UNITY COMPROMISED BY INTOLERANCE
In essence, the "brethren" found that their radical theory dispensed with devices which kept other denominations united, and soon they were full of schisms. F.C. Bland noted how many became disillusioned: they "never rightly estimated the difficulties to be met within an assembly of saints". (Truths for Today, (1886) p 46.)
It began with disagreement about biblical views on certain doctrines. For soon some Brethren began to advocate that their basis of unity was complete agreement with one another or as they said, being faithful to the Scripture. Consequently the first significant dispute split the Brethren in half. In the great split of 1848 an accusation that Benjamin Wills Newton, the leader of the Plymouth assembly was a heretic, led Darby to refuse fellowship with anyone who had any contact with him and when the assembly at Bethesda chapel, Bristol announced that they would receive Christians from Plymouth who did not hold Newton's heresy, Darby cut off that assembly which then became the origin of the "Open Brethren" - open not because of their form of worship but because they were open to all Christians who loved the Lord. Similarly the word Exclusive meant those who wanted to exclude those who did not have the "light" on the truth which the Brethren had.
The results of exclusivism are now obvious. They included the tendency to look for one leader who could define what was right hence, the Exclusive Brethren (after Darby) had a series of disastrous leaders - Raven and James Taylor Senior and Junior. There were also endless splits through the whole movement over minute points of doctrine. It is a tragedy to see the way in which a great movement was destroyed by Darbyism.
The Open Brethren were for many years much weaker. They were more evangelistic but they were not so well organised and had fewer great teachers. It is also not surprising to find that the desire to preserve their uniqueness led even Open Brethren in an exclusive direction not least of all in New Zealand.
Splits have been very common since then especially among those who fail to recognise the authority of elders within the local church. When J.G. Deck came to New Zealand he really sought to show a broad fellowship with all those who loved the Lord's name; he preached as invited in churches of many denominations, and fellowshipped with many ministers, confident that the truth is its own witness. Tragically J.N. Darby hounded him to New Zealand and forced him to become more narrow in his fellowship.
REASONS FOR PROBLEMS
a. Exclusivism
The Brethren mistake was to make agreement of detailed doctrine rather than Christ the basis of unity. These difficulties were caused by what we may call positional pride. There was a certain feeling that now they were obeying Christ, and therefore Christ would bless them uniquely. So they tended to tie Christ down to commitment to them. The result was "exclusivism" - the view that they must guard the truths that they had discovered. So they ceased to work in co-operation with other believers, and looked down on everything outside the Brethren. It is powerfully described by Groves in his letters to Darby (See C.B.R.F. Journal 107, November 1986.) There is a deep need for us to recognise that not all have been privileged to understand the things we have, and we accept them in Christ, not on the basis of their beliefs. As Groves told Darby:
'Then what are these principles of heavenly communion? Loving all whom Christ loves because they bear his impress: let this same rule then decide the question of our communion here on earth: all whom Christ loves, who bear His impress, or whom we ourselves acknowledge as Christians. ... should it be asked what are to be done with errors? Are they not to bar communion? No: unless they bar Christ from the temple of the erring brother's heart. ... So long as we judge Christ to be dwelling with a man, that is our warrant for receiving him; and for the charity of that judgement that declares Him not there, we are responsible.' Cited in Groves biography, pp 533 5.)
The differences we have with other Christians are not necessarily shared by Christ. We must understand that God blesses where he wants to, and he is able to bless even in the midst of great sin and failure. Exclusiveness is not totally bad. Soundness in the truth is important. But the Brethren view of the church requires a large heartedness. We do not need to be perfect and we can have fellowship with the imperfect. We are system builders but God is above and beyond our systems.
In effect system builders recreate denominationalism in a new and more insidious form - more insidious because there is no formal structure among Brethren for considering issues. Too easily, Brethren vested authority in certain great preachers but these men were almost always the narrowest and strictest. There was a natural tendency towards conservatism which Groves had feared early on.
b. Spiritual Weakness
Crucial to Brethren practice was a high level of discipleship and spirituality, and above all of love and grace. No principles of the leading of the Spirit in worship will work if our hearts are not right. Pharisaic pride and self righteousness has always been a danger to Christians. As the assemblies have been taken over by the second and third generations of descendants of those zealous pioneers, declining spiritual commitment has also been an issue, and sometimes the fellowship is not so close. We cannot claim to be more righteous than others but unless we long for righteousness we will lose what really matters.
c. Understanding of Cultural Factors
All churches need some practical rules, for example on the pattern of services, and on hymnbooks etc, and they need a heritage of belief or else they will repeat all the mistakes of the past. In their radicalism the early Brethren ignored what God had taught his people over the centuries, and repeated all the old heresies. Today there are new people who want to break with the past and begin again, but we should see the mistake. 160 years of Brethren history should not be wasted, or 2000 years of church history. Of course tradition is not sacrosanct, but it is not necessarily wrong.
d. Brethren Traditionalism
There can be no authority in Brethren tradition. Only Scripture is our authority. When we're surrounded by taboos about who can take part, about how we take part, then we freeze God's work. We often misunderstand our tradition too. For example the early Brethren did often have local pastors, they accepted a variety of views on the return of Christ and the role that women played in their churches was not as uniform as we might think.
If we reject any formal creed, then inevitably there will be some differences among us, just because our interpretations of Scripture are coloured by our own background. We must accept differences of interpretation in a spirit of fellowship. We need to be able to learn things afresh from God's word, and to expect that there are always new things to learn. In lots of areas the New Testament has to be applied "in the circumstances" for example in evangelism and language. Recognising that there is a legitimate place for development in Christian history helps us to accept that churches may change in the way they do things. On this basis it may be possible to grapple with the once contentious issue of the Charismatic movement. What made that movement hard for the Brethren to cope with was the fact that it too, claimed to follow the Bible exactly. In fact, we would be wise to see that we all know in part and prophesy in part and that churches need to grow in their understanding of what God has for them without forsaking what he has already revealed.