Mailbox: Andrew Norman
November 2000 – present

Andrew Norman

To: Andrew Norman
andrewdnormanATntlworld.com
Dunstable, England
Thu, 9 Nov 2000

In view of your November 6, 2000 message on Dick Wyman's site,

• "I am a Christian who has never been in the Brethren, either open or exclusive … I am though very interested in Brethren history and current practice"

• you might like to visit 'My Brethren' and learn of the history and ministry of brethren before the emergence of the legal system which has wrought such havoc in so many lives.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Gordon.

From: Andrew Norman
Thu, 9 Nov 2000

Thank you for your introduction. I have had a look at your site and will return – looks like a lot of interest there.

I have some knowledge of brethren history gained through reading: the following list shows the main things I had read (until a couple of years ago) with my comments:

• [Authors include Norman Adams, F. R.Coad, John H. Gerstner, H. A. Ironside, W. Blair Neatby, Napoleon Noel, Harold H. Rowdon, B. Wilson.]

You may have noticed that Dick Wyman is reproducing Neatby on his site: this is something that I got as far as Word stage – Dick then converting to html.

• I am hoping to republish the same in hardback in the next few months at cost price. Let me know if you want to place an order!

• From a preliminary browse, it would however appear that you are an exclusive at heart – and on the whole exclusives are not greatly enamoured by Neatby's book.

Thank you for your interest.

With Christian greetings, Andrew Norman.

To: Andrew Norman
Fri, 10 Nov 2000

Dear Andrew,
Thank you for visiting MB and for your message.

Yes, I have noticed the instalments of Neatby on Dick's site, and was glad to be able to confirm a quotation from it.

• Certainly I am not "enamoured" by Neatby's account, although it is possibly not more biased than many others.

I have all the books you mention except Gerstner.

• Other history books in my library are listed in
  Memorabilia: Church History.

• You might be interested in my comments in the "Introduction" there, in History: Introduction and also
  History: JND, An Unfriendly Appraisal: Introduction.

• A little trivia: When I bought Noel in 1948 the 2 volume set was only $2.40.

As my own Neatby has gone missing, if I can't locate it shortly I'll be glad to place an order with you for your reprint.

• From my own work on MB, I can well appreciate your devoted labour in typing and/or scanning.

For one who has never been connected with so-called 'brethren' you seem to have an extraordinary interest in "Brethren history and current practice".

• This piques my curiosity :-) Perhaps you would be free to share your background and the reasons for your intense interest.

As to being "an exclusive at heart": If you mean that I hold that the teachings of those servants presented on MB, and the principles they espouse, are grounded in the Scriptures and therefore help me as to my individual and collective pathway as a Christian – you are certainly right.

• That being said, I seek to follow JND's precept (not an exact quote) to keep my feet in the narrow path but to have a heart as wide as God's.

• This is in accord with 1 John 5: 2, "Hereby know we that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments".

I hope you visit MB again and I'll be glad to hear from you.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

From: Andrew Norman
Sun, 12 Nov 2000

Dear Gordon,
Thank you for your interest. I am please to provide some summary details of why I am interested in the Brethren

• (I know some prefer the expression ‘so-called "brethren"’, but it does save time to use the common designation with a capital "B").

I was converted to Christ at about the age of 12 or 13 through the instrumentality of the Crusaders Bible class, an evangelical organisation.

• About a year or so later my family moved to Southampton, where I came in contact with a new charismatic house church, and was swept away by the impressive spiritual claims.

• Let me also say that though my judgment on the charismatic issues has changed considerably since, many of these brethren (not Brethren) were warm hearted and zealous Christians, whom I expect to see in heaven.

• There was a significant Brethren influence present, both in terms of personnel – e.g. one influential leader was Arthur Wallis, who retained much of the presence and bearing of an Open Brother – and teaching – Watchman Nee being a favoured author.

• We are back in 1975/76 incidentally. Ecclesiology was Open Brethren in terms of plural ministry and no clericalism, but unlike most EBs there was a clear recognition of elders in the body.

