"Another Coming Out"

by John Drain, Belfast | Category: General | Jan 1964

During 1963 the pages of "Needed Truth" carried extracts from correspondence which was circulating towards the close of the last century. These extracts show that throughout the British Isles there was a fairly widespread exercise in the minds and hearts of many children of God in connexion with the revelation of God's will in the matter of collective testimony and service. Light from God concerning many precious basic truths of the Scriptures had undoubtedly brought great joy to the hearts of many believers, but there was a deepening conviction that there was much truth concerning the house of God which needed to be emphasized and practised. The magazine "Needed Truth" was issued to provide a means by which this truth, as well as other aspects of the will of God, could be set forth and examined in the light of God's word. It became clear that many believers in Christ, who were described by some as "Open Brethren", were not prepared to accept what was being taught in relation to separation and the house of God. In the year 1893, those who believed that the truth which God was revealing was of such importance and urgency that it must be acknowledged, separated from their brethren and sisters in Open Brethren. Thus the churches of God, composing the Fellowship of God's Son, came into existence.

In the course of the seventy years which have followed, the disciples gathered together in the churches of God have been subjected to considerable oral and written attack and criticism. This, of course, has not been unexpected. Nor has it seriously perturbed us. It is sometimes profitable to examine with true humility criticism which may be made, and to consider if the word of God sustains what we do and teach. Much of the censure which has been passed upon us has remained unanswered.

Recently one's attention was drawn to an article in a contemporary magazine, "Assembly Testimony". In its criticism of ourselves the article has in the main followed the general pattern of such attacks. There are, however, some statements which we feel require examination. The main trend of the article is a warning to readers against what is described as "another coming out" from those who are called "Open Brethren". Apparently there are some amongst them who are very disturbed about existing conditions. This disturbance of mind seems to be so serious that some who are affected are persuaded that the only course of action left to them is to come out from where they are. This, we believe, is the inference to be drawn from the article referred to, and, as we have said, one object of the article is to warn against such a course.

The writer in the opening section of his paper gives an exposition of the call to separation which is found in 2 Corinthians 6. It is not our purpose to comment on this. He then warns against what he speaks of as taking the scripture out of its context and using it in a manner which the inspired Word does not support. In so doing he refers to the activities of what he calls "The London party of Exclusives" and "the so-called Needed Truth Movement". These are later linked together as "Exclusivism and Needed Truthism".

The absurdity of the phrase "Needed Truthism" will be obvious to the reader. It would be equally absurd to speak of "Assembly Testimonyism".

The magazine "Needed Truth" has published many articles dealing with divine truth in relation to the Inspiration and Authority of the Sacred Writings, the Deity of the Holy Trinity, the work of the gracious Spirit, the behaviour proper to children of God, and many other such matters.

In our opening paragraph we referred to the separation which took place in 1898. The writer of the article "Another Coming Out", after tracing developments, states, "This led ultimately to open schism which took place in 1889". It will be seen that his date is four years prior to the actual separation. The first issue of the magazine "Needed Truth" appeared in October, 1888. As we have said earlier, the purpose in producing it was to emphasize truth relating to the house of God and to examine church teaching. The exercise of heart concerning these important matters began much earlier than the publication of "Needed Truth". In 1883 Mr. F. A. Banks wrote a pamphlet on "The Church and the Churches of God". This pamphlet demonstrates that the Lord was speaking to exercised hearts about the Church, the Body, and the churches of God. We draw attention to these points because of a statement in the article "Another Coming Out". It says, "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'". The fact is that for several years brethren waited upon God and upon one another, and the separation which eventually took place in 1893 was forced because of the obvious impossibility of giving effect amongst the believers known as "Open Brethren" to the truth of God's house and the churches of God.

