Another Coming Out

by W. BUNTING, Edinburgh | Category: Another Coming Out | Feb 1964

My attention has been drawn to an article bearing the above title in a magazine "Assembly Testimony", No.65, 1963. Amongst other things, the writer openly attacks what he chooses to call Needed Truthism and the Needed Truth movement. Were it not for the inaccuracies and misrepresentations contained in the article we would have ignored it, but truth, which is always needed, calls for some comment.

The writer gives us his mind on the application of that portion of the Scriptures contained in 2 Corinthians 6.14-16, and warns us against taking this passage out of its context, and quotes two examples which, in his view, fall under this condemnation.

We hold no brief for the London party of Exclusives whom he mentions first. They will answer to the Lord for their actions. We prefer to leave the matter there; not so the writer of the article "Another Coming Out". He condemns them in very strong terms and refers to "Their little pretentious circle". His words ill-become one associated with Open Brethren.

It is, however, with his reference to what he describes as "the so-called Needed Truth movement" that we are mainly concerned. We could not do better than quote some of his words

"Another example has to do with the beginning of the so-called Needed Truth movement. In the seventies of last century there was marked laxity in many British assemblies which were outside the Exclusive confederacy, and which, though they themselves have ever disowned sectarian names, are known to this day as Open Brethren. Saints who paid dearly for the truth greatly deplored this laxity.

Instead of waiting upon the living God that He might restore His beloved people, however, some of these began to teach that their only remedy lay in "another coming out".

"This led to open schism which took place in 1889. A new federation of assemblies was then formed, and all who would not own its central authority were "cut off", because as one leader said, "such assemblies were neither in nor of the Church of God".

That there was marked laxity amongst Open Brethren is the writer's own admission, but to say that this was the ground for the separation which took place towards the end of the last century is a grave misrepresentation, and must be refuted. In our view nothing but vital truth and loyalty to the claims of the Lord can ever justify divisions amongst professing Christians.

To bring this important point to the doorstep of the writer of the article "Another Coming Out" I will quote from the letter sent out at the planting of the Church of God in Belfast, dated 16th October, 1894

"We, the undersigned, on behalf of the Church of God in Belfast, wish to let you know briefly, that for some time past we have been searching the Scriptures, and meeting with one another.

"We have been previously in the association of meetings known as "Open Brethren", from which we have withdrawn, believing that it does not answer to the divine pattern (Acts 2.41, 42, R.V.),

and is not according to the fellowship of the churches of God, as found in the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 1.2,9,10; 4.16,17; 7.17)."

I have copies of many similar letters before me which were issued at the time of the planting of churches of God in various towns and cities, and all testify to the fact that it was the truth of God regarding a collective testimony which led them to separate from Open Brethren. We still believe that that association is not constituted according to the divine pattern, and the experience of the last seventy years has confirmed us in this view.

We prefer to set forth positive truth and we shall later state briefly where we stand in relation to the church and churches of God and the house of God.

The writer of the article "Another coming out" has some caustic comments to make regarding the brethren who were at that time deeply exercised as to the carrying out of the mind of the Lord as revealed in the Scriptures. One quotation will serve to show the unbalanced and uncharitable nature of the article. He writes

"Many of its adherents developed a pharisaical conceit and a cold aloofness from all who did not subscribe to their pet line of teaching."

Such a statement is unworthy of the writer and the whole article reveals an ignorance of those sad days that is regrettable.

It is customary for Open Brethren to ridicule the divisions amongst others as though their own history in the matter of divisions were impeccable, and the writer is no exception to this rule. If the position of Open Brethren be examined, it will at once be realized that unity is unknown to them. They are an association or confederacy of meetings, each meeting being a self-governing and independent body, having no governmental responsibility whatsoever toward any other meeting. If their own story were written, the record would be one of innumerable divisions.

A series of questions as to the position of Open Brethren is posed towards the end of the article, and the writer assumes that the answer to each question is in the affirmative. Let us look at a few of them

(1)Are we as assemblies not built upon the true foundation?

What is the foundation of Open Brethren, may we ask? The Word of God legislates for a church of God locally, for churches of God and for the house of God. We have searched in vain for the scriptural basis on which Open Brethren meet. We have read such expressions as-we meet on the ground of the "one body", or on the ground of "faith in Christ alone", or "simply to break bread", or as the writer puts it, "Do we not gather in or unto the Lord's worthy name?"

