Personal Update

In my last post, I indicated I thought my only real course of action is to leave "exclusive brethren". But since that post, there have been a few interesting developments...

First, my wife emailed a friend in the assembly, to give a heads-up that we're leaving. That was yesterday morning. Yesterday afternoon, her husband stopped by the office where I work (I'm a contractor, not an employee, but I work pretty consistently in this office). I assumed he had come in response to the email, but he hadn't talked to his wife about it: he had not even heard about it. Turns out he had been sent out to the company to make a sales call (they had been a customer of his at some point), and figured he'd say "hi" when he was here. Well, we had a good talk, and he told me some news about some discussions I had missed this week.

Second, I got a call last night from an older brother in the meeting. He hadn't heard we were planning on leaving, but he hadn't seen us in a couple weeks, and was calling to check on us. I told him what was going on, and we ended up talking pretty close to an hour. Of all the discussions I've had with people about perhaps leaving, this one was the best. It's been a long time since I heard anyone say "Yes, that is a real problem" without adding "But there's weakness everywhere". This might have been the first time someone was open with me about trouble in "brethren", with no excuses, no accusations, and no arrogance. And no, he didn't try to talk me into staying, but he did pray with me and assure me of his continued prayers.

Third, this morning I checked my email and had a stack of messages from a friend I highly respect; a couple of them specifically asking me to reconsider leaving. This is not a friend here in this state, but a friend intimately familiar with the "brethren", and one with whom I have been corresponding via email for a few years now. He's been reading my blog (hey, bro!) and wanted to pass that caution along.

Fourth (actually, first), someone I have never spoken to before called me two weeks ago, discussing assembly issues with me. This brother is not in "brethren", but we emailed a few years back. We discussed my situation, because he came out of a bona-fide cult. That was a worse situation than I've ever faced, although not much worse than where some "brethren" have ended up.

So the question is, what to do now? I've discussed concerns with a few people in the meeting; and I've blogged about my concerns. Anyone who's actually been reading this blog has a pretty good idea what my concerns are. But at the end of the day, a couple things were said yesterday that makes me wonder whether leaving is my only option.

I'm impressed by two things at this point: first, at least a couple people have tried to talk to me this week just because they haven't seen me at the meetings in a couple weeks. This is the first real attempt at checking up on us I remember in a long time. That's a positive sign. Second, the conversations that have "arrested me" so to speak were not in any way sectarian. I've heard a lot of nonsense reasons to stay, but over the last two days, I've had some actually helpful discussions. I've been waiting, hoping for some of that for months.

It looks like I have a lot to pray about.

Take me to Ramsgate

I think I've almost exhausted what I have to say about "brethren". I'm speaking as an insider---and have been all this time; but I realize that I'm coming to a decision: my convictions and thoughts about "the Church" are more and more at odds with "exclusive brethren", and it is making my continued fellowship with them seem difficult or impossible. Perhaps I'm wrong---I'd like to believe I am---but I have reached the conclusion that the best thing for me to do is leave. Not as a statement, not to stir up trouble; but because it's entirely unreasonable to think I ought to change everyone else's thinking. I'm not wanting to stir the pot or rock the boat, so I think leaving quietly is the best thing to do.

Please pray for my family in connection with this: if there's a way to avoid leaving, I would like to take it.

But I want to take an opportunity to discuss this subject. I want to, for this post, ignore the implications of most of what I've posted to date, and become blatantly sectarian for a while. It'll save time to get that out up front: I know some of what I'm going to say is overtly sectarian, but there is a point to all this, so please bear with me.

What is now called the "Brethren Movement", or "Plymouth Brethren", began in Dublin in 1827. There, a few Christians, including J. G. Bellett, J. N. Darby, and (apparently) A. N. Groves started to gather to remember the Lord Jesus on Sunday mornings. There appear to have been several spontaneous, independent "awakenings" (if I can say it that way) that occurred about the same time. By the mid 1830s, there was quite an obvious "Brethren Movement" in full swing.

Then, in the mid-1840s, the assembly on Ebrington Street in Plymouth blew up. There were some significant individuals there, including B. W. Newton, who became very prominent as teachers. Over time, these eventually emerged as unofficial clergy in Plymouth. This caused some uproar among more idealistic "brethren" (including J. N. Darby); but the tension eventually developed into a full-scale war when Newton's teachings on the Incarnation emerged. He alleged that Christ was under Adam's federal headship as a Man, and thus was under the curse of sin. Newton was a very intelligent man, and I don't want to over-simplify his teaching; but he essentially taught that although Christ never sinned, he was born "under sin".

