SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BRETHREN
What makes the Brethren distinct among "restorationist churches?" Let me identify a number of great themes which shine through the sermons and writings of the early Brethren.
a. Christ the Only Lord of the Church
The Brethren had an intense belief in the lordship of Christ and were deeply committed to him. Their passion for Jesus was so strong that some people felt that it went too far - that it neglected all other aspects of God. They wanted to glorify Jesus absolutely so nothing must threaten him. They wanted intimate fellowship with him. The Lord Jesus loved them, and they wanted to soak themselves in that love. Nothing mattered more to them than to feel his presence and to give him glory. The hymns they wrote are all on focussed on the Lord and his great love and his salvation. Their central theme was the redemption he had given them. They lived day by day in the reality of the Lord and his sacrifice on the cross and this was their natural theme of conversation and the motivation for their service. Their worship was not a sermon or an exhortation; it was worship of Christ. So their prayers and their thoughts concentrated on what their Lord had done for them, and what it showed about him. Their central prayer was "thank you Lord for what you did for me". They were not only aware of the cross though. So preoccupied were they with Jesus that they constantly thought of Christ risen and glorified.
Let me quote a hymn by that founder of the Brethren in New Zealand, J.G. Deck:
Oh Lord, who now art seated
Above the heavens on high,
(The gracious work completed,
For which thou camest to die);
To thee our hearts are lifted,
While pilgrims wand'ring here;
For thou are truly gifted
Our every grief to share.
(Deck, Hymns, p 7.)
They used more than words to show their devotion. Their lives were full of acts of radical obedience. They saw themselves as "separated to Christ"; they quite deliberately rejected anything in their lives which seemed to threaten this, like compromise with the world, "unequal yoke" with unbelievers, etc. Their church was a church radically obedient to Christ.
A.N. Groves explained the principles of the Brethren thus (25 June 1834):
'I am so sure of the truth of those blessed principles the Lord has taught me, that I glory in their propagation: Simple obedience to Christ alone; recognition of Christ alone in my brother, as the Alpha and Omega in terms of of communion; lastly unreserved devotion to Christ alone.' (Cited by Coad, p 24.)
Most Protestant denominations appoint officials to organise things. The early Brethren avoided virtually all authority in the church because they thought it threatened Christ's supremacy. Most of them did recognise the need for elders in the local congregation but they never accepted that these elders had the power to dictate what people believed. Jesus says in Matthew 23:8: "You are not to be called Rabbi, for you have only one master and you are all brothers," and it was this kind of logic which led to them being called the Brethren. They were well aware that human titles are about authority and that is why they banned titles of office in the church. Christ is the Lord of the church, and it is his will and his word which has the only authority. There has always been something slightly anarchistic about the Brethren as a result and in the exclusive tradition, even the identification of elders was rejected as against Christ's will because he is no longer here to appoint them.
b. Obedience to the Scriptures
They began with a deep conviction of the authority of the Scriptures. From 2 Timothy 3:16 17 they learned not only the authority but also the sufficiency of Scripture. They therefore refused to accept creeds, confessions, or rule books. They were not prepared to draw up a creed or doctrinal basis, even as a summary of scriptural teaching, because any "subordinate authority" which so easily becomes more important than the Bible itself. They have tended to resist labels like "Calvinist", "Arminian". In this, the Brethren are very different from most other evangelicals and sometimes regarded as rather naive. They resolved all issues by looking for biblical guidance, even though the texts were not easily found. They resolved everything by proof texts. Yet although this approach has been much criticised it made them one of the solid cores of the evangelical world.
Not only so. It made them the radicals of evangelicalism, willing to do anything that had biblical justification, even if it hadn't been tried before. They were radical in their reading of the Bible. They used it to evaluate the religious organisations of their day. On this basis they rejected the traditional Christian approach to patterns of ministry, communion, and church order and discipline, seeking for biblical guidelines on these things. They went back to biblical language to describe the character of the church ("assembly", "saints", etc). They went back to biblical advice on dress and adornment. And they restored the place of the Communion as the central service of the church, although this had been forgotten by Protestants.
It also means that Biblical interpretation is a vital study for assembly members and Brethren have always focussed on this rather than theological study or church history. Those who became Brethren did so because of their private convictions about the teaching of scripture and the need to obey it. So the assemblies focussed on scripture; members loved to attend mid week "reading meetings". Their motto was 'every person to be a Bible student.' Some of the early members: Kelly, Tregelles, and Wigram, made a notable contribution to biblical research and Darby was one of the first to translate the Bible since 1611. They also had sharp disputes on biblical interpretation, and their emphasis on the Bible made the issue of the right to private interpretation a crucial one but one that was not always recognised. There very quickly tended to be a "Brethren interpretation", often the one recognised by the Scofield Bible. Yet Brethren have continued to be distinguished as notable Biblical scholars, including W.E. Vine, F.F. Bruce and many others today.
c. The Unity of God's Church
They emphasised the church and they gloried in it. Evangelical believers usually emphasised unity in preaching the gospel but left emphasis on the church's role in God's eyes to high church Anglicans and Roman Catholics.
