4 Concluding Remarks.
Back To Open Brethren
Back to Writings on different Topics
Having briefly considered the two distinguishing principles of the Open Brethren system, we may ask ourselves, "What must be the effect of the adoption of these principles?" It is obvious that where these principles are carried out in an extreme way people are received on their personal responsibility without any test. Where more care is exercised, it does not go beyond a personal test in the matter of reception, nor beyond a local meeting when it is a matter of excision.
Hence a principle of reception is adopted which opens the door to any evil; and a principle of independent meetings which prevents evil from being adequately dealt with. One principle lets in evil; the other, makes it impossible to effectually put it out. Mr Darby truly said this system of independent meetings, "Entails the consequence that I might participate in the exclusion of a wicked person in one meeting, and take the Lord's Supper with him in another" (Col. Writing Vol. 33. 47). Thus one of the most serious consequences of a system of independent meetings is the loss of true scriptural discipline. Instead of the discipline of the Church according to the promised presence of the Lord, and the guidance of the Spirit, such a system has only the discipline of a voluntary association which makes rules for itself and either accepts, or rejects the discipline of other meetings, according to circumstances.
Where a scriptural discipline cannot be maintained the order of the Church of God is set aside, leading ultimately to the loss of the truth of the Church Mr. Darby has clearly shewn how this loss must take place by an apt illustration; he says, "Supposing we were a body of Freemasons, and a person were excluded from one lodge by the rules of the order, and instead of looking to the lodge to review the case, if it was thought to be unjust, each other lodge were to receive him or not on their own independent authority, it is clear the unity of the Freemason system is gone. Each lodge is an independent body acting for itself. It is vain to allege a wrong done, and the lodge not being infallible; the competent authority of lodges, and the unity of the whole is at an end. The system is dissolved. There may be provision for such difficulties. All right if it be needed. But the proposed remedy is the mere pretension of the superiority of the recusant lodge, and a dissolution of Freemasonry." On this Mr. Darby further remarks, "The Church is not a voluntary system.
It is not formed (or rather unformed) of a number of independent bodies, each acting for itself. It was never dreamed, whatever the remedy, that Antioch could let in Gentiles, and Jerusalem not, and all go on according to the order of the Church of God. There is not a trace of such independency and disorder in the word. There is every possible evidence of, in fact, and doctrinal insistence on, there being one body on earth, whose unity was the foundation of blessing in fact, and its maintenance the duty of every Christian. Self-will may wish it otherwise, but certainly not grace, and not obedience to the word" (Col. Writings. Vol. 14. 464, 465).
Is it not only too plain that, as a result of the adoption of these false principles, the truth of the Church has been largely obscured amongst the Open Brethren and increasingly they tend to become simply a gospel mission. In the light of the foregoing statements we judge that any assembly that acts on the principle of independency has forfeited its title to be owned as walking in the light of the Church.
It may be there are those in fellowship with Open Brethren who have little knowledge of the origin of the movement, even of the principles that distinguish it, still less of the bearing of these principles. Moreover the adoption of the principle of independency has doubtless led to very great diversity in their meetings, so, it may very well be true, that there are individual meetings who have in measure abandoned the above principles, but apparently they still maintain a link, by commendation and reception, with meetings that do maintain these principles. In spite of much evangelical zeal is it not painfully evident that in the Open Brethren movement, the gracious recovery of truth in the last century, has been largely neutralized by the introduction of an easy-going system of free-will and independency.
By mainly confining their efforts to evangelical activity in proclaiming a gospel — largely reduced to meeting man's need, and which appeals to the general run of Christians — the Open Brethren appear to have let slip the distinguishing truths of Christianity which unfold our present heavenly association with Christ, and God's purposes for the glory of Christ in the Assembly. Moreover their system of independent meetings tends to exclude the authority of the Lord in the practical administration of it by the Spirit, and very largely confines "fellowship" to the local meeting. The Lordship of Christ and the "fellowship" into which all saints are called must lose their true significance in a system of independent meetings.
We may well ask, How can those whose eyes have been opened to see the truth have any fellowship with a system where the above principles hold sway; whether it be by the reception to the breaking of bread of those still identified with the Open Brethren, or by individuals going back to minister in their meetings?
Those seeking to walk according to the truth of Scripture would surely exclude any thought of "membership of Brethren," and would be ready to receive all Christians sound in the faith, and free from evil in their associations, even though they may not have sufficient light, or faith, to sever their links with some ecclesiastical system. This surely is right, though, on account of the increasing corruptions of Christendom, the practice of this principle may become very limited and increasingly difficult. In the case however of the Open Brethren, their origin, their principles, and their practice, make it very difficult to apply this principle in the matter of receiving to the breaking of bread one still associated with them, except perhaps in the very rare case of an absolutely ignorant person.
To return to them again under the plea of ministry, is surely building again the things that we have destroyed. To say the least, it shows that the one so doing sees no great evil in the system, has but little appreciation of divine principles, and has forgotten that, even if such a course be considered lawful, it may not be expedient. Moreover, it is possible, on the plea of service under the direct authority of the Lord, to be simply doing what is right in our own eyes, without consideration for the consciences of others — in other words, doing our own will.
We may conclude with the words of another:- "Satan wants God's people to walk either with a narrow heart in a narrow path, which is sectarianism, or with a broad (that is, a large) heart in a broad way, which is latitudinarianism . . . No man on earth ever walked in such a narrow path as the Lord Jesus Christ; and none had such a large heart as He. May He give us grace to walk with a large heart in a narrow path."
May we too be able to say with yet another, "We humbly submit to His word, confident that God will never abandon those who seek to obey Him; and that the word of God and the grace of the Church's Head, suffice, and ever will suffice, at all times, for those who are satisfied to walk in littleness and unappreciated by the world."
Back To Open Brethren
Back to Writings on different Topics