Lord's Table?" would deny this vehemently. Yet, when TW's speak of people being "at the Lord's Table" or being "put away from the Lord's table" they definately mean their own group and would admit to merely sloppy language in this – not elitist thinking – if asked about it.

• I'd have to say that in their hearts, TW's feel they are in closer obedience to God's will than other Christians, but they are immaculate in not wording things this way.

• The claim to be the only ones directly continuing the breaking of bread as practised by the apostles, and having been on the God-approved side in any and all divisions is believed as well, but not spoken directly in any way that shows that spirit.

• It is felt that, in every division, one side was sadly responsible to put away evil to keep the Lord's Table clean and remove anything that would dishonour His Name, and that brethren history is full of "us" having to do that to groups of other people.
  • We are, of course, always the ones separating from evil, not the ones who "had to be dealt with".

• Perth is especially unique in that the side that was "put away" actually kept charge of the meeting hall, which makes it harder to think of that group as having "left the Lord's gathering center to set up a table of men".

• It all amounts to "God says it, not we, so we aren't boasting. We are a feeble, ungifted lot who simply obey the call to the Lord's table and trust that we are where the Lord would have us to be. Those who gather elsewhere are sadly ignorant of the Divine Ground of Gathering and are ignoring Matthew 18: 20".

I'd like to add that this is specifically the spirit of the area in which I grew up. I know many TW's who are very unhappy with the spirit seen in this area.

• People from America are particularly apt to feel the Nepean assembly to be high-handed and authoritarian, which I believe it is.

• There are other assemblies in North America with very similar attitudes to Nepean and ones that differ considerably.

Having no elders or official authority structure means that assembly decisions are kind of distant and bureaucratic and no one person ever has to take responsibility for anything.

• No minutes are taken, so what is said and decided at any given "brother's meeting" is in doubt shortly afterward and is also very vulnerable to distortion if that assembly has those sorts of people in it.

• The spirit of this area has caused trouble for generations because it leads people to meddle in the business of others and other assemblies, and it is typical of Nepean to demand "evil" be "dealt with" when frame-ups may in fact be happening. This is a local thing.

• It is the insistence by Nepean that all other TW assemblies write to say they are in complete agreement – are "clear" as to the neccessity and appropriateness of Nepean's actions in the division – that leads to suggestions that TW's view the assembly as infallible.

• This is not true. We have that very Canadian attitude that things aren't always – or usually – as they should be, and that assembly decisions are not always correct, but we support the official system and its decisions to the end, hoping that everything will eventually be made manifest.

• The unfortunate fact is that individuals or assemblies who have differed from the Nepean assembly have "gotten into trouble" over it. This is not a TW thing, it is a local thing.

The lack of strong leaders means grevious wolves, false prophets and bad shepherds have a field-day sometimes.

• As with almost all brethren divisions, strife is generally between families or for personal reasons.

• The doctrine is the official reason for many expulsions, but human jealousy, greed, the lust for power and just plain spite have as much room in the local assemblies as in any other human group.

Complicated stuff. You see how much more problematic the spirit of the thing is than the words and stated claims?

• When the words are written down and examined, the spirit can be seen and verses brought to bear, but in casual conversation, much of it slips past, and when you are raised surrounded by such talk, it all sounds extremely normal and humble.

• Now that I have publicly said – in a letter to Nepean – that I no longer strongly hold the opinion that we are the only ones meeting in a God-sanctioned way
  • – having no strong feelings either way on the matter, I said, not knowing why we need to know positively that the Lord isn't in the midst elsewhere in order to meet as we do –

• it is felt that I no longer "see the Lord's Table" and am "unclear on the Divine Ground of Gathering and the Truth of the One Body".

• As such, I am to be avoided, lest my confused views spread. I seldom attend.

• When I do, some dear, well-meaning old lady is sure to ask probingly "There are so many places we could attend. Isn't it nice to know that this morning we were where the Lord wanted us to be?"

• If I were attending in Manhattan or Chicago, this would most likely not happen.

Regards, Mike Moore.

To: Michael Moore
Fri, 30 May, 2003

Dear Michael,
Thanks very much for your prompt acknowledgement and for the illustrations of how the TW claims are – cleverly – phrased.

• I sympathise with you in what you have had to face – and apparently in some sense still do face.

My experience has been different in many ways but the practice of the aberrant 1959 legal sect – from which I withdrew in 1971 – claiming 'We are the church' is just as pretentious.

In the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top     Article Top

A  BRIEF  SUMMARY  OF NOTABLE  DIVISIONS  WITHIN THE  BRETHREN  MOVEMENT
Daniel Ionescu asks for an "opinion" on the above titled paper sent to him from another web site.

To: Daniel Ionescu
danme81AThotmail.com
Livonia, Michigan, USA
Wed, 26 Jun 2002

Dear Daniel,
Thanks for re-sending the two papers, for which you have asked my comments.

Both these papers emanate from the same web site – with which I am familiar. It supports the position of the so-called TW group.

• The general character of that group has already been considered in Hyper Ecclesiasticism – above – which you should read in conjunction with the following.

The first part of this letter is in Guests: Mailbox GHI.

The second paper is entitled

Church Truth: A Brief Summary of
Notable Divisions within the Brethren Movement'