• The church I was with would of course have been every different from the Brethren on charismatic gifts and eschatology (decidedly postmillenial rather than dispensational premillenial).

That spiritual background is perhaps one reason for an interest in the Brethren. I think of Brethrenism as standing in the relation to the new charismatic house churches as a grandparent to a grandchild – some similarities, but the grandchild only carries 25% of the genes of each grandparent!

A second reason is perhaps a general interest in church history, and a desire to develop a broader perspective on the many contrary currents of our own day.

I sympathise with the desire of the early Brethren to be non-sectarian (how quickly that aspiration fell by the wayside) and to protest against the one-man ministry (although here I fear they often ran into an opposite error).

• I think the history of the Brethren is highly instructive for general students of church history on a number of issues:.
  • e.g. the tendency of spiritual movements to degenerate, to become the opposite of what they start as (e.g. JND starting with the principle of universal communion but ending with universal excommunication); [See my comments below.]

• the danger of exalting men unduly (and that in a system that did not formally recognise human leaders!);

• the destructive rivalries that split undoubtedly spiritual men from one another, etc …

My third reason is personal contact with Brethren, especially with Taylorite EBs, about whom I knew virtually nothing until I started doing some digging.

• The area where I live is a stronghold of the EBs, whom I first encountered about 10 years’ ago doing their street preaching, and entered into a number of conversations.

• I now live in a road with two EB families almost directly opposite, so they are never far from my mind.

As to church fellowship, I am no follower of any of the Brethren (I personally fellowship with a local independent evangelical Baptist church).

• But I have more respect for the views of A. N. Groves, who was led to protest at what he saw as Darby’s departure from the original principles of the early Brethren, than with JND. ANG held that:
  1. We should love all whom Christ loves;
  2. We should normally worship with the most scriptural congregation;
  3. We may worship with any where God is present.

Thanks again for making contact. I hope to visit your MB site again, and would thank you for the pointers.

Yours through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, Andrew.

To: Andrew Norman
Fri, 17 Nov 2000

Dear Andrew,
Thank you for sharing the reasons why you are interested in those brethren, known to many as 'Brethren'.

• I'm sure it is not your intention, but perhaps you have noticed how easily the beliefs or practices of an identifiable group can be dismissed by others once a 'label' has been devised and attached to them.

Your own personal history and spiritual journey is indeed interesting. I too, converted at 16, had to make several crucial decisions in my early Christian life, and since.

• My first four years were spent among 'open' meetings, which I left for reasons of conscience.

• I knew many personally estimable brethren there and, in recent years, have renewed happy personal relations with some through our regular visits to Bethany Lodge, a retirement home under 'open auspices.

Your concept of "Brethrenism as standing in the relation to the new charismatic house churches as a grandparent to a grandchild – some similarities, but the grandchild only carries 25% of the genes of each grandparent!" is novel, and perhaps comforting.

• It may have some basis in regard to the 'open' tradition but – in my judgment at least – is without any grounds in other traditions, or in the original movement.

By the way, you might be interested to know that the term "brethrenism" is also used among brethren of my background.

• However it does not designate a movement but is used in a pejorative sense.

• It is used to describe the religious and formal tendencies among us which are both foreign and inimical to the Scriptures, to the operations of the Spirit and to the original ideals of our spiritual forefathers.

I share your interest in church history and agree that many lessons can be learned, as well as insights gained into current developments.

• It would be dishonest and foolish to deny that the brethren have not been immune to the problems that have always beset all genuine spiritual movements.

• The enemy, as in the garden and ever since, has had considerable success in corrupting individuals and groups through pride in its various forms.

• MB does not seek to deny, excuse or ignore the failures which are to the Lord's dishonour and to our shame.

• In particular the sad experiences from 1959 on, which still preoccupy many, are dealt with openly and honestly. See the following:
  • History: Decline and Departure (1953-70)
  • My Stand 1: The Decline of the 1950's
  • My Stand 1: What Went Wrong?
  • Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State of the Church

While many have been deceived and led astray, there are still some who, though sorrowfully separated, desire to be faithful to Christ and to the truth which – we at least believe – was recovered through JND and others.