Evangelical individualism was perhaps the greatest weakness of it as a movement. The Brethren searched for God's view, and found that the High Church were right to emphasise the church. Ephesians 4 emphasised God's interest in church life. But they did not want just to build a great institution. That was the Roman Catholic way. God said that his church was one and this was an eternal truth. Therefore they rejected the idea of membership of any body with a membership narrower than membership of the body of Christ. Consequently they rejected the whole concept of "denominations".
They cared deeply for the well being of God's whole church, and were active among Christians in any good work e.g. Bible distribution, preaching, helping the poor and needy etc. but they shunned any formal denominational organisation, and rejected names given to them. Only because they followed the biblical pattern in calling each other "Brethren" was the name Brethren given to them. They saw the local Church and the Church Universal as the Church's only biblical forms. How could the Lord's table be controlled by denominational membership? This was the centre of their disagreement with the Baptists, who often had a "closed membership" - restricted to those who had been baptised. Brethren did not require that those in their assemblies be baptised and indeed in the Exclusive Brethren different views of baptism were sometimes held and practised in the one group. It was an incredible vision - the source of fine ideals. As Deck puts it:
We would remember we are one,
With every saint that loves thy name;
United to thee on the throne
Our life, our hope, our Lord the same.
Deck: Hymns - p 13
This emphasis on the universal church did not undercut the life of the local church. The Brethren gave a renewed emphasis to the character and importance of the local congregation, modelled on the "assemblies" described in Paul's epistles. In the exclusive tradition these assemblies were not fully independent from each other, whereas in the Open Brethren each had its own elders and was independent in judgement, but even so there was usually a great deal of co operation between them. Yet their vision was of the local church as a community of God's people placed in a district to bear testimony to Christ. The testimony came about through their fellowship and their work in the Gospel. They shared a common life together and thus made the name "Brethren" and the word "fellowship" more than just nominal. Their love and care for one another became legendary. The love of the Lord drew them closer to each other.
In those early days the Brethren were a close fellowship. In our days sometimes the fellowship is not so close, so there's something a little awkward about our relating to each other, and sharing about the Lord with each other. It can be a particular problem in a large church, where you feel as though "you have to be pretty good to take part". Large Brethren assemblies were always rare, for they could no longer be held together by fellowship and needed organisation of a kind which was abhorrent to Brethren. So many Brethren problems today, come because this principle of living fellowship is replaced by a desire to be as big and brassy as other churches, rather than to show forth the unity and fellowship of Christ.
d. The Priesthood and Ministry of All Believers
The first Brethren saw in the New Testament that believers in Christ were described as "saints", and they also believed that their greatest privilege was as believers to approach the throne of Christ. So they rejected the idea that one person was a priest (as had all the churches of the Reformation) but also the practice of licensing one person to be the leader of the people's worship and to be the preacher. No one was to be "the reverend" with them. No one person was the minister, for all were to minister to each other. Each believer should have the freedom to lead the congregation in worship.
And so the beginning of the Brethren was when little groups of believers, some of them ordained ministers, some of them lay people, women and men, committed themselves to living out the bible's instructions about corporate fellowship. There were full time workers among the Brethren, indeed very many of them, but those workers never claimed any status other than in the quality of the service that they provided and the gifts which God had given to them.
The emphasis on the priesthood of all believers led them to the form of service which is the most characteristic mark of the Brethren - the open Communion service. This service they thought of as an expression of I Corinthians 14. However, they ignored the mention in that chapter of the more spectacular gifts mentioned there - gifts that you do not see in many Brethren services. The fact is that the Brethren style worship service isn't precisely described in the Bible. The Bible has never prescribed ritual like that, as the Brethren well knew. Rather this service was, for the early Brethren, expressive of the truths of communion with Christ and the priesthood of all believers. They were tremendously excited about their new experience of Christ's presence with them as they lifted their voices in praise. They felt that something of earth shattering importance took place as they worshipped, for their prayers were made powerful by the blood of Christ to touch the heart of God. As Deck wrote: (Hymns, p 38)
We meet as priests together, within the once rent veil,
We trust His gracious promise, whose name can never fail;
Our prayers on high we offer, as incense through his blood,
And wait for gracious answers from our prayer hearing God.
e. The Leading of the Spirit
They believed that Christ still guided his church, and gave gifts for service. So they wanted those called to be preachers or missionaries not to require "licensing" by some authority but to have the freedom to use their gifts and follow the leadership of the Spirit. Thus the "full time workers" looked to the Lord" for their support, and were neither paid nor accepted human direction of their service.