The "brethren" pretty much universally condemned this blasphemy (which is exactly what it was), but split into two groups over how to deal with it. The first group separated completely from the assembly at Plymouth, and had nothing to do with anyone who associated with them. The second group refused to fellowship with Newton, but continued to fellowship with others at Plymouth who didn't personally agree with his teaching.

Eventually this rift developed into two full-fledged groups: "exclusive brethren" and "open brethren".

Over time, each group has developed further apart. "Open brethren" eventually developed their teachings on "autonomy", insisting each assembly is independent. They built an ecclesiology that is open to fellowshipping with other Christians, unless there is specific evil known about them, and have more recently started to fade quietly into mainstream Christendom. "Exclusive brethren", on the other hand, have followed the idea that each assembly is interdependent, and so developed a "circle of fellowship". As the years have gone on, this circle has fragmented many times in many divisions, with each party to each schism claiming posession of the original circle. Some of the divisions have been of serious doctrinal import, but most were simply squabbles that the "brethren" could have stopped, had they been more concerned with the Lord's reputation than their own.

The first division amongst "exclusive brethren" occurred (or perhaps "came to a head") in 1881, and is commonly called the "Ramsgate Division" or "Kelly Division", because that was the division when William Kelly was excommunicated.

The Ramsgate Division was about something that was silly, but it blew up out of proportion. Basically, the case started when a man wanted an illegal marriage: he wanted to marry his sister-in-law (he was a widower). When English law forbade the marriage, he went to France, got married, and returned. This started a long string of events that brought out the worst in everyone, and culminated in a massive division.

William Kelly was excommunicated by the brethren at the Park Street assembly in London. More than a few assemblies felt Kelly was right in the division, and followed him out of the Park Street group, to later become known as the "Kelly Brethren".

I want to spend some time talking about this, because when Kelly was excommunicated, he made his case in a letter entitled "Why Many Saints Were Outside the Park Street of 1881". I have converted this document to PDF, but it's not online at the moment.

But consider these snippets from the letter:

Claiming that “they broke bread together on the alone divine ground of one body, one Spirit,” they quickly ceased nevertheless. Too self-confident to see or judge the real evil of their proceedings, yet finding out their mistaken policy, they seized on flaws in their Brethren who remained, both to deny their standing and to reintegrate their own pretensions. Hence (in 1880) they repeated their party effort, with the bold assumption that “the Lord would own and protect” their second table. This the Lord did not; nor was it long before they themselves dropped it.

This was the evil deliberately committed by Park Street in the Lord’s name, and sought accordingly to be imposed upon all. Its acceptance was not left as usual for the Lord to vindicate if sound, or disannul if wrong. It was speedily required on pain of forfeiture of fellowship, in the face of known, wide, and deep disapproval.

To idolize assembly judgments as necessarily right is condemned by His Word.

The more that episode of sin, shame, and sorrow is weighed, the clearer it will be that ecclesiastical independency had unconsciously and extensively infected those who talked loudly of “one body and one Spirit.”

But dissolving for the time, and for this matter only, into independent assemblies, each judging for itself, was to adopt the human device of a voluntary society, and to ignore the ground of God’s church, abandoning for the nonce our divine relationship and its duty. God thus allowed an evil movement of party to fall into a flagrant contradiction alike of his principle and of our own cherished practice in faith. Could it be for anything else but the worldly and rather vulgar end of catching votes?

What Kelly describes here is essentially the same evils "exclusives" have resorted to in every division, rupture, or crisis since: form a party, loudly denounce everyone who doesn't join, and start a "new lump". William Kelly called it starting a sect.

"Exclusive brethren" continued to have several divisions over the next several years: apparently Ramsgate was just the beginning. Over the next 12 years, there were the "Stuart Division" (excommunicating C. E. Stuart), the "Grant Division" (excommunicating F. W. Grant), and the "Raven Division" (excommunicating W. J. Lowe (or F. E. Raven, depending on your perspective)). And that's just twelve years! After that, the "Tunbridge Wells" division afflicted the "Lowe Brethren", who became known as the "Lowe-Continental brethren". The "Lowe-Continental brethren" made peace with the "Kelly brethren" in 1926 (Kelly himself was dead by then), and formed the "KLC brethren" ("Kelly-Lowe-Continental").

