A Case Study – The Brethren Movement

A Case Study – The Brethren Movement

One of the most serious attempts to return to a New Testament expression of the church was the initial Brethren movement. It is a stream I have studied closely and from which I believe there are many lessons to learn.

Overview

The original Brethren movement began with a few influential individuals from various church backgrounds who met in Dublin during the 1820’s. They were concerned at the disparity between the prevailing condition of the church and the church of the Bible and desired to return to the simplicity of the church’s beginnings. They met to study God’s word and commemorate the Lord’s Supper. They rejected the sectarian divisions of denominationalism and held to the truth of the one “body of Christ” being comprised of all true believers in Christ.

That first fellowship of a few individuals in Dublin quickly grew to become a movement. All who demonstrated a sincere faith in Jesus were welcomed into their fellowship and some fellowshipped with them while performing their responsibilities as ordained clergy in other churches.

The earliest Brethren sought in unassuming simplicity of heart to recover the essence of biblical church practice. Their understanding of the Word and their practise of its principles for church function were an advance on many earlier recovery movements.

People with similar beliefs in other continents joined in fellowship with them and there was much blessing.

They shared common concern as to the breakdown of the professing church. Their conviction as to the public failure of the church meant that for them humility was the only appropriate response. They did not attempt to reform or restore the fallen and fragmented church considering it to be an impossible task. Instead they sought a new beginning which would be faithful to New Testament teaching and practice. They emphasised the authority of God’s Word and met in simplicity in the name of Jesus, often in humble informal settings. They refused the division of clergy and laity; acknowledged the role of gifts for ministry and recognised the vital importance of the Holy Spirit in “the body of Christ” and in all Christian service. There was a continuing focus on “the Lord’s Supper”, “prayer and the ministry of the word”,[1] evangelism and mission.

They refused to take a sectarian name saying they were simply (small ‘b’) brethren aligning with the words of Christ: “One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren”.[2] Soon others identified them as Brethren, or Plymouth Brethren because there was a significant gathering of them in Plymouth.

They refused the title of ‘church’ with all of its ecclesiastical connotations and preferred to refer to their gatherings as ‘assemblies’ (the literal translation of the Greek word ekklesia).

John Nelson Darby[3] (an academically accomplished barrister who became an ordained Curate in the Church of Ireland and who was characterised by a lifestyle of deep spirituality and self-denial) decided to join with them soon after they had commenced and became one of a number of significant and influential early leaders[4]. He was a very erudite man of outstanding intellect, incisive judgment and force of personality. He engaged in public discussion and expounded the truths of Scripture concerning “the body of Christ” with great understanding and persuasion. He wrote many hymns and poems containing rich and worshipful sentiments. His gospel tract “How the Lost Sheep was Found” is a moving narrative from his personal evangelism.

Darby had considerable impact in his times and he has significantly influenced thinking to this day.

He translated the Scripture into a number of languages and travelled around the globe ministering, often to small groups of believers and witnessing for Christ wherever he went. A distinctive of his translation work was its high level of precision, its range of vocabulary and especially the elimination of ecclesiastical meanings insinuated into the King James Version which was then effectually the universally used English translation. In the English version of his translation Darby more accurately translated the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ as ‘assembly’ instead of ‘church’ and the words ‘overseer’ and ‘elder’ were used instead of the word ‘bishop’ to break away from the ecclesiastical mindset that had become associated with the common usage of these words. There is no doubt that the translators of the King James Version were influenced by the ecclesiastical thinking of their day in the Church of England and they were very aware that their translation work was commissioned by King James 1^st who had no mind to change the traditions of the Church of England.[5] Darby’s English translation is still used by students of the Word today and was intended for use by those wanting to understand the finer meanings of the Word rather than for public reading and general use in churches.[6]

Writing of “the body of Christ” he said it is:

“a living thing animated down here by its union with the Head, and the presence of the Holy Ghost in it. It is a real actual thing the Holy Ghost acting down here. If two are faithful in this, they will be blessed in it.”[7]

Also, “if the Spirit of God be looked at as residing in the teachers and not in the whole body, it is the full blown principle of Romish clericalism”.[8]

The brethren desired to return to first principles and give Jesus Christ His right place of honour amongst them as the sole Head of “the body of Christ”. They refused to acknowledge the authority of man or man-made institutions over the church of Jesus Christ.

