Learning from the Brethren

I read this article with interest and some sadness the other day.  I’ve a personal connection to the Brethren Assemblies as, whilst I was at University, I started attending a fairly traditional Gospel Hall when back home in Bradford. It was there that I really began to cut my teeth, preaching and teaching.   Later, when we moved up to the West Midlands, the church I came to be a pastor at had strong Brethren roots. Whilst a lot of the external vestiges of Brethrenism seemed to have disappeared and only a small handful of members had grown up in those types of churches, significant aspects of the culture were still there.

Whilst you may not see an article about one small, semi-historic movement as particularly relevant, I want to suggest that it is worth a read particularly if you are involved in church planting or revitalisation.  Here’s why.  First, because a lot of revitalisations/replants will be into churches with historic roots in specific movements and denominations.  This will bring both blessings and baggage.  Here in the West Midlands I’ve been involved in a replant into a Congregational Church and there have been at least 3 revitalisation projects involving Brethren Gospel Halls.  At the same time, people will come to join your planting team from different backgrounds.  Some may include Brethren. 

Secondly, a lot of churches and people linked into movements including the FIEC, New Frontiers and other new church networks have Brethren roots. Even if those roots seem dim and distant and people think they and the church have left the movement behind, a lot of the culture and ethos sticks.  It meant for us that even though only 3 or 4 people would have considered themselves true Brethren, others were there because they appreciated and were shaped by values and approaches that had their roots in Brethren thinking and practice.

Thirdly, whilst certain issues may be amplified within certain groupings, this does not mean they are unique to them.  You may spot things that affect your own church tradition too as you read about the Brethren.

It’s important therefore when talking about the Brethren to recognise the blessings and benefits that came with that movement.  There were many.  In fact, it is my personal view that if the movement is coming to an end as an entity in its own right then that is at least in part because it has been used to help renew and reform the wider church, so that things once distinctive to the Brethren no longer are unique.  

For me, the big blessings from the Brethren were and are as follows.  First, of all they were Bible people.  They encouraged everyone to dig into God’s Word, to study it and know it.  That’s why a lot of the significant preachers and Bible teachers in wider evangelicalism have tended to have Brethren influences.  Secondly, they were committed to plurality of leadership.  Now, it would be unusual for an evangelical church now not to have a leadership team with several elders and shared responsibility for teaching and pastoral care.  The Brethren movement played a big part in making that so.  Thirdly they were committed to fellowship and took the marks of the church seriously. They practiced believers’ baptism, they made the Lord’s Supper a central part of their weekly gathering.

The fourth thing that strikes me about the Brethren is that they were passionate about Gospel proclamation.  They made this central to their Sunday evening meetings and they were at the forefront of leading missions, of door to door and street evangelism, of youth and children’s clubs  and pioneering a form of church planting.

Finally, they were committed to every member ministry.  This is important because Alexander’s article picks up primarily on the negatives of this but there were positives too.  First, although the Brethren were primarily cessationists due to their dispensationalist theology, their open meetings provided a pattern which gave the charismatic movement permission to open their gatherings for people to share prophecies, visions, dreams, pictures and tongues.

The second good thing is this.  Yes, there may have been a danger of “Buggin’s turn.”  Yes, there may have been a problem with anyone and everyone being allowed to stand up and speak, the result may have been a lot of dross and a lot of discouragement when someone flopped too.  However, at least, that gave an opportunity for people to discover their gifts.  That would not have happened so easily if ministry was tightly controlled, in the hands of one man.  I’m not alone in being someone who has been involved in regularly teaching and preaching ministry because the Gospel Hall gave me an opportunity to try out.

What I think was the challenge was, as Alexander identifies, there wasn’t a great enough grasp of the issues around character, gifting, calling and timing.  In terms of calling, I think there are two dangers. On the one hand, you can wait for the mystical inner call. This will mean that some people will never feel that experience whilst others will strongly believe they have despite evidence to the contrary.  On the other extreme is an attitude that fails to recognise the place of gifting or calling at all so that it literally is “everyone can have a go.”  A better way forward is to encourage a right process of discernment so that a local church recognises the person’s gifting and calling. Therefore, the local church calls a person to ministry -whether that’s full time Gospel work or using specific gifts.

Crucially for us, whatever our context, we need to learn the right lessons from the Brethren.  We should not see Alexander’s article as a justification for putting the fences up and becoming restrictive and guarded about who does what, retreating towards one man, or a few men ministry.  Rather, I believe that we should be maximising the opportunities for people to “have a go” but ensuring that there is feedback and discernment. 

This means we need to create space and opportunity for those things to be happening.  Here are a few possible ways that we can do that.

• Allowing for those kinds of open moments in your gatherings for people to share what God is placing on your heart.  If you are in a Charismatic context then you may be comfortable with using words like “prophecy” to describe those moments. However, I don’t think this has to be for charismatics only.  Simply opening things up, even if you are not putting labels on things can be hugely beneficial.
• Why not get three people to share the preaching one week. Get them to do ten minutes each.
• Interactive discussion based Bible studies will give you the opportunity to observe how different people engage with the Bible and each other.
• Why not ask a couple of people to come with a short thought/devotion to one of your home group/life group gatherings.

These are all ways of giving more people opportunity to take part. The difference is that you aren’t just leaving it there. Instead you are following up.  The result may be that

• It helps you identify where someone’s gifting lies, elsewhere to preaching and teaching.
• You spot someone who can preach/teach/lead and should be involved in this quickly.
• You identify someone with potential but who needs more time. 

What you then can do, as well as giving opportunities for practice is to intentionally train and develop people with their gifts. Incidentally, this should apply to all gifts, not just preaching.

I believe that the Brethren weren’t and aren’t perfect. Some of the baggage they’ve brought with them has been unhelpful. However, I also see many positives which I hope will continue to bless the church for years to come.