And every single group that was formed (every division produced at least two groups, both claiming to be the original group), eventually divided again; except possibly the "Kelly brethren"---I am not aware of any divisions in their history between 1881 and 1926. So eventually you had no fewer than the following groups: KLC, Grant, Grant-Ames, Grant-Booth, Stuart, Raven, Raven-Taylor, Glanton, Renton, NHH (Tunbridge Wells), and Perth. I can't remember any more at present, but I doubt I listed even half there.

Rather sordid history for people who insist on "the unity of the Body".

Contrary to what you might think, I had a point in taking you on a jaunt through "our" dirty laundry. The point is this: that the accusations Kelly made in 1881 were true then, and have never been repented of. The "brethren" were goaded into leaving their principles when crisis struck: they abandoned the "visible unity" "brethren" have claimed, and resorted to the same independency they condemned the "open brethren" for. Although they talked a good game, then fundamentally played a different one.

William Kelly's solution to the Ramsgate problem was no doubt terrifying: he proposed that they eschew formalism, avoid sectarianism, and be willing to wait "however long" for the Lord to make it clear what they should do. Rather than stong-arming brethren into acting, he advocated praying together until everyone came to an agreement. He suggested something very idealistic, but also very Scriptural (cf. Acts 15). In fact, Kelly advocated that "brethren" continue doing as they had before, and not allow their circumstances to pressure them into doing what they had formerly condemned.

My conclusion is that "exclusive brethren" ceased to exist as a group of people willing to gather only "in the Lord's name" in 1881, and formed a sect instead. The rise of Brethrenism as a sect dates from 1881.

A friend of mine from real life has a blog entitled "rublev's dog". In it, he takes a paeleo-conservative approach to American politics and current events. That's not my interest per se, but I find his thoughts and comments very interesting. One view we both share is, the Civil War in America fundamentally ended the United States af America (a confederacy dating from 1789) and replaced it with the modern USA: a monolithic republic with the same name, but fundamentally different structure and philosophy. The Ramsgate Division of 1881 essentially had the same effect on "exclusive brethren". Where we were once content to gather because Christ told us to (whether anyone else wanted to join us or not); now we won't gather without a "circle of fellowship" to legitimize us. Where the Word of God used to be sufficient to guide us, we now have a series of doctrines that explain away all our inconsistencies and hypocrisies. Where we used to meet on the principle of "One Body", now we meet on the principle of doctrinal assent: if you don't agree, you're not welcome.

In many ways, "open brethren" seem to have preserved the "exclusive vision" better than "exclusives" have done.

Sadly, "brethren" before and since have pleaded for what Kelly held up as godly: J. N. Darby's writings uniformly advocate there is no other principle for gathering than we are all in one Body, and C. A. Coates (almost 100 years later) re-iterated the claim. And those two aren't alone. But there is a fundamental difference between the writings of J. N. Darby and C. A. Coates: where they both appeal to the same principles, Coates came after they had been abandoned in practice. In the days of Darby (he died in 1882, the year after the Ramsgate Division), the "brethren" were still largely content to gather without a form or a sect to lend them credence. By Coates' time, the "brethren" had developed the doctrines of One Place, and it colours all his writings.

I doubt very much there was a moment-in-time paradigm shift at the Ramsgate Division. I expect the evils Kelly denounced had been lurking for years under the surface, but they became open and obvious in 1881. And since 1881, they are (for better or worse) the established doctrine of "exclusive brethren".

So in the present day, there are certainly Christians who gather according the same principles early "brethren" found in Scripture. But those of us who claim those "early brethren" as our spiritual forbears have adopted their failures as well as their insights. I don't think it's too late for "exclusive brethren" to return to the principles they held before 1881, but I doubt strongly they want to. You see, there is something comforting about a sectarian identity. There is security in a denominational title and a group identity. To return to the simplicity of the "exclusive brethren" of 1845--1881 requires a willingness to have no other identity than one who gathers in the Lord's name. No circle of fellowship, no threats to hold us together: just a walking out of what's in Scripture.

The thing is, when we take a stand, we can expect to be tested. Over and over, I have seen "brethren" tested: seen something wrong pop up, and then watched our response. I've seen us react correctly, but much more frequently I've seen us fail. We fail when we allow circumstances to pressure us into moving away from Scriptural principles to react according to our own wisdom. When we come up with a reason why a Scriptural exhortation can't work, then we have failed. When we accuse "open brethren" of sin because they practice independency, while saying "every assembly has to take a stand individually", then we have failed.