• This is borne witness to by letters in MB's Mailbox.

I assume, and indeed hope, that the unfair characterization of "JND starting with the principle of universal communion but ending with universal excommunication" is not your own.

• It is the type of stale slogan and disinformation that is unworthy of followers of Him who is the Truth.

• Like a 'label' noted above, such a remark seems calculated to discredit and dismiss, at one blow,
  • the character, devotion, principles of one who selflessly served, and suffered for, Christ and the assembly.

• For a sober view of the changed situation in Christendom and the effects on practical fellowship see

  Ministry: C. A. Coates: Present Conditions in the Christian Profession.

I can understand your interest as having had personal contact with some of those brethren still deceived and imprisoned in "the strictest sect of our religion", Acts 26: 5.

• We have known and loved, and still love, our brethren in that system.

• Some we knew as little children are now grown and are held there with their own children.

• They are still in our daily thoughts and prayers, as are many of those who have escaped only to fall into religious or secular snares.

As connected with an "independent evangelical Baptist church" – all may not be "evangelical" ? – I can well understand your sympathy with the views of Mr. Groves.

• He was originally an Anglican but doubtless his close connection with Mr. George Muller, his brother-in-law, and others who had been Baptists – later 'open' – would have affected his outlook.

• Mr. Groves was not the only one who held, or holds, that "We should love all whom Christ loves".

• But 1 John 5: 2 is clear, "Hereby know we that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments".

• This evidence of love to all the saints requires obedience to a higher authority than Mr. Groves and his personal concepts of what is desirable or permissible.

Thank you again for sharing your experiences and thoughts. The ability to do this without rancour is much needed between brethren of all backgrounds.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

From: Andrew Norman
Thu, 23 Nov 2000

Dear Gordon,
Thanks for yours of 17th. In regard to the relationship between Brethren and new charismatic churches, the relation is indeed with the Open as opposed to the Exclusive section,

• but in my opinion there is some common ground with the original movement (anti-clericalism, a non-sectarian aspiration, and emphasis on every member exercising his gifts).

I hope I am not dismissive of either the Taylorite Brethren or of the non-Taylorite EBs.

• From my experience of conversation with some of each I hope to enjoy fellowship with some from both groups in heaven – but I am not too optimistic about before heaven in the case of the former.

• Whilst I can say this, I do dissent from some of the principles and beliefs of both groups.

• Equally, I am happy to accord a high appreciation of the general godliness, devotion and usefulness in the service of Christ of J. N. Darby.

• But my appreciation is not uniform, and in common with all other redeemed sinners there are aspects of his service which I do not believe to have been perfect.

As to the remark that JND started with universal communion and ended with universal excommunication, I had better come clean.

• I agree that this is unfair if construed as an objective statement of JND’s course. He did not excommunicate everybody, clearly. But as a wittily expressed criticism I think it does have some force.

• The original desire of JND was that the Brethren should be "an available mount of communion for any consistent Christian".

• It does appear to this outside observer that in practice he moved considerably from this position.

Neatby is fascinating reading on the division of 1848 – it seems quite clear that Bethesda in no way acquiesced in the errors that Newton held at one stage in his ministry.

The chapter on the secession of Dorman, a devoted follower of JND, who evidently with reluctance came to the view (rightly or wrongly) that JND himself was guilty of a species of Newtonianism is also telling as a criticism of JND.

Again to an outsider, the continuing division between non-Taylorite EBs and OB seems mighty strange given that no OB (as far as I am aware) have ever maintained Newton’s errors, and I suspect the vast majority have never even heard of Newton. Quite a number have never even heard of JND either!

• There may be other reasons why some EB would still wish to separate from some OB (in my experience quite a heterogeneous bunch), but not surely the events of 1848?

Regarding your penultimate paragraph, it is far from the case that all Baptists are evangelical. Alas, many have been infected with the leaven of modernism/liberalism.