The doctrine also affected their services. They did not want a minister up front in charge of the service or any set rituals. In their worship, they did not arrange things - to allow the Spirit to lead and people to use their gifts. They believed that they would sense the Lord's presence when they trusted the Lord as their High Priest to lead them. They expected the Holy Spirit to provide gifts to help the church in worship as well as service. And they therefore, accepted everything which took place in the service as led by the Lord, even the "gaps" which became precious times of meditation and the clumsy or unclear participation because it was the heart, not the words which mattered. Rendle Short answered the obvious objection to the practice: Someone may say: "But will not things get into dreadful confusion if you seek to follow out these practices? In those days [the days of the early church] they had the Holy Spirit to guide them, and shall we not go wildly astray and have dull, confused, unprofitable meetings, unless we have someone to take charge? Is not that practically a denial of the Holy Spirit? Do we dare deny that the Holy Spirit is still being given?" (cited in G.H. Lang, The Churches of God, p 86.)
The worship service was therefore a symbol of other aspects of the church. They took seriously the belief that the Holy Spirit is the one who guides. So they did not want a minister up front in charge of the service, or any set rituals. They believed that they would sense the Lord's presence when they trusted the Lord as their High Priest to lead them. They expected the Holy Spirit to provide gifts to help the church in worship as well as service. And they therefore accepted everything which took place in the service as led by the Lord, even the "gaps" which became precious times of meditation, and the clumsy or unclear participation, because it was the heart, not the words which mattered.
f. They valued Simplicity
To them, Christ was not glorified in fine show, but in simple adherence to the Word. They were almost certainly influenced by the Quakers in their rejection of grandeur. This showed too in their dress - plainness was valued. It showed too in their mode of life - luxuries were suspect, and many of the early Brethren from the nobility gave up their status, ate with the servants, and eschewed all dignity. The Brethren adopted the pattern of moral puritanism and self restraint, following the strict tradition of the Puritans and Wesley. Self denial was all important - remember that the movement began with a book on Christian Devotedness, and men like Hudson Taylor, who lived "on faith" were very characteristic of the movement.
Simplicity also showed in their church life. They went for no grand symbols in their buildings, either hiring rooms or building very plain halls. Their services were very plain indeed, often excluding anything they thought was not in scripture, like organs, choirs, etc. The abiding principle is simplicity. This is most evident in the communion service. They believed that "where two or three are present" there the Lord comes and is present (Matthew 18:20). They wanted to provide a simple basis for all to share in the service and to meet the Lord. They wanted open participation and they believed that simplicity was related to hearts open before the Lord. The open scriptures, some bread some wine, and people who loved the Lord were all that was needed. Their view of the Lord's Supper was likewise to emphasise it but view it in a very plain, even Zwinglian way: "Only bread and only wine yet to faith the sacred sign, Of the sacred and divine ...
g. They were waiting for Christ's Return
They had a theology of glory. As a movement they had been born in excitement about the prophetic scriptures. There was a good deal of debate about prophecy in the Brethren. The key was their emphasis that Christ was coming to them not just as individuals but to take his church home. They expected that Christ's intention was to glorify the church, and they expected that Christ would come to take his church out of the world, not to exalt the church in the world. Their hope was intensely fixed on the return of Christ, and they saw this world as a very temporary place for the church. So they saw church and state as very separate, and saw society as contaminated. As a result they felt little commitment to the world. Most of them refused to bear arms for the state. In World War One the New Zealand Brethren magazine, The Treasury declared that Christians had no real right to get involved in the war and that God loved the German christians just as much as the English so it was better not to get involved. Often they rejected undue involvement in education, government service and human achievement as well. Their hopes and interests were fixed on heaven not earth. If this all seems a little narrow, recall the way in which the sense of Christ's return goaded them into action for Christ. To quote Deck again:
Our place is with him on the throne,
There with the Lord we love;
As strangers here, ourselves we own,
Our hearts, our home, above.
(Deck, Hymns, p 42.)
It is important to realise that none of these principles were really unique to them. Most other Protestant churches subscribed to many of these views, at least in theory, and today they are so common that they seem very "ho hum". But it was the intensity of their convictions which was startling.
We could do with a little of this self denial today.