A lot of "brethren" say "the point of return is the point of departure". That is, you can't just ignore what's gone wrong: you need to go back to where things went wrong, and make that right before moving on. If they're correct, then I can't help but conclude our point of departure was in 1881, and we've never been willing to revisit that.

The Place

These go to eleven! -- Nigel Tufnel

My post on my twisty path grew out of control; but I think I finally got to my goal: discussing The Place. In the end, my contention against the de facto teaching of The Place is almost symbolic (typical?) of all my beefs with Brethrenism. That is, to me the teachings and discussions of The Place epitomize how Brethrenism grew into a sectarian system, out of a very Scriptural set of propositions.

Frankly, discussing this with "brethren" is almost a waste of time. Much like discussing amplifiers with Nigel Tufnel, if the truth were told. And that's because "brethren" have fallen into the same error as Roman Catholics: by proclaiming a group as The Place, we've removed any meaningful discussion about what The Place is. Let me attempt to elucidate a little on that. At the risk of over-simplifying somewhat (and honestly, no straw man is intended here), the Roman Catholic Church pays lip service to the idea that the Bible is infallible and inerrant; but it emasculates it, in that it gives the Church two things: 1. the exclusive right to determine what's Scripture, and 2. the exclusive right to explain Scripture. With these two claims, any question of whether the "mother church" is valid inevitably falls to the ground. Similarly, "Brethren" have built a foundation of extremely shaky logic to support the idea that they have The One Place. And, they built it on one verse, Matthew 18:20.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20, KJV
"For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20, Darby
"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matthew 18:20, NSAB
"for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20, YLT

This one verse has become the foundation for all Brethrenism. I've given it from a few different translations, in order to get a well-rounded look at it. "Brethren" prefer to read this verse from the Darby Translation, apparently for two reasons: 1. it uses the older conjugation of "to gather"; and 2. it transliterates eis "unto", rather than rendering it in correct English as "in". Let's consider these in some detail.

In older English (not "Old English", but "two hundred years ago English"), verbs expressing motion were frequently conjugated with "to be" as an auxiliary. This follows the German and French grammars: ich gehe becomes ich bin gegangen in the present perfect tense. As Darby points out in his margin note for Romans 3:23, the correct conjugation is "are come", not "have come". This distinction is important there, as it clarifies that "All have sinned and come short" is in two tenses: "have sinned" is present perfect, "come" is present. But some "brethren" have equivocated on the very point Darby made so clearly, and have taken "are gathered" to be a passive. Thus, their gathering is an act of God, not of men. "We haven't gathered, we've been gathered". It's foolishness atop ignorance, but there you have it.

Thankfully, this teaching (if one can call such an appalling ignorance of English "teaching") is not common among the "brethren" I gather with. But I have no doubt it is coming. It's common among other groups we seem so determined to imitate.

The fact is, the NASB gets it right: in present-day colloquial English, we use "have" as the auxiliary verbs for all present perfect forms: we no longer say "are gathered", but "have gathered".

The second reason "brethren" seem to prefer Darby's translation is, the transliteration of the word eis. Anyone who's spent any time in any translation work at all knows: prepositions are the hardest thing to translate. For example, "at home" in German is zu Hause (literally "to home"), while you would never go "to home" in German, but must go nach Hause, or "towards home". In Greek, eis to emon onoma "unto my name" should be translated "in my name". Just like in English we say "open in the name of the law!", we would say "gather in my name".

But "brethren" steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this, and insist on replacing "in" in their KJV Bibles with "unto". Why?

I think the reason is something like this: it changes the gathering from an act to a place. Where gathering "in my name" is clearly something we do (the "in my name" implying authority to do so from the Son of God Himself); gathering "to my name" can be seen as somewhere we go ("to" implying there is a place where Christ has placed His Name). Thus, we can conclude there is a Place, and it is the responsibility of all Christians to find it.

In the more cult-like extremes of "brethren", this is unashamedly taught: "This is the One Place the Lord has put His Name". I gather with more moderate "exclusives": a few years ago, claiming The Place would have seemed unthinkable, but as time goes on; I've heard bolder and bolder claims, all progressing toward the claim of The Place. And, I've heard the claim itself. Interestingly, I hear more and more statements that nowhere else is The Place: I think that's a subtle way to claim we are it.

