Wie schon gesagt denke Ich dass in Deutschland unter der ‘AV’ und ‘Blockfreie Gemeinden’ die verschiedene Gedanken heute ausreichent auskristallisiert sind.
Beide Gruppen glauben “außerhalb aller Kirchenmauern und getrennt vom Bösen auf der Grundlage des Wortes Gottes zusammenkommen wollten”. Wie gelernt worden kann aus das N.T. und den Vätern der Brüderbewegung. In beide Gruppen findet man viele aufrechte Glaübige.
Vorhergehend habe Ich betrachtet ‘zu helfen’ – so sehe Ich es. Hier folgen noch zwei Dokumente die ‘Interessant’ sind bei diese entstehende Situation und Problematiek.
Am linken Seite seht mann nicht mehr was mann verstehen müss unter ‘kirchliche Irrtümer’. Auch hat Willem Ouweneel (mit Henk Medema) im Seine bekanntes heft über Sektiererei behauptet dass die ‘Brüder’ schon seit 1881 ‘der alte Weg’ verlassen haben. Viele sind dadurch beeinflusst und haben, denke Ich, ‘der alte Weg’ verlassen…!
Am rechten Seite rechnet man mit ‘kirchliche Irrtümer’ und sucht mann aufrecht nach eine Bilanz, aber seht man nicht dass man im Vergangenheit ‘der alte Weg’ schon verlassen hat… Man ist darüber in die Vergangenheit auch nicht deutlich informiert geworden! Schlecht informiert geworden… Darum folgende Dokumente.
The Assembly Having the Lord’s AuthoritySome pages out of a book from Bruce Anstey, living in Richmond, Canada, which have to do with the so-called Tunbridge Wells division
Another erroneous idea that some have is that if the assembly makes a wrong decision (and it may be only so in their eyes), then it can be no longer regarded as an assembly owned by God; and, therefore, they should leave it. This may be an excuse for them to act in self-will, and perhaps go elsewhere. However, it is a mistake to think that an assembly loses its standing as an assembly Scripturally gathered to the Lord's Name if it should make a binding action in error. This idea betrays an ignorance of confounding authority with infallibility. The fact that an assembly has authority but not infallibility is to assume the possibility that it could make a mistake. In making a mistake, the assembly does not lose its status as being a Scripturally gathered assembly, any more than parents in a household cease to be parents because they make a mistake in disciplining their child. Corinth was still recognized by the apostle as the church at Corinth, and was addressed as such by the apostle, even though there were serious evils there. If such an assembly refused to correct the evils in its midst, after much patient remonstrance, it potentially could be cut off or disowned by a binding action of another assembly on behalf of all assemblies at large on the true ground of the church.
An example of this misunderstanding would be in what happened at Tunbridge Wells in 1908-9. Some who know of this incident believe that the actions the assembly took, first in silencing (1903), and then later putting away C. Strange (1908), were unrighteous. Believing that Tunbridge's dealings with C. Strange were unjust and unscriptural, they thought that Tunbridge Wells thereby lost its status as an assembly truly gathered to the Lord's Name. [note: W. R. Dronsfield mistakenly propounds this idea in his book, "The Brethren Since 1870," p. 33, saying, "If two or three are truly gathered unto the Lord's Name, any decision they come to must be right for heaven to acknowledge it as such. The converse of this, however, is also true, which is that if those gathered together come to an unjust and unrighteous decision, they cannot be gathered unto the Lord's Name."] This being the case, some felt its actions could not be recognized as bonafide actions bound in heaven. Consequently, they would not bow to the decision.
Now it is clear from the facts of the case that the Tunbridge assembly did act in somewhat of a confusing way. Also, subsequent interaction between various ones with them at Tunbridge Wells manifested somewhat of a harsh spirit that certainly could not be condoned. But the great question is, "Was it an assembly decision?" Both sides agree that it was; only that the Lowe party in London believed it to be an unrighteous assembly decision, and therefore, would not bow to it. However, because some of the London brethren (the Lowe party) thought that the action was unrighteous and unscriptural doesn't change or nullify the action. The other question is, "Did the assembly at Tunbridge Wells have authority to act in the Lord's Name or not?" If not, when did it lose its authority to act? We have seen in the preceding pages that an assembly doesn't lose its standing as being Scripturally gathered to the Lord's Name because we (individuals) think it has made an unrighteous action! Let us remember, the action was made in the Name of the Lord by an assembly gathered to His Name, and thus vested with authority to act in administrative matters. The assembly at Tunbridge Wells definitely had authority to act in the Lord's Name. Therefore, their action was bound in heaven and all should have bowed to it. This would have prevented the division.
