Brethren pioneers had their troubles, too

Press, 4 January 1978, Page 17

Brethren pioneers had their troubles, too

STAN DARLING completes his investigation into the Exclusive Brethren sect by looking back to its beginnings.

Warnings about the troubles being experienced today by the rigid in-

can curate, was returning to high churchmanship by demanding adherence to doctrine as a prerequisite to fellowship. He talked of “your union daily becoming one of doctrine and opinion, more than life and love,” and warned that “you will see all the evils of the systems from which you profess to be separated, to spring up among yourselves.”

He said: “The moment you cease to be an available mount of communion for any consistent Christian, you will go to pieces or help the evil.”

clusive Brethren sect were sounded right from the start by one of the Brethren’s founders. Within a few years of the first informal Dublin meetings in 1829, Mr Anthony Norris Groves said that another founder — Mr John Nelson Darby — was changing the ideals and emphasis of early Brethren teachings. Mr Darby became the principle architect of Exclusivism after a major Brethren split in 1848. Since then, Mr Groves has been regarded as a founder of the Open Brethren movement

Later in the 1800 s, a writer on the sect said that Exclusivism began with the principle of universal communion, and ended with universal excommunication.

There were doctrinal differences within the sect from the beginning, and a “war of pamphlets” kept the tension at a high level before 1848. Even Mr Darby criticised the narrowness of some other leaders: “What I object to is the systematic effort to form a sect, and the discrediting and denouncing of those who do not adopt the opinions which form its base.”

Mr Groves was prophetic in predicting that the Brethren would become known more for what they witnessed against, than what they witnessed for. In a third warning, he said that there was a danger “that this tendency gave every opportunity for bigotry and the prominence of human authority

Early criticism said that Mr Darby was veering away from “witnessing to the positive truth of the unity of believers, and towards the necessity for ■witnessing against error in church order and doctrine,” according to Mr Peter Embley, a lecturer in Divinity at St Paul’s College, Cheltenham. In a 196" book on development of Christian sects, Mr Embley traced the Plymouth Brethren’s early history. Mr Groves had said that Mr Darby, a former Angli-

... the most narrow minded and bigoted will rule, because his conscience cannot and will not give way, and therefore the more enlarged heart must yield.” There were criticisms that infant meetings of the movement were looking too much to Mr Darby as their founder, instead of looking to Christ. Mr Darby, himself, seemed to have taken account of the criticism, at least at first.

Plymouth Brethren founders had no programme, manifesto, or creed when they first came together, according to Mr Embley. Their actions were sparked more by common sentiments — they called themselves “evangelical malcontents” — than by specific theories.

They came from various denominations to show

their unity as evangelical believers, in a way apart from sectarian restrictions.

claim to be exclusively the “invisible Church of the true believers,” according to Mr Embley, “but at least to a certain extent, they saw themselves as giving it physical expression in a visible, demarcated community.” A crucial factor in keeping far-flung assemblies in touch with each other was the dominance of certain teachers “who impressed their insights upon the communities, which looked to them as spiritual guides,” he added. A small number of leading Brethren, who could travel widely and minister, exerted a wide influence through their personal charisma. At the local levels were men who were the normal leaders of their communities. As the movement spread, Mr Embley said, “the differing insights led inevitably to tensions” which caused the 1848 split “and many subsequent splits.” Mr B R. Wilson, a Uni-

versity of Oxford reader in sociology, has written tha the 1848 schism led to rapid organisational changes for the Exclusive Brethren, who had formerly been known for the openness of their fellowship.

A regular “breaking of bread” communion service was started, but it was designed not to clash with regular services of the worshippers who belonged to established churches. As numbers at the weekly service grew, it was transferred to a Dublin public hall. Some participants disagreed with the change, since it pointed toward a separate church. As time went on, it was apparent that the Brethren were trying to throw away church traditions built up over 18 centuries, and to start over again. Similar attempts had been made by several breakaway movements since the 19305, all of them rejecting any form of separated ministry in the new movement. A high percentage of the first founders were either Anglican ministers or training for the ministry. The Brethren did not

In 1836, Mr Darby had said he would welcome fellowship with any believer, no matter what his church connection. But while he and Mr Groves were emphasising the rejection of doctrinal tests, others were concerned that there had to be some central authority to hold the group together. Later, Mr Darby insisted that his followers had to take seriously their need to avoid worldly contamination. there 'had to be clear criteria for admission to the Brethren.

His teachings were extended by later sect leaders, Mr Wilson said, “and especially in the recnet past, development has been exceptionally rapid.” A formally-constituted

pretation are few and circumscribed.”

Not so for the Brethren, he added, who started teaching that truth was always being “opened up” to the separated community.

authority was no longer seen as contrary to God’s will. Strong leaders were soon clearly recognised. In 1849, Mr Darby said the church’s obligation was to “purge itself from the remotest association with wrong doctrine.”

A large number of assemblies split from the movement in the 1870 s and 1880 s. A party called the New Lumpists (from Corinthians: “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened”) objected to new members being admitted, since they could not be instructed sufficiently in the truth.

Exclusive Brethren followers were considered to be saints, and already “in heavenly places” through their fellowship. They had no need to be concerned with moral problems arising outside the group. They believed “that no other body has the Truth of the Church, or walks in the light of the Assembly, or acts in the power of the Holy Spirit," Mr Wilson said.

According to Mr Wilson, the sect — because of its isolation — was developing an unreal sense of sacredness about its own values, whatever they were. Its members thought themselves already in the heavenly state. James Taylor, snr, a 1900 s leader, had opponents who claimed that he made too much of the church, and too little of Christ, as if his followers were themselves quasiChrists.

on Christ, but needed the assembly’s mediation and support.

“The new ideological formulation re-entrenches the community,” Mr Wilson said, “sanctifies its practices, and establishes the utter dependence of the saint on the sect.”

There was continued opposition to Mr Taylor’s claims to propound new teachings, as there was later controversy over his son’s ministry. According to the Wilson history, Mr Taylor “made minimum concessions to traditions, or scriptures with a contrary bearing.” In 1935, he said that “the Assembly really is a reflection of heaven." It was a chaste virgin, saved for Christ.

Early on, if a member out of favour at one meeting visited another assembly, the entire assembly could be expelled.

Mr Taylor, snr, died in 1953. He had gained complete dominance over the sect. His letters revelaed the extent of his involvement with local assemblies, and how much he was consulted about disciplinary matters. All new teaching developments were referred to him, as later, they were referred to his son. the senior Taylor was a New York City linen merchant who visited Northern Ire-

“For most sects, ideology tends to be taken as revealed at one time, to a leader, or in a scripture,” Mr Wilson said, “and the possibilities of re-inter-

The individual was no longer directly dependent

land and England regularly on business. He held annual meetings in London, where new teaching developments were discussed. Assemblies throughout the world came to expect “new light” at each series of teachings, which led to changes in doctrine, litergy, and social practices.

Those changes were normally initiated by informal leaders in the movement, and developments were cautious to avoid new splits.

Brethren believed that God had abandoned Christ dun..g the crucifixion, leaving him to suffer alone, die and be abandoned for three days before the resurrection. The abandonment of members so they could suffer and atone was seen in a similar light.

Mr Wilson said that the younger Taylor’s ministry was not wholly acceptable from the start: "The development of new teaching. and new spiritual practice, since James Taylor. jnr, succeeded his father, has occasioned a slow process of purge among the Brethren.”