Now here's where it gets to be like an interview with Nigel Tufnel. Once we claim we are The Place, then everything else becomes sin. If we're The Place, then regardless how much evil we tolerate, it's wrong to not gather with us. Or to put it in "scriptural" terms, we have the Lord's Table, and everyone else has the Table of Demons (1 Corinthians 10:20--21). So far as I know, no one in the "exclusives" I meet with has made this claim; but I know of others in different "exclusive" groups that have made this very statement. And I hear more and more arrogance in the statements that are made. We've started down that path, and we seem to be picking up speed.

But back to the point: if the gathering is "to my name", then it's not a moral gathering. But when it's "in my name", it becomes a moral thing: the gathering can cease to be "in my name" through sin, corruption, or moral failure. If we fail to obey the Lord Jesus, or if we gather with any other authority to justify our gathering, we're not gathering "in my name". "In my name" judges hearts and motives, not just forms and outward appearance.

But there's more. Once we establish a given assembly/sect/denomination/group as the True Church (or The Place), then we can very easily condemn everyone else. Because regardless of how bad things are in the sect we have chosen, it is still the only Place we can obey the Lord in gathering "unto" His Name. Everyone else might live better than I do, but their church amounts to idolatry, since it's not The Place.

Again, I think very few in the "exclusives" I meet with actually would come out and say something like that; but they are starting to say things that infer it. Where a statement like that would have once been stomped on, it seems we are getting more and more tolerant of that sort of arrogance. I've actually been surprised by some of the things I've heard over the last couple years: it seems the meetings are more and more characterized by smug complacency.

So regardless of how bad things are here; regardless of how many problems there are; the comment is "well, we gather to the Lord's name". And then we hear the oft-repeated "there's weakness everywhere". The implication is, The Place matters more than moral purity or correct doctrine.

I heard a telling sermon recently on MP3 from a fairly well-known speaker in "open brethren". Now, "open brethren" pretty much deny the One Place teachings of "exclusives": while I consider them less Biblical in many ways, they've done a much better job than we in that area. Nevertheless, this speaker was talking about the exodus of people from certain assemblies into more mainline denominations. He made the statement "A bad assembly is a good school": then he gave several encouraging anecdotes and left me with the impression "There's no good reason to leave an 'assembly'."

Sadly, when we get into this style of thought, we get into a place where we're willing to tolerate anything, except leaving the group. Of course, the irony is that the "open brethren" speaker I was listening to would probably encourage me to leave "exclusive brethren". His definition of "assembly" and ours is very different.

But the danger is the same error the Roman Catholics generally fall into: rather than discerning whether a gathering is a biblical assembly or not based on the Word of God, we pick the group we're in, and use it to define exactly what an assembly should look like. We get our test of fellowship backward, because we start with the assumption that our group is correct. Worse, we declare ourselves to have the Lord's Presence, then use that to excuse all the corruption and sin we see. Is the priest molesting the altar boys? don't worry, just trust in the Mother Church! In our own circles, we're told that all the problems we see are "weakness". The fact that we condemn other churches for the same things is irrelevant, because we gather to the Lord's Name and they don't.

"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy" (Luke 12:1, NASB)

But if we can think past the assumption that this is where the Lord has put His name, then we can ask the question: at what point does a gathering of Christians fail to qualify as a biblical assembly? This is an important question, because it is a two-edged sword. The more we allow in our definition of "assembly", the more churches "out there" we need to acknowledge. On the other hand, the less we allow, the more "assemblies" we currently recognize will be excluded. Does a clergyman mean an assembly is disqualified? Then many or most "brethren assemblies" are disqualified. See the problem is, "brethren" fail the very tests they set up for everyone else. The very statements "brethren" make about others in order to prove they aren't legitimate, also demonstrate "brethren" aren't legitimate.

Sadly, I think that too many in "exclusive brethren" fail to gather "in my name", because they see their legitimacy as coming from the group, rather than from the Lord. When we look to the group to give us a legitimacy, then we fundamentally fail to gather in His name: we are gathering under the authority of the group, not the Lord.

The other alternative, of course, is to accept that "in my name" means "Because I said so, and that's all you need". If we take that assumption (which "open brethren" do), then we can be content that our meetings are graced by the Lord's presence. Of course, that also means there are a whole lot of gatherings out there we know nothing about, that are recognized by the Lord.

That's what Darby et al. did. They gathered because the Lord said so, and they knew their only license to gather was His command. They weren't perfect---far from it!---but they got this one thing right. We ought not to gather around a doctrine, a sect, a title, or a man. There's one Man that ought to be the center. To the extent He's the center of a mainline church down the street, they are as legitimate as we. To the extent we're not content to gather solely because He said so; but prop up our legitimacy with sectarian titles, doctrinal "distinctives", and other man-made ideas; we're no different from any other sect.

