View source for 2. Open Reception.

'''[[3. Independency of Meetings.]]'''
----
'''Back To [[Open Brethren]]'''
----
'''Back to [[Writings on different Topics]]'''
----
Enquiry makes it very evident that the Open Brethren have adopted the principle that association with those holding evil doctrine does not defile unless the evil doctrine is imbibed, and therefore they are free to receive individuals, believed to be sound in the faith, without reference to their associations. The earliest evidence that this is their principle of reception is contained in what is known as "the letter of the Ten." This was a letter drawn up and signed by ten leaders of Bethesda, in July 1848, in which they sought to justify the course they had pursued. In this letter we find this principle clearly stated. They say, "Supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth." Here they plainly assert that they were prepared to receive those still in association with a heretic.

This principle, to which the Open Brethren owe their origin, first asserted in 1848, has been maintained throughout their history. In 1864 Lord Congleton, a leading Open Brother, said as follows:- "Every dear child of God that is walking consistently with such a profession, come he from whatever quarter he may, would be received."
In 1872 Mr. Muller, another highly respected Open Brother asserted this principle in no uncertain language. He wrote as follows:- "All who love the Lord Jesus, and are fundamentally sound in the faith, we receive, though they may not be able, as we could wish, to forsake certain persons or views or systems. In this way we purpose to persevere, because we consider it God's order (Rom. 15: 7).

Again, we have received persons, these sixteen years, who came from persons preaching damnable heresies; but we examined them, and as we found them, sound or not in foundation truths, so they were received or rejected."
In 1883 Mr. James Wright, another leader amongst the Open Brethren, stated that it was still the principle which guided the Open Brethren in their practice as to reception. He wrote as follows:- "In reply to your enquiry, the ground on which we receive to the Lord's Table is soundness in the faith and consistency of life of the individual believer. We should not refuse to receive one who we had reason to believe was personally sound in the faith and consistent in life, merely because he or she was in fellowship with a body of Christians who would allow Mr. Newton to minister among them."

In 1921 the writer of "The Principles of Christians called 'Open Brethren'"* admits this principle. Describing the origin of Open Brethren, he says, on page 93, "The Bethesda Church, in which Messrs. Muller and Craik ministered, refused to admit any who were convicted of holding the evil doctrine themselves, but did not exclude those who came from Mr. Newton's meeting." Here then we have the fact admitted, without a word of disapproval, that while the Open Brethren would not receive anyone convicted of holding evil doctrine, yet they would not exclude those who came from the meeting where the error was taught.
Finally an Open Brother, in a 1929 pamphlet entitled "The Local Assembly," says that the Open Brethren have strictly adhered to the "important principle" that in the matter of reception the only responsibility of an Assembly is "to deal with the actual beliefs and practices of any individual who might seek fellowship." Further this writer quotes with approval the extracts already given from the letter of the Ten, as well as the letter written by Mr. James Wright.

{*This book, written by an Open Brother, has been republished under the altered title "The Principles of Christian Brethren." The late Editor of The Witness J. R. Caldwell — referred to it as "the simplest but most concise and yet comprehensive account of the so-called 'Open Brethren' that we have seen. It states the history of the movement, the principal doctrines which have been maintained and contended for for over eighty years." We can therefore safely accept this work as a correct statement of their principles by one of themselves.}

Thus we have a chain of evidence from 1848 to 1929 proving that in the matter of reception the Open Brethren do not take into consideration the association of the one they receive, or to put this principle of reception quite plainly, they hold that association with those holding evil doctrine does not defile unless the evil doctrine is imbibed.

Such then is the 'open' principle of reception. Is this principle false or true. In attempting to answer this question we must ask not. "What does an Exclusive Brother say?" nor "What does an Open Brother say?" but, "What saith the Scripture?"
In turning to Scripture let us keep clearly before our minds the question at issue. Does association with a teacher known to teach false doctrine defile; or must the false doctrine first be imbibed before defilement is contracted? In 2 John: 10 and 11, we read, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." This passage clearly contemplates two persons; one holding false doctrine as to the Person of Christ, the other a person who wishes him God speed. The passage does not say, or imply, that this second persons holds the false doctrine, but that he identifies himself, by an act of fellowship, with the man that does, and, so doing, God calls this person "a partaker of his evil deeds." If then God calls this man a partaker of evil deeds, he is surely a defiled man, and that, not because he has imbibed the evil doctrine but because he is knowingly associated with a man that holds the false doctrine.