I hope that you do not feel I have written immoderately. Doubtless we shall not agree – but hopefully such dialogue will at least lead to greater mutual understanding.

With Christian greetings, Andrew.

To: Andrew Norman
Thu, 14 Dec 2000

Dear Andrew,
I regret that my reply to yours of November 23 has been so long delayed, and trust that you will understand me referring you to various pages on 'My Brethren' to avoid repetition and conserve time.

Be assured that I don't feel that you have "written immoderately" in expressing your personal position.

• Although we may disagree, I am ready to correspond with sincere persons, such as yourself, sharing your hope that it "will at least lead to greater mutual understanding".

However, in my judgment, by adopting Neatby's opinions without apparently having seen other accounts from a different perspective, you have "written immoderately".

• I know you have Noel's history which is written from an exclusive standpoint, but it is hardly a sober account.

As to "either the Taylorite Brethren or of the non-Taylorite Ebs" you are not alone in your "dissent from some of the principles and beliefs of both groups".

• My thoughts on this can be seen in Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State of the Church: The Present Dilemma.

I do appreciate that you are "happy to accord a high appreciation of the general godliness, devotion and usefulness in the service of Christ of J. N. Darby".

• Though I regard him and others highly, both personally and for their work's sake, I don't consider any to have been perfect in teaching or practice – certainly I have not been so myself.

• But that does not lessen my appreciation nor allow me, as some do, to speak or think disparagingly of any whom the Lord has taken up for, or used in, His service.

• This applies to those in sectarian systems as well as among brethren with whom I might not be able to have practical fellowship.

I am glad that you have somewhat modified your thoughts as to the "wittily expressed criticism … of JND's course".

• But in the serious matter of evaluating the course of one of the Lord's servants sobriety should surely replace wittiness.

• Certainly, early brethren had a very wide view as to believers in general and desired to be, as JND said, "an available mount of communion for any consistent Christian".

• It might well appear to an "outside observer that in practice he moved considerably from this position".

The key to the whole matter is the word "consistent". In a previous email I said, "For a sober view of the changed situation in Christendom and the effects on practical fellowship see Ministry: C. A. Coates: Present Conditions in the Christian Profession".

• These changes, which began in JND's time, have greatly accelerated since, especially in more recent years.
  • To fault JND, or those who have followed, for recognizing and adapting to the deteriorating situation in the Christian profession is both unfair and unrealistic.

• I suppose that even independent Baptists have had to review their standards of fellowship in view of the fact that "it is far from the case that all Baptists are evangelical. Alas, many have been infected with the leaven of modernism/liberalism".

You say, "Neatby is fascinating reading on the division of 1848 – it seems quite clear that Bethesda in no way acquiesced in the errors that Newton held at one stage in his ministry".

• It may be "fascinating reading" but misses the point which is Bethesda's determination to receive persons in fellowship with Mr. Newton.

• For less "fascinating" but accurate evaluations compare G. W. Ware's History: Early Contentions for the Faith: Plymouth, Bethesda, ‘Open' Fellowship

• and CHM's History: The First 50 Years: Plymouth and Bethesda and Exclusivism – A Duty.

As to "the continuing division between non-Taylorite EBs and OB" – and I cannot speak for all by any means – it doubtless "seems mighty strange" but it is not based on holding "Newton's errors".

• The pages on 'My Brethren' to which I referred in the previous paragraph should make it clear that the issue was not holding those errors but indifference to maintaining fellowship with them.

• Of course since then there have been changes. See Studies: Christian Fellowship, Part 1: Differences as to Features of the Truth for my thoughts on the present situation.

You also say that Neatby's "chapter on the secession of Dorman, a devoted follower of JND, who evidently with reluctance came to the view (rightly or wrongly) that JND himself was guilty of a species of Newtonianism is also telling as a criticism of JND".

• Again you accept Neatby's opinions. See History: Early Contentions for the Faith: The Sufferings of Christ.