Since the action at Tunbridge did not seem to the Lowe party (and those on the continent) to bear the stamp of grace, they didn't consider it to be a bonafide assembly decision. [note: "Report by Bros. Brockhaus, Dönges, et al." p. 25.]The great mistake here is thinking that one only submits to a decision of an assembly when it is a correct one, and has been carried out in a gracious way. The idea of submitting, even if we think the decision is wrong, was not even considered. This was surely a departure from the Scriptural truth that earlier brethren taught. It is making assembly decisions contingent on the moral condition of the assembly - that the assembly must be in a good state before its decisions can be binding, and therefore, submitted to. Again, it is confounding authority with infallibility. A good moral state, of course, is desirable, but that is not what gives the assembly its authority. As we have already stated, it is the Lord being in its midst that gives an assembly its authority to act. If the Lowe party thought that the assembly at Tunbridge was in error, they should have bowed to the decision "prima facia”, at least for the time being; then sought to raise the conscience of that assembly as to its wrong. This would have preserved order and unity.
While some did address the brethren at Tunbridge as to this, it was not in the spirit of inquiry, but to condemn. Among many in London there was no acquiescence in the fact that the local brethren usually know the person's ways best, and their judgment should be submitted to. Regardless of this, N. Noel in his "History of the Brethren" notes that the brethren in London and around the country judged that the decision was unscriptural, and therefore, unrighteous. So they disregarded it! They allowed C. Strange to continue breaking bread among them! This was an act of utter contempt toward the action made in the Tunbridge assembly where the Lord was in the midst. The Lowe party manifested a spirit that assumed that they were above the authority of the Lord as vested in the assembly in Tunbridge - a very serious thing indeed. It was an affront to the Lord. It was only after the London meetings (that followed Mr. Lowe) had broken "the unity of the Spirit" in receiving C. Strange who had been put out in Tunbridge, that the assembly in Tunbridge issued its statement (1909) to no longer continue in fellowship with those who would not recognize the action they had taken in the Name of the Lord. This was also an action of an assembly gathered to the Lord's Name and should have been bowed to by all other assemblies. [note: One more question begs our attention. Should C. Strange have been put out? Both sides agree that he was a "self-willed" man. We believe that the Lord has made His mind known in the matter. After the Lowe party defended C. Strange and continued in fellowship with him, within a year and a half they had the embarrassing experience of having to put him out of their divergent fellowship for his ways - the very same thing that Tunbridge had done! (We notice that neither N. Noel's history or W. R. Dronsfield's history - supporters of the Lowe party - record this fact in their accounts of that sad division!)].
In conclusion, we would say that what was at the bottom of the whole issue to do with the Tunbridge Wells decision was the gross misunderstanding that an assembly action should be bowed to only when it is correct. Again, it is a simple matter of confounding authority with infallibility. A large part of the brethren from Europe got off track by attempting to discern the right path by assessing the moral state of both sides. They thought that the Lowe party was more humble, and therefore in the right. Hence, they made moral state the criteria upon which to judge the action, rather than the Lord's authority in the midst of those He has gathered. Those that went with the Lowe party acted on this false assumption, and it took them into division.
Scripture teaches that the moral state may be low in those on divine ground, and they may act churlish in matters, but it doesn't change ground of gathering that they are on and the authority of the Lord in their midst. This is seen in the case with Rehoboam (1 Ki. 12). He acted in a very poor way towards those of the ten tribes, against the advice of the elders; and his actions precipitated division in the kingdom. While we do not justify his actions, it didn't change the fact that He and all Judah were still at the divine center for Israel (Jerusalem) where God's authority was vested. If moral state were the criteria for deciding where the Lord was in that matter, we would have to say that He was with Jeroboam and the ten tribes, and set up His divine center in a place among them. We have already noted that the Lord would not do that: He was not with the northern tribes of Israel thereafter (2 Chron. 25:7).