We would point out also that the separation which did take place was not merely because certain wrong practices had crept in amongst God's children. The issue was much deeper than this. It was being learned by many that in the divine purposes the Church, the Body, and the churches of God (which together form the house of God) were not synonymous terms. All believers in Christ in this dispensation are members of the Body. This is an unconditional and eternal relationship. Churches of God have to do with divine collective testimony and service on earth, and they involve a conditional relationship based upon subjection and. obedience to the Lord's supreme authority. Wrong practices may intrude among any people, and where you have human beings you have human weaknesses. Those who are gathered in the churches of God-the Fellowship of His (God's) Son, Jesus Christ our Lord do not believe that they are separated from other believers because they claim greater piety and devotion to the Lord or because they think that they live more closely to Christian standards than do others. As we have said above, the cause of the separation reached right down to the very foundation upon which children of God could be gathered according to the will of God to give effect to the revelation of the Faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.

Another statement in this article says, "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'." This word "federation" is quite a favourite word with critics of the position of those who are in churches of God. Sometimes the adjective human is placed before it and sometimes the variant man-made systems is used. Let none be blinded by these phrases. What person professes to love the Lord and to love His word would claim to support human federations or man-made systems? The word federation is obviously selected to place in unfavourable light the unity expressed in the churches of God being joined together in one thing for God on the earth. When our blessed Lord prayed, "Holy Father, keep them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as we are ... Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on Me through their word; that they may all be one", what did He mean? Did He pray that believers would be gathered in companies each detached and independent of all the others? Did not His very prayer imply that this desirable oneness for which He made request was something which could break down? And did not the realization of this unity involve that believers in Christ should be linked together in one thing, as well as being united in mind and heart? We might further ask, When Paul wrote his epistle to "the church of God which is at Corinth ... with all that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours" (1 Corinthians 1.2) was he not taking into consideration that the church of God in Corinth was linked with similar churches in other places? When he wrote his epistle to the Galatians did he not recognize that throughout the province of Galatia there were several churches of God which were so grouped that he could address his epistle to "the churches of Galatia"? Was this federation? In his first epistle Peter writes to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia". These provinces covered a wide area. In chapter 2 we find the words, "Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood ..." We do not know how many churches there were in these provinces, but we do know that they formed part of one house. When addressing the elders in chapter 5 Peter says, "Tend the Flock of God which is among you ... " We do not know how many sheep and lambs there were, but we do know that they formed part of one Flock. When writers criticize the unity expressed in churches of God constituting one Fellowship, ought they not to ponder whether or not they are aiming a blow at the very unity for which our Lord Jesus prayed?

We would ask, "What is this central authority to which the writer of 'Another Coming Out' refers? " In attacks upon those who are in the churches of God we often find it stated directly or inferred that we have a small group of men who are at the head of things and who issue mandates to which all must yield obedience. This false accusation has often been repudiated, yet it keeps re-appearing. We must just once more say that there is no such central authority among us. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews says, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them". Peter exhorted the elders, "Likewise, ye younger, be subject unto the elder". We are assured that subjection to authority is definitely a characteristic of the ways of God. In the churches of God in New Testament days there were elders or overseers who had responsibility to see that the rule of God was given effect to. We read also of certain brethren who were "chief men among the brethren" (Acts 15.22). We believe that it is still the will of God that there should be overseers in the churches of God. We believe too that there will be those who lead in thought and in action, who can give counsel and help to their fellows. But we do not believe that there should be a group of overseers holding and using executive authority over their fellows, and we emphatically state that we have no such central authority.

The author of "Another Coming Out" says concerning "Exclusivism" and "Needed Truthism", "Both parties are today a testimony to this fact, for they stand sadly divided, depleted numerically, and discredited in the judgment of unbiased spiritual observers". Again we say nothing as to the position described as "Exclusivism". But as we are jointly charged in this accusation we do wish to say that this is a very reckless statement. The Needed Truth Publishing Office has published a book called "The Search for the Truth of God". In it there is a chapter dealing with difficulties which developed in Scotland during the years 1901-1904. These difficulties ultimately led to a sad and serious division in 1904. That was nearly sixty years ago. Is he referring to the fact that from time to time some have left us to go elsewhere? Has such a thing never happened amongst those called "Open Brethren"? To say that we stand sadly divided is a very serious misrepresentation. We have never boasted of numbers. There are some with whom numbers count very much. Many sectarian organisations claim large numbers of followers. But to say that today we stand sadly depleted is no more true than to say that we stand sadly divided. We leave the matter of numbers to Him who said, "Fear not, little Flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12.32). There is no bias with Him. He is the righteous Judge.