• I was converted in 1946 at after 16. JND's little booklet "The Sufferings of Christ" was one of the first books I acquired after my conversion.
  • It is wholesome and edifying ministry which you would do well to read before swallowing Neatby's opinions.

Mr. F. E. Raven wrote in 1902, "I have seen the book of Neatby to which you refer, and it produced on my mind the same impression as it has done on yours,

• "it is the work of an Edomite, not a trace of sorrow for the breakdown of that which was fair. He and others had better leave brethren alone.

• "There is no lack of abuse, but at the same time it is being more seen that the old, dogmatic, material way of taking up divine things must go, and that in christianity no one can claim to possess that into which he has not entered, this must be the case when the things presented are moral," Letters p.186.

The Edomites were the closest relatives of Israel through their father Esau,

• but they were also the bitterest enemies of Israel. Compare Psalm. 137: 7, etc.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

From: Andrew Norman
Mon, 8 Jan 2001

Dear Gordon,
Thanks for yours of 14th December. I have read all of the articles that you directed me to.

Re. Baptists and evangelicalism, the drift from evangelical moorings by many Baptists started a long time ago – hence Spurgeon’s withdrawal from the Baptist Union at the time of the Downgrade controversy.

I continue to hold Neatby in high regard – as a critic of JND he is actually far more even handed than say J. E. Howard or Henry Groves.

• For FER to refer to him as an Edomite is I think rather unfair – for he shows a genuine appreciation of many of the positive sides of JND etc. as well as making criticisms which he believed were justified. Still, I don’t suppose we will agree on that one!

Yours sincerely, Andrew.

To: Andrew Norman
Tue, 09 Jan 2001

Dear Andrew,
I appreciate your reply and that you took the time to read the articles I mentioned.

As to FER's comment, as I understand, it was not based on Neatby's assessment of JND but rather as to there being "not a trace of sorrow for the breakdown of that which was fair".

• There have been various special movements of the Spirit – some more extensive, and some more Scriptural, than others – over the centuries.

• All have failed in one degree or other. I'm sure that all believers should feel these breakdowns though, I admit, I have failed in this in earlier years.

Yes, we may continue to disagree as to some matters, but I trust our interesting and stimulating correspondence has given us both a better understanding, and appreciation, of each other and our viewpoints. I believe it has for me.

• I do value you, Andrew, as a brother in Christ and your commitment to Him.

I'm not sure just yet as to reserving a copy of the Neatby reprint for myself. Is there a deadline?

• However, I would be glad to post a bulletin on MB if you wish. If so please supply ordering details: price and currency, shipping cost, method of payment, etc.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

From: Andrew Norman
Thu, 1 Mar 2001

Dear Gordon,
Copies of Neatby (History of the Plymouth Brethren) have now arrived from the printer.

• The price has worked out better than I thought – £11 per copy by surface mail (taking up to 8 weeks), or £13 per copy airmail, including postage. This assumes you are paying me in £ Sterling.

• If paying in US $ then add £9 and convert, to cover additional bank charges for cashing $ cheques here.

• Please let me know your full postal address, and whether you want me to post by surface or airmail, and I will despatch a.s.a.p.

(...if this is of interest)

Yours sincerely, Andrew.

To: Andrew Norman
Thu, 1 Mar 2001

Dear Andrew,
Thanks for letting me know that Neatby is now available. Yes, please send me one (1) copy by air mail AT £13. My address is at the foot of this message. I assume that mailing payment on receipt will be satisfactory.

• For the interest of guests, I have posted a Bulletin on MB and also listed you under Bibles and Books.

• You must be very happy to see your exercise completed.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

To: Andrew Norman
Fri, 9 Mar 2001

Dear Andrew,
"Thu, 8 Mar, 2001: Received my copy today by airmail. It is nicely typeset, clearly printed and well bound. A bargain!"

The above note is now in Site News: Bulletins. I will be sending you a postal money order for 13 pounds within the next week as soon as I am able to get to the post office.

Thanks for your service. I hope to hear from you from time to time.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

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

Page Top