The Cause Of The Separation

by H. ELSON | Category: Spiritual Movements Seventy Years Ago | Nov 1963

To conclude this series, and as promised in the October issue of Needed Truth, we are now publishing an article written by the late Mr. Henry Elson, shortly after the separation from Open Brethren. The article, entitled "The Cause of the Separation" will appear in November and December issues of this magazine.

The widespread separation which has taken place (and is taking place) from believers spoken of as "Open Brethren", is now a matter of common knowledge.

Many are the conflicting and confusing reports circulated as to the cause of this separation; side issues are raised, local circumstances magnified, stories of alleged personal misconduct are told and retold until many in bewilderment may well ask, "What is THE CAUSE of the separation?"

For the help of such we propose to answer that question in the following pages. In so doing we express that which is our sincere conviction; we write in solemn anticipation of the "Judgement Seat of Christ", before which both writer and reader will be fully made manifest. Meanwhile, "Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the Grace of God", we have our behaviour to youward for whom this is written.

In tracing, then, the present separation to its very root, we are fully convinced that it arises from a diversity in doctrine concerning assembly fellowship. This diversity in doctrine has led to a diversity in practice, and this diversity in doctrine and practice has resulted in separation.

How could it be otherwise? "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3.3, A.V.). This lays the axe to the root of the tree, and we call special attention to it because some in isolated Meetings have not been fully aware of the disagreement and conflict so acutely known and felt elsewhere, and particularly in large centres; but, we venture to say, it will be admitted, even by those not in fellowship with the writer who have any considerable knowledge of Meetings, that the above statement is correct. For years past, throughout the Assemblies in Great Britain (speaking generally), two distinct and contrary lines of teaching have been in existence, each having its zealous exponents and adherents, and imparting distinct and different character to assemblies (so that they have been commonly spoken of as "loose" or "tight", according as one or other of these lines of teaching has been accepted).

It will now be necessary to name definitely some of the differences above alluded to. Firstly, then, some hold as a fundamental principle of fellowship that the Lord's Table must be "Open to all believers", irrespective of sectarian associations; in accordance with this "members" of "churches", "chapels", and "missions" have been permitted, and even encouraged and invited, to "break bread".

In contrast to this, Scripture teaches us that a man that is sectarian must not be welcomed but admonished, and if repeated admonition prove ineffectual, "rejected" as one that "sinneth" (see Titus 3.10). ["Heretic" is an untranslated Greek word, and consequently in itself conveys no meaning to an ordinary English reader. A broad hint, however, is given in the Revised margin, which also represents the rendering preferred by the American Committee (see R.V. end of Vol.) Further help may also be obtained by reference to the Authorized margin 1 Corinthians 11.19, where the kindred word "heresies" is correctly translated "sects". Compare with Galatians 5.20, where the same Greek word again occurs.] Moreover, repentance from sectarianism, as from any other sin, should characterize all coming from the sects, and those only who, as "added" by the Lord, are "in the Fellowship" should "break the bread". The principles and practice known as "occasional fellowship" is therefore to be entirely repudiated as being subversive of the "apostle's doctrine" and first principles of The Fellowship given us Acts 2.

A second point of difference is as to "baptism". Some hold that unbaptized believers should be received into fellowship if they "do not see baptism", whereas this is contrary to Matthew 28.19, 20; Acts 2.41, 42, etc. As baptism is a positive "command" (Acts 10.48) it is sin to disobey it, and no person deliberately acting in this way should be received. To do otherwise on principle is to give place to the self-will or ignorance of the creature, and mar the character of the assembly as "pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3.15).

A third point of difference - one in which great and important issues are involved is this : some hold that the Church which is Christ's body, is the church of God, whereas in Scripture they are distinctly and essentially different, and to confound them must result in wrong assembly position and wrong assembly practice. It is impossible in a pamphlet of this size to attempt to deal fully with this matter, we must therefore content ourselves with one or two references only. If our reader will carefully compare Ephesians 1.22, 23, with 1 Corinthians 1.2, he will find that "The Church, which is His (Christ's) Body" is the Church of the entire dispensation, while "The church of God" is the God-gathered church in a locality.

The membership of the Body embraces every saint of the dispensation, for it is "the fulness - completeness - of Him that filleth all in all". In contrast with this, the church of God at the utmost can only embrace the saints gathered together in a given place (it matters not whether it be "in Corinth", or in any other city, town, or village), and in some cases the number may be so limited as to embrace the smallest plural number "two or three" (i.e. where these only are God - gathered in the place).

Furthermore, the difference between the Church which is His Body, and the church of God, is proved beyond doubt by the plain statements of Scripture, that "There is ONE Body" (Ephesians 4.4) but MANY "churches of God". Thus the "churches of God in Judea" (1 Thessalonians 2.14) unmistakably point to the local assemblies throughout the cities and towns of Judea, which were set up by God as His collective testimony in that part of the earth. But we may not enlarge; lack of space prevents us from referring to the many scriptures which present the church of God as a conditional circle, having principles of constitution and government which have no place whatever in the Body of Christ.

We may now name a fourth point of difference. Some teach that, if in a city there are several companies of saints, each company is a church of God complete in itself, with full authority to administer its own affairs and carry out discipline without reference to other companies, and so there may be many churches in one city acting separately, and having so many separate circles of oversight.

All this is disproved by the fact that Scripture invariably speaks

of ONE CHURCH IN ONE CITY, WITH ONE OVERSIGHT.

Does our reader doubt this? Then let him "search the Scriptures"; and if perchance it may be helpful to name a case in point, we may refer to Jerusalem as the first set up of all the churches, and the one selected by the Spirit of God for constant and detailed reference in the Book of Acts.

Turning then to Acts 4.4; 5.14; 6.7, we find, even in those early days, the number of the disciples was exceeding great. The "Upper Room" (1.18, A.V.), or a few such rooms, would be utterly inadequate to accommodate the "thousands", the "multitudes" as they assembled to break the bread, or for united prayer, etc. It is evident, therefore, that they must have assembled in many rooms or other places. Now how are these disciples spoken of? As the "assemblies" or the "churches" in Jerusalem? NE VER. They are ever spoken of as "THE CHURCH" in Jerusalem (Acts 8.1; 11.22, etc.); and in chapter 15.4, we read "the church and the apostles and elders", thus linking together the one church and its one circle of overseers. This oversight, in its beautiful and perfect unity, is seen in its practical working in verses 6-21; and, again, the unity of the whole assembly and its oversight in verse 22 - "the apostles and the elders, with the whole church".

Reference to Acts 20.17 shows the same unity in connection with the Gentile city of Ephesus. Again we are compelled by lack of space to curtail our references and remarks, but we just add this : If the scriptural unity of the assembly and of the oversight circle is denied, confusion and dishonour to the Lord must result. If each fragmentary company carries out discipline separately, then a person "put out" of company A may creep into company B (which assembles at another part of the city). When this becomes known it causes strife between A and B, and perhaps ends in life-long bitterness and estrangement.

H. ELSON | Nov 1963
Spiritual Movements Seventy Years Ago