What happened at Tunbridge Wells brought to light that a departure from the truth of assembly principles had been growing among brethren for a number of years. It took this incident to manifest it. Mr. Sibthorpe spoke of it as a "system." After the action had been taken by Tunbridge Wells to excommunicate C. Strange (1908), and then their subsequent action to no longer continue in fellowship with those assemblies that challenged the authority of the Lord in receiving C. Strange (1909), many were under the idea that they needed to decide for themselves in the matter. [note: It is evident from the historical accounts of the various divisions that led up to the incident at Tunbridge Wells that this idea had become ensconced in the thinking of many. We quote from W. R. Dronsfield's "The Brethren Since 1870." "All the assemblies one by one decided whether they should support Bexhill or London... In a few months every believer in the assemblies was forced, whether he was simple or profound, well-taught or only a beginner, to decide..." p. 22-23.]. This too is a false principle. It was not necessary for all assemblies all over England and the continent of Europe to decide, for the decision was already made in Tunbridge Wells on behalf of the assemblies at large. What was needed was submission to the action made in the Name of the Lord. It honors God and shows that we recognize the Lord’s authority as vested in the (local) assembly. This would have prevented division.
An outline of the developments since the Tunbridge Wells division of 1910 [this is a summary of this brochure; the brochure itself was written probably between 1955-60]
Following the Tunbridge Wells division of 1910, by far the greater number of assemblies in the United States and Canada accepted the decision of the Tunbridge Wells assembly. In England about fifty meetings accepted the Tunbridge Wells decision; in France approximately a dozen,- in Japan all the assemblies accepted the decision.
Inasmuch as the German-Dutch-Swiss meetings had all taken the neutral ground referred to, they thus automatically cut themselves off from fellowship with all the meetings in the U. S., Canada and elsewhere, who had bowed to the decision of the Tunbridge Wells assembly setting aside Mr. Strange. To have continued in fellowship with the German-Dutch-Swiss meetings after their declared system of double fellowship would have been to accept the anomalous and impossible position of being in fellowship, both with the assembly that put Mr. Strange out, and those which openly received him. This is exactly why, beloved brethren, assemblies in the U. S. and Canada find themselves today separated from their brethren in Germany, Holland and Switzerland.
To admit that two circles of fellowship with such diametrically opposite conceptions of the practical "keeping of the unity of the Spirit" can both be equally owned of the Lord as on the same divine ground is to disown all that we have been taught "from the beginning."
"Remember your leaders who have spoken to you the word of God; and considering the issue of their conversation, imitate their faith." Heb. 13:7.
Let us briefly review what some of our leaders of past generations have taught us as to this matter of owning an assembly decision.
Mr. F. G. Patterson, one of our most able teachers back in the "seventies" of the last century, wrote:
"What Scripture teaches is the competency and duty of each assembly to carry out its own discipline, under the Lord, who has promised His presence and guidance in the matter. 'Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.' I am sure that when two or three, meeting in godliness and truth, come to a decision before the Lord in cases of discipline, that it is owned of the Lord, and the person who is the subject of it will never get comfort till he bows to it. Those who are together in the practice of this truth are 'endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' The Holy Ghost constitutes the unity of the body. They are seeking to walk in the fellowship of the Holy Ghost — a divine Person who will not bend His ways to us — we must bend our ways, in the truth, to Him . . . None can have the practice of this truth unless in the unity of the Spirit, and with those who have been there before them; it is impossible to have it avowedly apart from such. The common practice of the day is to accept divine principles and terms apart from their practice. Scripture is too strong for this."