Post-Brethren (Revised)

This is an edited copy of a post I made in March of 2007. I was somewhat frustrated when I wrote it, and I wanted to re-visit this and tone it down a little. That is, I don't want to sugar-coat anything, but I also don't want to throw any accusations around on the 'Net. So this is a more calm, rational explanation of my new position...

Well, it's official: I am now Post Brethren. I am coming out as someone who no longer drinks the Kool-Aid. I liked the Kool-Aid – I have a bit of a Kool-Aid habit, if the truth were known – but I've had enough.

What do I mean by Post-Brethren? Well, what I don't mean is Ex-Brethren. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to leave the teachings and beliefs of "brethren" behind. I still hold to almost all the "brethrenisms" I've held for the last ten years or more:

• I still believe the Lord Jesus is present wherever "two or three are gathered in [His] Name".
• I still believe denominational titles are essentially wrong.
• I still believe that clergy/laity distinction is a denial of the Headship of Christ.
• I still believe there is only one Body, and membership in anything other than the One Body is sectarianism.
• I still believe the Lord's Supper ought to be observed weekly and unscripted.
• I still believe that the directives about women being silent in the meetings, headcoverings, etc. are for today, and are to be taken literally.
• I'm still a Dispensationalist.
• I still read the Darby Translation as my primary Bible.

See, it's not that I have an issue with what "brethren" teach. But I have come to the conclusion that I can't actually live it out as long as I am still Brethren (note the big 'B'). The problem is, I have become convinced that we have taken some truths we have found in Scripture, and we've built a huge system on top of them. And at some point, that system collapses under its own weight.

So where "walking in separation" used to mean we eschew what evil we see out there – whether in Christendom or in the world – it has come to mean we have an exclusive club, a "members only" arrangement. Where we used to say we didn't have a "statement of faith" because we endeavoured to respect the whole word of God, we now read our "articles of faith" into Scripture.

My declaration of Post-Brethrenism doesn't necessarily imply I'm leaving or anything. I might leave, but I might stay: I don't believe it's really my choice to make. I am in prayer about that very thing; and as I have said before, that is not a decision to be made for any reason other than I am sure the Lord wants me to. But I'm not necessarily moving to sever any current ties. What it does mean is, I am endeavouring to walk according to what I see in Scripture, regardless of how many or how few want to walk with me. So while it doesn't mean I am going to leave, it does mean I'm not afraid to. I hope that distinction makes sense.

I mentioned in the original post that I read F. E. Raven. I still do. And I read the more "accepted" writers too: J. N. Darby, W. Kelly, etc. But I encountered an interesting statement by FER this last weekend: a friend pulled a book off my shelf, opened it, and handed it to me. It was Ministry by F. E. Raven, Volume 17, p. 41. FER said: "I think we ought to contend earnestly in the present day against what we may call brethrenism."

I think he said the same thing I am trying to say, but more succinctly than I. It's not what "brethren" teach that's the problem. And it's not the individuals who are in "brethren" (although there is the flesh in every one of us, of course). The problem is, we've allowed a system to build up, and like all systems, it is a man-made thing. It's imperfect. And it gets in the way.

We did it unknowingly, and we did it with good intentions. But we've become the very thing we started out to escape. We've rebuilt the things we cast down, and we've become transgressors (see Galatians 2).

Let me appeal again to FER. On the same page as the above quote, there is this exchange (the article is actually the notes of a Reading meeting):

R.S.S. We speak of 'our fellowship'.

F.E.R. If you mean christian fellowship I do not mind. If you mean a special fellowship I object very much.

R.S.S. Would you not speak of a person being received into fellowship?

F.E.R. We only admit that that man is fit to walk with christians anywhere.

This really cuts to the heart of the matter. Once we have set up a fellowship where membership is optional, then we have set up a sect. We have set up a system. It may be a very good system, it may be the best of the sects out there. But it is still a sect. It is still man's invention, regardless of how well intentioned the men were who set it up.

So when I describe myself as "Post-Brethren", I don't say that to mean I am leaving "brethren", but that I am no longer interested in Brethrenism.

Whether this will have any affect on my fellowship and assembly situation remains to be seen. There may well be consequences to saying something like this, especially in public. But I honestly believe this is the path we must take, if we are to be honest about where we are, and how we arrived here.