We now quote from the article "Another Coming Out"statements which must surely cause surprise to all who read them.

"Now let us examine this resurgence of Needed Truthism, for it could turn out to be more serious than we imagine. It is admitted that there is much over which we should mourn in our testimony. Is the remedy, however, another heart-rending division? No, beloved brethren, it certainly is not, as a little reflection will show. Why should any consider it necessary to contemplate such a thing? Are we as assemblies not built upon the true foundation? Do we not gather in or unto our Lord's worthy name? Is He not in our midst? Have His servants not liberty to minister all that Scripture teaches, provided, of course, that the truth be given in a loving, tactful, balanced manner? Are assemblies not able to carry out godly scriptural discipline? And is not our God owning and abundantly blessing our feeble efforts in His service? If we are honest our answer in each case must surely be a decided affirmative."

Who are the "we" referred to here? We assume that it must include all who are identified by what the writer of the article calls "Open Brethren". What is the foundation on which "Open Brethren" are built? There are certain magazines which circulate among these believers. There is, of course, no reason why several magazines should not be published if there is the demand for them. But is the teaching given in these various magazines identical? Does, say, The Witness teach the same basis of fellowship and practice as, say, Assembly Testimony? Is the foundation of truth set forth in The Harvester the same as that which is taught in The Believer's Magazine? An early and outstanding teacher among brethren said, "I ever understand our principles of communion to be the possession of common life ... of the family of God ... these were our early thoughts and are my most matured ones". The writer of the article "Another Coming Out" in a booklet called "Reception to God's Assembly" deals with what he refers to as "popular fallacies". Two of these pointed out by him are (1) speaking of the assembly as a family, and (2) the contention that life, not light, is the basis of fellowship. Some among brethren teach very definitely that only baptized believers should be permitted to break bread. Others contend that baptism ought not to be insisted upon. There are those who teach that only those who are acknowledged as being "in fellowship" should be allowed to break bread. Others claim that as "the table is the Father's table" all His children whether associated with the assemblies or not should have the liberty with them of keeping the Lord's command. In earlier years prominent teachers among brethren indicated very clearly that separation from what they called "the sects" was of paramount importance. Many today support the view that co-operation with the sects, particularly in connexion with evangelistic activities, is most desirable. And so we might go on. The point is, where in all this is the true foundation referred to? In view of such contradiction of teaching amongst those who can be identified as "Open Brethren", we find it very perplexing to understand how such can be said to be built upon the same foundation. How then can it be claimed as the true foundation? And is it true that all who serve in the ministry of the word amongst "Open Brethren" have liberty to minister all that the Scriptures teach? One has seen advertisements intimating the arrangements for meetings for the ministry of God's word. The stipulation is added that brethren who walk in the old paths will be welcomed to speak. Does this suggest that all ministers of the word will have this liberty?

Whatever may be the true nature of the movement amongst "Open Brethren" which the author of "Another Coming Out" calls "this resurgence of Needed Truthism", we pray that God may exercise many hearts as to His truth in relation to His house. We stand close to the fulfilment of our Lord's promise "Behold, I come quickly". Soon we all shall give account to our beloved Lord. We should be greatly humbled before our God. There has been much failure. But the foundation of God standeth and His word is truth. May the Spirit of truth lead us on in the right way.

(A further Contribution will appear in February (DV.)).

John Drain, Belfast | Jan 1964
General