In the light of this Scripture how solemn is the statement, made by Mr. Muller, that the Open Brethren receive those "who come from persons preaching damnable heresies" providing they are found to be personally sound in foundation truths. Whether fully realized or not this means, as a matter of fact, that the Open Brethren receive persons that God calls "partakers of evil deeds."
Again we find this principle of the Open Brethren contradicted by 1 Cor. 5: 6, in the case of defilement by association with an evil doer. In this passage the Corinthian assembly is warned that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Does this mean that the Corinthian saints having remained in association with a man known to be incestuous had therefore all become incestuous? This indeed would be truly absurd. The clear meaning is surely that having remained in association with an incestuous man they had thereby become defiled. In like manner as we have seen, association with one holding evil doctrine caused defilement. It was not necessary for the Corinthians to commit incest to contract defilement, nor for evil doctrine to be imbibed in order to be defiled. See also Gal. 5: 7-9. In both cases it was the deliberate association with known evil that defiled.

Again, the apostle writing to the Corinthians, in his second Epistle, after they had dealt with the incestuous person, can say, "Ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter" (2 Cor. 7: 11). Obviously, then, until they had dealt with the matter they were not clear. But again we ask does this mean that they had all been guilty of incest? Surely not! but rather that they were all defiled, and having dealt with the man they were clear of defilement as far as his case was concerned.
These questions may well suffice to establish the principle that association with known evil defiles. But the principle is of such importance that we may be permitted to "Ask now the priests concerning the law." What will they tell us? The Lord instructs us how to put our question to the priests:- "If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean" (Haggai 2: 11-13).

Here we have two questions. First, will that which is holy sanctify that with which it comes in contact? And the priests answer "No." Then we have a second question, Will that which is unholy defile that with which it comes in contact? And the priests tell us it will defile it. This second question is the one that immediately concerns us. One is unclean by a dead body, and whatever he touches becomes unclean. It is not first necessary for the thing touched to come into contact with the dead body in order to be defiled, for directly it comes into contact with the man who has touched the dead body it is defiled.
Is it possible for a simple soul, unprejudiced by the theories of men, to arrive at any other conclusion than that these Scriptures plainly teach that association with a teacher known to teach false doctrine defiles, even though the doctrine itself has not been imbibed.

Alas! the force of these plain Scriptures has apparently been ignored in the Open Brethren system, as a method of reception has been adopted which opens the door to defilement by receiving persons without reference to their associations.
In actual practice their system of independent meetings probably leads to very different methods of reception in different meetings. More godly care is exercised in some than in others. Doubtless in some meetings Letters of Commendation would be strictly required. In others strangers are invited to break bread. The extreme limit of the 'Open' reception is seen in some meetings where all Christians present are invited to break bread. In such cases all godly care, and Scriptural order are abandoned. Do not the orthodox sects erect some barrier, however slight, around that which they reverently, even if erroneously, consider the Table of the Lord? In our private homes we would be extremely careful concerning inviting people of whom we know nothing to sit down at our tables. [No adequate comparison can be made with sitting down in the presence of the Lord of glory at HIS table under conditions suitable to, and enjoined by Himself, to remember Him.] (Paragraph edited. L.H.) 

Before leaving the matter of reception it may be well to refer to Romans 15: 7, "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God." It will be noticed that in the extract given from Mr. Muller's letter (page 6) he gives a reference to this passage as if it supports his views. Many others have attempted to use this Scripture in a similar way. Is not this, however, a thoughtless perversion of Scripture to support particular views? Of this passage another has truly written, "I am convinced that the quotation of this passage (Rom. 15: 7) as a warrant for promiscuous assembly reception is totally irrelevant. The Epistle to the Romans is not dealing with assembly order at all. It is a question of individual blessing through the Gospel, and of whom we are to recognize in our individual walk as Christians (see verse 1). Even the one whose faith is weak, and who may practically put himself into bondage (Rom. 14) is not to be ostracised. It is no question of the assembly receiving but of receiving one another, and individual receiving an individual. Moreover, how did Christ receive us? To the glory of God is the answer. It is no warrant for indiscriminate reception in any sense, but that in receiving we are exhorted to do so in view of all that suits the glory of God."

'''[[3. Independency of Meetings.]]'''
----
'''Back To [[Open Brethren]]'''
----
'''Back to [[Writings on different Topics]]'''