Our esteemed brother, and servant of the Lord, Mr. A. H. Rule, wrote:
"Neither could we confess that we had sinned in resisting the partisan course and wrong teaching of leaders who have been instrumental in bringing in divisions. These are things we could not confess as sin. There may be very much in the way and spirit in which this resistance of evil has been carried forward, but this is a different matter. Human infirmity mixes itself up, more or less, with all that we do, and this must not be allowed to be thrown as dust in the eyes of saints in order to blind them to the real issue. An act of discipline carried out at Corinth, 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,' was valid in Ephesus and everywhere, for the simple reason that the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ at Corinth could not be set aside by the same authority at Ephesus or anywhere else. All this excludes independency, and shows that if there are a number of different companies of brethren in a place, meeting, walking and acting independently of each other, some, at least, of these, have departed in their position and walk from the simple truth that the assembly of God is one: they are not keeping the unity of the Spirit."
We now quote from a pamphlet by F. Prod'hom-Berthet, translated from the French (1907):
"Suppose that one of five thousand assemblies refuses to accept the solemn action of another, and persists in its refusal: this fact, surely, immediately constitutes the refractory gathering schismatic and sectarian. It forfeits its character as an assembly of God. It puts itself out of communion with the rest of the five thousand, breaking its links with them and cutting itself off from them. But if a person should come to understand the obligation he is under to purify himself from his avowed membership with the schismatic assembly, and should free himself personally from its guilt, he would then have a right to his place in any of the other assemblies, as a member of the body of Christ."
In a letter written by Capt. Alfred Trigg in 1910 he says:
"Those who seek truly to carry out the mind of the Lord, as revealed in the Word, will become fewer and fewer. Amidst the different companies now claiming to be 'gathered to the Lord's name,' there is a simple test. If there be not a practical recognition of the truth, 'there is one body,' such a company is not gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, be the pretensions what they may; or having begun on true divine principles, if they cease to act in accordance with those principles, and give up what is involved therein, they can be no longer acknowledged as gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The refusal to bow to action by another assembly who have been previously gathered to the Lord's name, is practically giving up the truth, 'there is one body,' and, 'endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace'; and they then and there assume the ground of independency."
Our next citation is from a pamphlet reprinted by Mr. Geo. Phare in 1907:
"There can be only ONE expression of the union of the body. If there were two (or more) allowed, such division could not possibly be the confession of the body, for there is but ONE body. Therefore, if those who would be faithful to the ONE HEAD leave the divisions, sects, etc., to confess the ONE BODY, they must necessarily confess it together, for two different expressions could not be the expression of the body. Everything else is schism. (1 Cor. 3:4; 10:17.) How can the Holy Ghost guide to the putting out of a person in one assembly, and to the acceptance of him in another? He would be denying His own decision." (Matt. 18:15-20).
Our last citation on this point is from our beloved J. N. Darby:
"For my own part the longer I go on, the more importance I attach to the judgment of the assembly. I know it is alleged that the Church is now so in ruins that scriptural order according to the unity of the body cannot be maintained. Then let the objectors avow as honest men, that they seek unscriptural order, or rather disorder. But in truth it is impossible to meet at all in that case to break bread, except in defiance of God's Word, for Scripture says, 'We are all one body; for we are all partakers of that one loaf.' We profess to be one body whenever we break bread; Scripture knows nothing else. And they will find Scripture too strong and perfect a bond for man's reasoning to break it."
The German-Dutch-Swiss neutrality stand on the Tunbridge Wells division was crystallized in a formal manifesto issued from Basle, Nov. 17, 1921, and signed by representative brothers from all three countries. We quote:
"With regard to brothers from meetings from which we are separated, but which have at present no evil doctrines, nor formerly at the time of the separation held any, the brothers are of the opinion that assemblies should have the liberty to receive from them such as are known to two or three brothers as God-fearing, and worthy of confidence."
The German-Dutch-Swiss meetings, having surrendered assembly principles in their acceptance of the "double fellowship" practice, found themselves an easy prey to the next step: that of amalgamation with the Open Brethren. Had not the German-Dutch-Swiss meetings erred in their stand on the Tunbridge Wells fellowship matter, they would not have been led so docilely by Herr Dr. Becker into the Open Brethren fellowship. In the Dr. Becker declaration of Aug. 20th, 1937, they affirmed that there was no scriptural reason to hinder them from the amalgamation of their assemblies with those of the Bethesda (Open) brethren.
That a few saw the snare and refused to follow Dr. Becker is surely to their credit. Next was the full plunge into the "Bund." Such as accepted this last were now back where they were before the day of recovered truth — back "in the camp." How sad!