In my original post, I enumerated some specific incidents that have helped me arrive at this conclusion. I think it's best to remove those: there is no real value in making accusations online, other than to stir up strife.

I still believe what "brethren" claim to believe. I believe the Lord is present whenever a couple (or more) people gather to honour Him, regardless of whether it's in a church building or a Gospel Hall, or a living room. I believe the Lord's wish is to be remembered in Breaking of Bread. Frequently. I believe there is no better teacher than the Holy Spirit, and that there is no better source of wisdom and knowledge than the Word of God. I believe the Church was and should be characterized by spontaneous, unscripted meetings where all the brethren are free to stand up and speak. I believe there is only One Body, and every Christian is a member, and there is no other membership that the Word of God recognizes.

And I'm still a Dispensationalist. Yes, I read Gerstner's book, and I found it thoroughly unconvincing. And I've read plenty of "papers" by second-year students at some Reformed school or another, all thinking they were original in repeating the same tired old saws about Dispensationlism. I'm still not convinced.

The Lord Jesus really is coming back. Soon. And I've decided to finally let the Brethrenism ship set sail without me, so I can concentrate on getting to know Him before He comes to get me.

I've wasted enough time.

Odd's life, I used to joke about brethrenisms, but somewhere along the path, they became real. Perhaps that's the Lord's allowing me to see my own folly in Technicolor. Maybe I goaded Him into it. I've now met the people who really believe what I used to joke about. And I've become one of them. And now I'm seeing the foolishness of it: the foolishness of the arrogances, the foolishness of my own mockeries of them: "Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour." (Pr. 14:9).

In the end, the Lord calls us to so much more than what we do. I want to experience it.


And I should re-iterate my final note. There are all sorts of mature, godly believers who are "brethren". I am not by any means doubting that. But I have been forced to conclude that I personally cannot go on with the system we have built.

All of the implications of that statement aren't clear to me yet.

Dirty Laundry

I've been saying since the outset that I've wanted to avoid airing dirty laundry on this blog: that is, that I want to not spend time bad-mouthing Christians on this blog. As a result, I've been reading and re-reading my blog every once in a while, checking to make sure I don't cross the line.

This has become more important, as people are now actually reading it. I've shared the url for this blog with a few people, and I've linked to it from one online forum where I occasionally participate. Other than that, I've tried to not advertise it: consider that an experiment in graph theory on the web.

Well, I was re-reading last night, and I decided to remove the post declaring myself Post-Brethren. I still hold that view, but I want to re-work that a little and re-post it. It was written in some frustration, and it was honest, but I think I crossed the line a couple times.

So rather than quietly altering the blog, I removed that post (well, I just un-published it), and I'll try and write something a little more controlled to express that, then post it here again.

A final word: I started this blog as a very personal thing: allowing me to express my thoughts and feelings as I'm working through some church issues. So it was not written to be reader-friendly, so to speak. But I have really enjoyed talking things over with the people who have come here, read it, and emailed me or commented. And I've used this blog occasionally to explain a conversation that started in the parking lot after meeting...

So the people who come here and read this, I never really wrote it for you, but I am very happy you're here. And for those people who've discussed this blog with me in comments or email, I've really enjoyed our chats.

And yes, that includes you, Bill.

The goal

I've spent some time on the Gospel (mainly in Romans) recently. It started out because I've been concerned that Christians have lost sight of it: we've gotten caught up in any number of pursuits, and have lost sight of the central message of the New Testament: that God has provided a way for sinners to be freed from the penalty and power of their sins.

But I've also been spending some time on the topic, because I believe the Gospel is the clearest character sketch of God that we have: we have seen His holiness, His heart, and His love for us in the Gospel. As I spend time thinking and meditating on the Gospel, I find myself with a fresh appreciation for the Person He is.

Having said that, I wanted to bring up a favourite Bible verse of mine:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them (Revelation 21:3, NASB)

I find this verse interesting, because it presents us with a wonderful thought: that God's purpose is to be among men. That's what He wants. He's not content to be in Heaven with men (and women) on earth; His desire is to have men with Him. Consider God's words to Moses: "They shall know that I am the LORD their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God." (Exodus 29:46, NASB). God's purpose in bringing the children of Israel from Egypt was "that I might dwell among them".

We tend to lose sight of what motivated God to hunt down sinners. It wasn't that He needed us, it wasn't that He has a job for us to do: it was because He wanted to have us with Him. We have a tendency to think God wants something from us: the opposite is true, He wants to be everything for us.