(2) A further question is - "Have His servants not liberty to minister all that Scripture teaches?"

The writer of the article under review is in the best position to answer that question. He knows whether he has liberty to minister in every company of Open Brethren, and what restrictions are placed upon him.

(3) Are assemblies not able to carry out godly scriptural discipline?

I refrain from attempting to answer this question. The writer of the article, "Another Coming Out", must know the sad history of attempting to carry out discipline in an association where each meeting is a separate and independent unit and such discipline not binding on all companies.

The magazine Needed Truth which is issued by the churches of God, was first published in 1888. It is an appropriate title, though a little odious to "Open Brethren" because the truth of God set forth therein strikes at the root of their position. The magazine continues to flourish, and there is a regular presentation of truth relating to the person and work of Christ, the assembly of God, the fellowship of saints, the fellowship of assemblies, the order of the house of God, and a wide range of subjects affecting the individual child of God, and the purpose and truth of God for His people collectively.

Where do we stand regarding some of these great truths? (1) We believe that all believers of this dispensation from Pentecost to the coming of the Lord for the Church, the Body, form that Church which is the Body of Christ, and that all these believers are baptized in one Spirit into one Body (Acts 1.5; 1 Corinthians 12.12, 18), of which Christ Himself is the Head, the Builder, and Saviour or Preserver (Matthew 16.18; Ephesians 5.28). The unity of this Church is absolute and eternal. Christ will present this Church to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Ephesians 5.27). Failure to grasp the distinction between the Church the Body, and the church and churches of God will rob the believer of much joy and appreciation of God's purpose.

(2)We believe that the term "The church of God" describes a local church of called-out, and called-together saints, with local responsibility and accountability, as for instance, the church of God in Corinth (1 Corinthians 1.2), the church of God in Jerusalem (Acts 8. 1).

Saints may be added to a church of God (Acts 2.41, 42) and may be excommunicated therefrom for moral sin, doctrinal error or trespass against a brother (1 Corinthians 5. 4-18; Titus 3. 10; Matthew 18.15-17). Such excommunication does not affect membership of the Body, which is an indestructible union.

(3)That the church of God is a local thing is proved by the fact that we read, time and again, of "the churches of God"-the churches of God in Judaea (1 Thessalonians 2.14), the churches of Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8.1).

These churches were not independent of each other. How could they be when formed, united and governed by the same divine principles? Each assembly or church has its own local responsibilities but that is not independency. Fellowship is partnership, and partnership is the opposite of independency. We read in Acts 2.42 "They continued steadfastly ... in the Fellowship".

There is no such body as a "central authority" within the churches of God.

(4) We believe that the house of God is the aggregate of the churches of God, built according to the divine pattern. The house of God is a conditional place (Hebrews 3.6), and is a place where behaviour and testimony go hand in hand (1 Timothy 3.15). It is a spiritual house composed of living stones builded together (1 Peter 2. 5). Christ is Son over God's house (Hebrews 3. 6). Priestly service is definitely linked with God's house (1 Peter 2.5-9).

Last words are often important, and the final words of the article under review are: "To your tents, 0 Israel". The writer could not have made a more unfortunate and inappropriate choice. Let us look at these words as recorded in the Scriptures. In 2 Samuel 20.1, Sheba, a man of Belial (worthlessness), rebelled against King David with sad consequences to himself and to all Israel. "And he blew the trumpet, and said, We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, 0 Israel". The other occasion when these words were used marks the beginning of one of the saddest epochs in the history of Israel. All Israel, except those of the cities of Judah, rebelled against Rehoboam when he listened to the counsel of the young men and the cry then was "To your tents, 0 Israel: now see to thine own house, David" (1 Kings 12.16). That call and that rebellion led to a division in Israel which was never healed.

We are told in Acts 17.11 that the Jews of Beroea were more noble than those of Thessalonica. It is said of them that "they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so". All I ask is, that what is here set forth be tested by the Scriptures, whether these things be so.

W. BUNTING, Edinburgh | Feb 1964
Another Coming Out