The Swiss meetings, now confronted with the embarrassing situation of their German brethren having gone into the Bund, were forced to take a stand on the question of receiving to the breaking of bread those who had gone into the Bund. This was taken up at the Zurich conference on March 5th, 1938, and the decision was to "reject the 'Bund' as an organization but not the brethren who, under full precautions, are still admitted in our midst when not taking part at Dr. Becker's proceedings." Such confusion, contradiction, and evasion of divine principles in the house of God are sad to contemplate. But when once we surrender the fundamental principle of the practical keeping of the unity of the Spirit, the gate lies open to one expediency after another.
That there has been since the war a partial recovery of assembly truth in Germany is a matter of thankfulness to all spiritually-minded brethren. No doubt many among such feel today that they have fully recovered all the lost ground, and that they are back in full fellowship with what Scripture calls "the unity of the Spirit."
If so, when did they own and judge their departure from this principle in 1910-1912? Many will point to the "Reunion" movement sponsored mainly by the English brethren. But let us briefly examine this movement as to its approach to this question of the unity of the Spirit.
This "reunion" movement had its beginning in 1926 when the "Kelly" party and the "Lowe" brethren (these latter the ones who rejected the Tunbridge Wells decision of 1909), who had been separated since 1881, effected what they like, to call a "reunion." But there was one vital point they dared not raise: "which, if either, of these two parties had, during the forty-five years of their separation, been owned of God as on divine ground; or to put it in other words, in the unity of the Spirit?" No, this issue was deliberately avoided. Hear their own statement on the "reunion proceedings":
"We have been together, not seeking to apportion the blame for that division; not to make terms or to find some formula that would unite us."
As the result of these negotiations the two companies in England, known as the "Kelly" brethren and the "Lowe" brethren fused, or amalgamated in 1926.
Later this new "fusion" company approached those in England who, up to this time, had remained loyal to the old principles of maintaining the unity of the Spirit, and who had, up till 1939, stoutly maintained that there was a remnant still on divine ground, gathered to the Lord's name and owned as such by Him. But listening to the specious pleas of able men from the Kelly-Lowe fellowship, the majority (about three-fourths) of the Tunbridge Wells meetings in England surrendered all they had contended for on this point of the unity of the Spirit, and fused or amalgamated with the Kelly-Lowe brethren. A feeble remnant of a dozen meetings in England were kept through this testing, and sought to go on in the old paths as they had been taught of the Lord.
All the so-called "Einsamen" meetings in Germany-Holland- Switzerland are today in full fellowship with the "fusion" or "amalgamation" company in England. If this fusion company are gathered on divine ground, in the unity of the Spirit, then so are the "Einsamen" brethren in Germany. On the other hand, if these English brethren forfeited this place in their rebellion against the Tunbridge Wells decision in 1909, and never returned to own their departure, then those in Germany- Holland-Switzerland are in fellowship with schism in the Church.
The fusion entered into by the Kelly-Lowe brethren in 1926 set the pattern for further attempts at mergers. The success of the K/L company in 1940 in persuading a goodly percent of the so-called "J. W." assemblies in England to abandon their ground, and enter the K/L fusion, encouraged them to look further afield. Accordingly, the next to be approached were the Grant-Stuart brethren, to whom the K/L/C brethren wrote in May, 1937:
"The Lord has given us grace to confess to Him and to you as sin, the unrighteous putting away of our brother, Mr. F. W. Grant."
Thus by a stroke of the pen there was set aside a solemn assembly judgment that had stood for over fifty years.
(Note: Of this same assembly judgment, the well-known and gifted leading brother, Dr. Emil Donges of Darmstadt, Germany, had written as late as May 28, 1909,
"To us in Germany came the report of the division (Grant), and we must take a stand to or in the same. According to Matt. 18:18 we dare not remain neutral.
