Updated comment on The Exclusive Brethren web site in March 2007:-

            An examination of the web site shows that some changes have been made relatively recently. One would only comment that at the time of writing the pieces on the rapture and marriage are not at present accessible. However a piece described as “The truth about the Exclusive Brethren” has appeared. It is on this piece one would now comment. The headings on the site are used here.

What this booklet is about.

            Whether what is said here as to the media coverage one would not comment on as one lives in England and not in Australia. However one notes that our church is mentioned. This is quite contrary to Scripture and the thinking of the early brethren. In Scripture we have my (Christ’s) church* (Matthew 16:18) and the church* of God (1 Corinthians 1:2) spoken of, but not our church that I am aware of. God’s house is said to be the church* of the living God (1 Timothy 3:15). The only reference that I can recall to your house in the sense we are speaking of in the New Testament is that by Christ when he said “your house is left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). Mr. Darby translates church as assembly which makes it clear that Scripture is not speaking of a physical building. That Mr Darby would have opposed any pretension to be the church of God is undoubtedly true - see for instance Collected Writings Vol.20 p.296. Neither would Brethren have accepted that they were a sect. “I contend against Brethrenism. Any true position at the present time is essentially individual, and anything outside of that is false” (Mr. Raven Ministry in USA and Canada 1902 p.434). There is much more on similar lines in my booklet “Reflections on the history and teaching of Brethren”. If it is asked what one could say instead of “our church” it could be “ those with whom I have fellowship” or something similar.

*or assembly.

Who are the Exclusive Brethren?

            I am afraid what is said here is on the lines of “We have Abraham for [our] father” (Luke 3:8). Exclusives are really saying we have John Nelson Darby for our father in a spiritual sense. Any company of Brethren could claim this. That Exclusives do not actively recruit members I can understand, but there ought to be an active gospel outreach: “Proclaim the word” (2 Timothy 4:2). If we are on right lines the Lord may well add souls. Further it was the teaching of the early brethren that there was no membership of Brethren, only that of the body of Christ: “I own no membership but of Christ. An assembly composed as such of its members is at once a sect.” (J. N. D Letters Vol. 3 page 460).

            I would question that Mr. Darby and others established a fellowship based on strict observance of Christian beliefs and way of life. Study the Collected Writings of Mr. Darby. You will have difficulty if you try to find a set of rules for those in fellowship as we speak. Much of what Brethren practised came about naturally, that is, not by edict. Brethren did not go in for worldly pleasures because they felt they had something better. Those that linked themselves with Brethren gave up addressing the Holy Spirit and God as Triune because it was felt not to be in accord with Scripture; not because there was an edict about it.

The principle of separation.

            It is claimed that the separation advocated is according to scriptural teaching. However, no passages of Scripture are quoted to support this statement. Everything appears to rest on the say so of the writer.

            It is said that Exclusives recognise that they live in a wider community and have day to day dealings with non-Brethren, but what about marital relationships with non-Brethren. Have not these been abandoned where they have existed? One can exclude a person from one’s fellowship, club or whatever, but that does not give one the right to influence a husband or wife to leave his or her spouse. Those without God judges (1 Corinthians 5:12/13). Those without are none of my business so far as judging is concerned as the passage quoted from says. We are here considering a case of evil such as where a person is given to alcoholic drinking (a drunkard) or is habitually abusive calling brethren “Son’s of bitches” and the like. It might be a case where a man is found in bed with another man’s wife in a state of undress. (See 1 Corinthians 5:11) It is not just a case of someone who does not see fit to continue walking with Exclusives. Mr Darby speaks of that type of case in the following terms: “In one case under the exciting influence of sisters, a poor man refused to dine with his wife if she did not come to Ebrington Street” (Collected Writings Vol.20 page 53). (It is at least curious that the Neche rooms as shown on the Trevor Hill web site are laid out very similarly to the diagram of the Ebrington Street room as shown in the “The History of the Brethren by Napoleon Noel”).

Separation and family breakdown.

            I will not say much as to this matter as my thoughts on the subject are already set out above and in my earlier comments. There are no doubt lots of different cases and one would not presume to make a blanket judgment covering all. Some may be cases where the husband has deserted his wife for another woman (or vice versa). Others may be cases where the husband has left the Exclusives because he has become convinced that they are teaching error and so on.

The Brethren lifestyle.

            Certainly a Christian’s life should be a shining witness to the grace and mercy of God, but is that what is being seen in Exclusive circles today? Most would admit I expect that Exclusives are very religious, but no doubt so are many monks and nuns. However, money making seems to be something that has a great place with them. When I was doing my National Service back in the 1950's someone made up the following ditty: “I’m an E. B., I’m an E. B. and as exclusive as can be. I’ve a motor and a mansion and I live in luxury.” Perhaps a somewhat exaggerated statement, but it shows what impression Exclusives were giving to outsiders at that time. There was certainly an element of truth in it. I would say that I don’t doubt that piety is profitable for everything (1 Timothy 4:8). My father’s workmates once asked him how he managed to live in a private house rather than a council house as they did. His answer effectively was that he did not spend his evenings drinking at the pub as his mates did. He neither smoked nor habitually drank strong drink. As to the latter he was not a total abstainer and for that matter neither am I.