Darby asserted that “the notion of a clergyman”[9] stood in opposition to the animation of the Holy Spirit in “the body of Christ” and that the clerical system debarred the Holy Spirit from using whom He will, as He will and when He will. He had been a clergyman himself and he was not accusing individual clergymen but he was pointing out that the principle, ‘the notion’, was wrong.

“If Paul came here [the Church of Ireland], he could not preach, he has no letters of orders; if the bitterest opponent of his doctrine came who had, he would, according to the system, be entitled. It is not a wicked man slipping in (that may happen anywhere) – it is the system itself. The system is wrong. It substitutes man for God. True ministry is the gift and the power of God’s Spirit, not man’s appointment.”[10]

His concern was that there was a system of authority controlling the church which was not of God; a clerical and sectarian rule that displaced the authority of Christ the Head. This was radical thinking in those times.

Another of their earliest leaders, George Muller, wrote:

“It seemed unscriptural to me for a servant of Christ to put himself under the control and direction of anyone but the Lord.”[11]

George Muller became known for a remarkable faith mission to orphans although he had no money of his own and as a matter of principle incurred no debt. In this he demonstrated God’s willingness to answer prayer and inspired many others to trust in God’s faithfulness.

Charles Stanley, who also was one of the early Brethren, was both a businessman and a gifted evangelist. He experienced remarkable day-by-day leadings from the Lord. There are many recorded miracles of divine guidance and providence in his very fruitful ministry as he obeyed the communications he received directly from the Holy Spirit day by day. He describes their simple but biblical basis of fellowship as follows.

“Do I hold the truth of the one body? That all believers since Pentecost are members of that one body? That all believers now form that one body in God’s sight? The next question is this, Do I personally desire to act on that truth; to love all that are the Lord’s, and seek to serve them? Whatever others do, do I desire to shape my ways in accordance with this great truth – the truth of the ‘one body’?

“I find others do the same. Not that they, for a moment, assume to be that body, but seek to recognise no body but the one body of Christ, composed of all that are His. If I find others desiring to walk according to the word of God, then surely I can have fellowship with them.”[12]

After describing some of his amazing experiences of divine guidance by the Holy Comforter he concluded with these words:

“Yes, He abides with us; and if we were more simple, we should know far more of His divine guidance in our path of service. It is just as ecclesiastical arrangements increase, that the direct guidance of the Spirit is set aside. We have little idea how much we lose by this.”[13]

Another who was there in the beginning and who is remembered for his devotional book “The Moral Glories of the Lord Jesus Christ” was J. G. Bellett. In a letter of his dated June 1858, having described simultaneous movements of the Holy Spirit in various parts of Ireland, England, the European continent, southern India and even a connection with Baghdad he went on to say as follows.

“In order to sustain a thing spiritual and living like the Church, the natural way, yea necessary way (save that God is sovereign) is by a fresh putting forth of light and power to revive it again and again… so that the coal may not be quenched. Such revivals may each of them have its own peculiarities, while partaking of the kindred spirit or of the common witness that the same Holy Ghost is working.

The Reformation… was marked by a clear and fervent witness of justification by faith – the very truth then needed for the deliverance of souls, long held in deep captivity. Other revivals and energies had their character in like manner, and whether or not they have ever become the subject of history, faith knew of them, and the souls of the elect were edified and thankful. I do not doubt that the work of God by and with ‘Brethren’ had its special purpose also.

It seemed with certainty to present the separatedness of the Church from the world, and a distinct witness to its heavenly calling and high peculiar dignity; so also to assert the precious truth that nothing else is worthy of the House of God, though the House be in ruins, as it was surely known and felt to be.”

People of similar conviction in the USA also connected with this movement and coupled with great missionary zeal the movement quickly became a global force which has quite profoundly influenced both fundamentalist and evangelical thinking to this day. [14] The influence of this movement can be found in other more recent movements including the House Church movement.

The Brethren movement grew rapidly with many assemblies being established worldwide within the first fifty years.[15] Brethren reached the peak of their strength immediately before World War II.[16] They impacted many influential leaders including Hudson Taylor and later Watchman Nee both of whom sowed into the foundations of the now well established church in China. Evangelist Dwight L. Moody[17] was another.

One historian has commented as follows:

“The contribution of the Brethren… has been out of all proportion to their numbers. They have held to the authority of the Bible during a time when it has been under constant fire. Many of their members have had leading positions in interdenominational agencies. They have been active in evangelism and have drawn attention to the church as the body of Christ, made up of all true believers and equipped with spiritual gifts distributed amongst the members.”[18]

A number of others have expressed a similar view.[19]