"The teachings of Grant are speculative and. his service itself most dry, and we believe that his settings forth concerning sealing and eternal life of the believers in the Old Testament, and concerning 'Romans 7' are erroneous. But this in itself would not have given a sufficient ground of division. Even so wrong as these teachings are, there could be differed opinions, even though they were bad teachings and heretical (2 John 10). But the stand and Grant's action was positively heretical and self-willed (Rom. 16:17). He was earnestly and heartily begged not to publish his teachings which were against the teachings of the brethren, or rather more, the Holy Scriptures, but he said among other things as he showed the manuscript, 'I will publish this if the whole assembly goes to pieces.' That shows what kind of a spirit of self-esteem characterized him. So we believe that the Lord led the assembly in Montreal, and we in Germany with one accord have separated from Grant's party.")
Through the years following various conferences of representative brothers took place at which the possibilities of a final fusion, of the K/L/C brethren with the Grant-Stuart brethren were .discussed. Such round tables took place at New York City in 1946; Chicago, March, 1946; Passaic, N. J., May, 1946; Philadelphia, May 25th, 1946; Patterson, N. J., 1952; Rosell, N. J:, April, 1953; New York City, July, 1953; Chicago, September, 1953.
These conferences resulted in a gradual reapproachment on the part of the K/L/C and the Grant-Stuart brethren, which had its climax in a letter sent out from the K./L/C meeting at Wausau, Wis., on Aug. 23, 1953, receiving the Grant- Stuart meetings. Thus was consummated the fusion of the two fellowships throughout the world.
It is astonishing that the K/L/C brethren could thus amalgamate with a fellowship embracing dozens of meetings, when they had repeatedly gone on record as insisting that recovery must be individual. We quote from a confidential letter sent out by the German K/L/C brethren from Dillenburg, Germany, under date of Sept. 13, 1945, and signed by eight representative brothers.
"Therefore the brethren are of the unanimous conviction that a union with any local congregation as a body [underline ours] cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise there would be an imminent risk of taking over a good many things unjudged, unclean, or unholy. The brethren hope therefore that each one will find his way back personally."
The K/L/C company in America translated the above confidential letter and sent it out as under date of Dec. 20, 1945, and obtainable from Mr. G. A. Weise, Corunna, Mich.
Many meetings in fellowship with K/L/C have been deeply disturbed by this latest fusion with the Grant-Stuart brethren. As a result several meetings in England and in the United States have withdrawn from the K/L/C fellowship, and have been received as individuals to break bread with those still seeking to go on in the old paths. Others are under exercise both in America, and in Europe.
(Note: We would here insert a paragraph from the Denton, Texas, letter of protest of June 23, 1954, addressed "To the saints with whom we have been in fellowship:
"6. We would also point out to you that we feel that, in a practical way, the Headship of Christ has been displaced in the fact that practically the whole of these reunion matters have been handled by a very few leading brothers who virtually superintended everything that touched it. This position of ruler ship assumed by these brothers prohibited the Spirit of Christ to lead through whom He would so that the mind of Christ might be conveyed to His people. When some who were not of this leading group sought to exercise the saints to consider these matters for themselves, they were considered 'trouble-makers' and as acting independently. This leadership undertook in April of 1953 the decision to consummate the reunion with 'reception' as its terms, in a private meeting which was not made known to brethren generally. The matter was all settled and even the assembly chosen to do the receiving before this private meeting was known to other brethren. There was never a general brothers' meeting after this to enable brethren from all over the United States to confer about the matter. It was on the instructions of this private meeting of these leading brethren that Wausau acted. No one outside this private meeting of April, 1953, had any voice as to what assembly should be responsible to consummate the reunion. The leaders alone made the all-important decisions which led meetings all over the world into fellowship with Grant-Stuart. Is not such conduct going beyond the scriptural principle of leadership and becoming in reality clericalism?
On behalf of the assembly
D. G. Jennings
E. S. Tonn
P. L. Johnson
et al.")
Dear brother Frederick Lavington of England, who contended so ably against the principle of amalgamation, wrote not long before his death:
"The lapse of years does not make a wrong thing right, and if the assembly actions in painful years that are gone were of God, can we now say that the judgments then given were of men? 'Who hath despised the day of small things?' Zech. 4:10, was the challenge of the Spirit of God to the remnant of Judah in a day of testing, having many features similar to those found among the gathered saints today. It is a testing thing to see large numbers of saints associated together and to hear of blessing connected with other companies: but God is sovereign in grace, and in a scene of ruin, such as the Church presents at the present time, that God may bless either an individual or a company is not, of itself, evidence they are on divine ground. What was a denial of the truth, whether as to the Person of Christ, or as to discipline of the assembly, eighty or ten years ago remains the same today, and the binding of the act in heaven does not cease for the reason that those guilty of the wrong, or those who have identified themselves with them, are sorry for the results. The root must be judged — both the state that was brought to light by the strife and division, as well as the departure from the plain teaching of the Scriptures — before fellowship can be restored.