            Nowadays many people do not work on Saturdays. However some do and there is nothing wrong in this. The caring professions, which usually involve some weekend working, are quite a legitimate way of earning a living. Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14).

            I would not talk about being conservative in one’s beliefs. One needs to hold aloof from every form of wickedness (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Sexual promiscuity and other abnormal sexual activity can lead to disease as is evident and also clearly stated in Scripture (Romans 1:26-32). Of the two cases that I knew at work, one committed suicide and the other had a spell in a psychiatric hospital. One has only to read the newspapers to see that some celebrities quite often seem to find themselves having treatment in clinics for addiction and other unpleasant conditions.

            Plenty of Christians do not have part in the things listed, so that Exclusives are not unique. There are also things that other Christians do not do that Exclusives do, such as habitually drinking whisky. I assume here that Exclusives have not recently changed their habits in this matter.

            In my day Brethren did not speak of sermons, but of addresses. At one time they were called lectures until someone decided that lecturing the Brethren was not what was actually done. Assembly life is on a weekly cycle; our individual life on a daily cycle. Need I quote Scriptures to support this? If you wish you can read what I have said as to the teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses on this matter. It is found on this web site.

Brethren and the law.

            That Christians should comply with legal requirements is clearly taught in Scripture (Romans 13:1-10) and such compliance is part of the normal life of any Christian. This of course is limited, because if the authorities seek to come between us and God we should not comply with the law (Daniel 6:10). We cannot do evil. As to associations one would have to be careful, but one should not strain out gnats and where there is no clear evidence that something is evil or that Scripture is being violated one would leave matters to the judgement of individuals. Wisdom should be in exercise (Ephesians 5:15-18).

            It is noticeable that in the article commented on that no Scriptures are quoted to support the statements made or reasons given for the practice advocated.

Political involvement.

            Personally I have never voted in National or local elections. I can give reasons for why I have not. However no Scripture is quoted or reason given for why the Exclusives do not vote. Is it simply because their leadership says they should not, or is it just force of habit?

            There is nothing wrong in petitioning the Government where necessary (Esther 8:3). However, we should not seek to influence people to vote in a certain way or for a certain party. It is only another way of getting the party one wants into power without actually voting for it ourselves. That Christians should not engage in unnatural evil sexual practices one would wholeheartedly agree with. They can cause diseases as stated above. However, inveighing against them without dealing with the underlying cause- man’s distance from God - is not likely to be effective. Many people today hold that homosexual practices are OK, but would come down like a ton of bricks on the slightest suggestion of what is called paedophilia. Some seem to be using the latter as a stick to beat the church with!

Brethren schools.

            Most of what is said sounds well enough, but why should all teachers be non-Brethren? Is it not because Exclusives would have to go to colleges to become qualified? I obtained my professional qualification by doing a correspondence course, but in order to get some types of qualification this may not be possible. If a line of business is right for someone who is not connected with Exclusives, why not for Exclusives? Wisdom would enter into all this . It is not a question of laying down rules which if not complied with would involve exclusion from fellowship. We are not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14).

Meeting rooms.

            All this talk about security when the rooms are occupied is unreal. No other church that I know of has to lock their doors when services are in progress. Are Exclusives afraid that people who have had their families broken up because they are not members of Exclusive Brethren would be likely to create a disturbance? If what is said as to separation and family breakdown in the article is true the likelihood of meetings being disturbed would be rare as it is for other churches in the Western world. If however there are a substantial number of aggrieved members of the public because of Exclusives exclusion practices then what they have said about marriage relationships is misleading. What about the disturbance outside the Dorking Halls in England in 1964 which seems to have led to Exclusives’ Halls being built like little fortresses.

            What is an acceptable dress code for attendance at meetings is not stated. However, the object of the Gospel is to bring people under the sound of it so that amongst other things there will be a change of lifestyle. It is more important to get people to come to Christ than to keep them away from meetings until their outward appearance is what we think it should be. The object should be to save some (1 Corinthians 10:33). It should be noticed that this statement comes at the end of the passage which speaks of an invitation to a meal by an unbeliever - a passage which Exclusives have effectively overridden.

Conclusion.

            Taking an overall view, writing about themselves and how very religious they are does not commend itself. As Scripture says: “Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth” (Proverbs 27:2). It was said by Mr. C. A. Coates in days gone by that Satan, when he cannot hinder a movement which is of God, he will lead the movement to go too far so that persons get occupied with themselves and not with Christ (Outline of Genesis page 105/106). What are Exclusives occupied with?