I made the statement earlier that I have a real problem with any sort of teaching that attributes an ulterior motive to God in salvation. I really want to emphasize this point. It's a terrible thing for us to slander God: When we present the Gospel as some sort of contract between God and man, we do exactly that. We cast aspersion on God's character, saying that He's the sort of Person who only acts in His own interest.

God is overwhelmingly kind. He is love. We need to be oh-so-careful that we don't have low thoughts of Him; of the One who pursued us to bring us to Heaven.

Light from Darkness

For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6, NASB)

I've been making a big deal out of justification and how it is completely, utterly free. This is the wonderful truth of justification set forth in the Scriptures. And we've touched on eternal life a little. Not nearly enough, but a brief nod. We need to get back there eventually. But now let's look at things a little differently.

I believe 2 Corinthians 4:6 gives the most succinct definition of Christianity (not merely salvation, although it includes that) in the Bible. It stands out as possibly the most wonderful and most humbling verse. God commanded light to shine out of darkness, and it did: "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." (Genesis 1:3, NASB). The same God has looked at sinful men and women, and commanded that light should shine out of their dark hearts: "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ".

Let's consider this a minute. Who made this decision? The God who called light to shine out of darkness. Remember Romans 4:17 ? "God, who... calls into being that which does not exist" (NASB). Yeah, Him: the God who refused to leave well enough alone. The God who'd rather give His Son than to let sinners get what they deserve. The God who relentlessly pursues Hell-bound sinners, in order to drag them kicking and screaming into eternal life.

God demonstrated something in creation that has never been duplicated in the physical realm: God called something to come out of nothing. Morally, this is identical to what He has done in salvation: "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:13 & 14, NASB). He took nothing, and turned it into something.

This is a miracle, no less than creation was.

We frequently obscure the shining out of God's glory from our hearts. We still carry around this thing the Bible calls "the flesh", and sometimes it's hard to see past it. But it's shining there none the less. Remember Paul? A better man than any of us, he experienced this very thing in Romans 7. But God shone His glory out of the darkness of Paul's heart. The same God who didn't need anything to work with when He commanded light to shine from darkness, the same One who called light to shine out of Paul's heart; calls light to shine out of our hearts.

There is a school of thought out there that you need "fruit" to show for repentance: that you can't be sure you're forgiven unless your life has changed. I don't agree with that completely, but there is a sense where they're right. That is, God's work in a sinner's heart must inevitably result in something wonderful, new, and possibly a little scary. But there is a danger in looking at the saved man or woman with an obsession for finding "fruit": the danger lies in mis-crediting it. God called light to shine from darkness, He works out "fruit" in me without my help.

There's also a danger in rushing to judgement on something like "fruit". There are things God calls "fruit" that we consider repulsive: Abraham proved himself justified by his willingness to murder his son (James 2:21), Rahab proved her faith by committing treason (James 2:25). We're woefully bad judges of good fruit, and we need to bear that in mind. For an interesting read, go through Hebrews 11 some time, and compare what Hebrews says about the people there with what the Old Testament says about them. Consider Joseph: a wonderful young man, apparently without fault (although some think he was boastful about his dreams). What does Hebrews 11 commend him for? "By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders concerning his bones" (Hebrews 11:22, NASB). Apparently of all the wonderful things Joseph did, this is what was worthy of record in the "faith chapter".

2 Corinthians 4:6 is a wonderful verse, because it describes God's work in our hearts in terms of how difficult it is: God is doing the impossible in His work in the hearts of sinners. But it's a humbling verse, because it shows just what we have to offer God: absolutely nothing.

But I wanted to bring up this wonderful, humbling verse; because it gives another perspective on salvation: the focus is on God's work in us. It reminds us that He didn't justify us just to desert us. Rather He's taken us in as His work: and He will certainly accomplish in us what He has set out to do (Philippians 1:6 ).

And what's the end that He has in store for us? "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29, NASB). There is a goal He has for us, a goal He is working towards right now. And to some degree, we who have been justified and have been given eternal life are all showing that now: He is bringing us into conformity wih His Son. He is making us all "little Christs".

He starts by uniting us with Christ in death and resurrection, but He continues by constant work in us: revealing the eternal life He has given us.

"Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2, NASB). There is a day coming when we'll look at Him face to face: this is our goal, this is what motivates us. We'll see Him, and we'll be like Him. Not because God needs us, not because He has an ulterior motive in saving sinners. But because He wants us to share His delight in His Son.

And all the work He does for us and in us is to this end.