" 'Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord.' Zech 4:6. This is our resource today. If the might of a purely human arrangement, or the power of organization or numbers be offered us, in connection with any compromise of the truth, we may be sure it is not of the Spirit and will come to nought. The evil or self-will that is unjudged will recur, and if there be not a divine remedy, the last state will be worse than the first. Let us then with purpose of heart continue in the things which we have learned and been assured of, and be not weary in well-doing. Much self- judgment and confession become us for the way we have failed to maintain in power the truth of separation from evil to God, which has been committed to us. The remedy is, riot in seeking an easier path, but in keeping that good thing committed to us (2 Tim. 1:14). May the Lord Himself keep the feet of His saints in these last days, directing our hearts into the love of God and the patient waiting for Christ. 'Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.' Rev. 3:11."
Well, dear brethren, in view of the principles so clearly- set before us by the several brethren quoted above, and of the scriptural principles involved, what shall be our attitude toward the resultant Kelly-Lowe-Continental-Grant-Stuart fellowship? If this resultant "fusion" fellowship is the mind of God, then it is clear as can be that brethren have been wrong, solemnly, sadly wrong, in contending for a true ground of gathering, from the days of the Kelly defection in 1881, right on down to the present. In other words, for sixty years brethren of weight and godliness were contending for a mere figment. Much of the ministry as to the principles and ground of gathering that we have received was beside the mark; it was based upon the false premise that God was maintaining in the midst of all the failure and break up among brethren a true ground of separation. These men of God taught us that there still remained a special place where saints could count upon the sanction of the Lord in a way not vouchsafed to schismatic companies.
It was to Philadelphia the Lord addressed those encouraging words: "Thou hast kept My word, and not denied My name." May the Lord give us to seek only His approval in this matter of assembly fellowship. That to do so will mean trial and testing, fewness and weakness, goes without saying.
"I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord." Zeph. 3:12.
At the present time there are a goodly number of meetings located here and there in America [Canada, North America and South America, DS], the Orient and in Europe [today also in Africa en Tasmania, DS], which are seeking to go on in the unity of the Spirit according to "the old paths" (Jer. 6:16). They are in much weakness; many meetings are small; some even reduced to the divine minimum of the "two or three." Their consolation is the promise of His presence in the midst of the two or three gathered to His name.
Some who read these pages might be led to ask, What is the divine pattern for a return to the true ground of gathering? We believe, dear brethren, that 2 Chron. 15 contains the divine instruction that exactly meets the case. Under Jeroboam the ten tribes had rejected God's divine center, Jerusalem, and God's king, Rehoboam. Failure at Jerusalem was partly to blame for the cleavage, but after all, back of the whole sad affair, was the inspired utterance of the prophet to Rehoboam: "Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren; return every man to his house; for this thing is done of Me." 2 Chron. 11:4.
When Asa came to the throne in Jerusalem, his zeal for the truth of God was published throughout all Israel. The result was, not the restoration of the ten tribes to Judah and Jerusalem, but the recovery out of them of those Israelites who were personally exercised about a return to the divine center. So we read that Asa "gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the Lord his God was with him. So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem."
2 Chron. 15:9, 10.
May the Lord work effectually in all our hearts to the practical carrying out of His solemn injunction to us in Ephesians 4:2-4:
"With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love,- endeavoring to keep the UNITY OF THE SPIRIT in the bond of peace. There is ONE body, and ONE Spirit."
C.H.B.
[After this was written followed among the KLC-brethren in 1974, after a long time of difficult interaction, the fusion with the so-called Booth-Glanton brethren, DS]
Douwe Scheepsma Szn, Urk, The Netherlands,
d.s.scheepsma@hetnet.nl