May 31, 2011
Dear Brother ______,
I have enclosed two more books for you—“Questions, Vol. 2” and “The Open Brethren.” I don’t mean to avalanche you with literature, but I thought you might want them. I hope you will see from these books that there are some serious differences between the KLC Re-union brethren and those whom I believe are truly gathered to the Lord’s name. And, if this is the case, how “can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:33Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3)). Actually, it is not so much a difference between the KLCs and our brethren as it is the KLCs and what Scripture teaches.
There are three main issues regarding the principles of the KLC re-union movement that I believe are at variance with Scripture:
Firstly, they believe that assembly decisions are only bound in heaven if they are righteous actions. However, Scripture (Matt. 18:18-1918Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:18‑19)) does not qualify the binding actions of the assembly as such. It simply says, “Whatsoever ... ” and “it shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven.” The assembly could make a mistake and bind something wrongly, but it is still bound, and it should be submitted to until it is set right. If this is not seen and practiced, order in the assemblies is soon lost; division and scattering are always the result. All assembly actions are binding because the assembly has been vested with authority from God. It may misuse that authority, but it is still authority and should be submitted to as such.
The assembly having authority does not mean that it has infallibility. Many have confused these two things. J. N. Darby wrote a well-known paper on this subject that I’m sure you have read. (I have written on it in some detail in my books, “The One Body in Practice” and “Questions, Vol. 1,” so it is not necessary for me to go into it here.) Illustrations abound in this regard, and it shows that we understand this principle in other areas of life. A police officer has authority but not infallibility. He could mistakenly arrest someone, and the person would have to submit to it until it was set right. A father, having authority in his household, may also wrongly discipline one of the children in his family; again, the child would have to submit to the discipline until it was set right. The President of the United States could pass a law with the backing of Congress that is terribly wrong, both morally and ethically, but because he has authority, it would be a law that is bound on the nation until it was officially repealed. In each case, the place for those under such authorities is to acquiesce and submit to the decision until God sets it right.
Many have misunderstood this down through the years and have been misguided as a result. They have mistakenly thought that if an assembly decision does not bear “the hallmark of righteousness” (in their opinion) that it is not an assembly decision at all, and therefore, it shouldn’t be regarded. Consequently, when an assembly decision/action is made that they think is unrighteous, they reject it. In these situations, leaders will oftentimes go off and do their own thing, taking disciples with them. Sad to say, the enemy (Satan) has used this misunderstanding to divide and scatter the saints gathered to the Lord’s name many times. On the average, there has been a division among Brethren every generation. This shows us that each generation will be tested as to these things. What is so sad is that people seem to fall on this stone every time! In most cases, the assembly action was not an unrighteous decision—people just thought that it was because they didn’t understand the facts of the case or the principles involved. To state it as clearly as I can without meaning to be offensive, it is really rebellion against the Lord’s authority in the assembly. Whether it is done willfully or ignorantly doesn’t change the fact.
The error is in thinking that when an assembly decision is made, everyone in the assembly (and in other assemblies in fellowship with the assembly that has made the binding action) must choose on a personal and individual level whether they accept the decision or not. They seem to think that it is something that should be voted on. Thus, the binding action is taken from a corporate level down to a personal level. Accounts stating the facts of various divisions among Brethren, written by those who have gone out in division, state this. They will say things like, “And everybody across the country were left to decide for themselves....” This idea opens the door for individual action independent of the corporate action of the assembly (Judg. 21:2525In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)).
The truth is that when a decision is made in an assembly where the Lord is in the midst, it is bound in heaven, and we should accept it prima facie, and consequently, bow to it—whether we think that it is right or wrong. If it is indeed a mistake, we must wait for the Head of the Church to set it right. (I have explained the Scriptural course of action in that event in my book, “The One Body in Practise.”) To wait on the Lord in a situation like this takes faith and patience. However, in stating this principle, the KLCs think that we are saying that assembly decisions are infallible! They cry, “It's popery!” But bowing to authority—rightly or wrongly used—is not what infallibility means. To be infallible is to never make a mistake. We are not saying that. The assembly may be wrong in an administrative action, but the authority that it has must still be regarded because the Lord has vouchsafed the assembly with that power. To submit and wait on the Lord preserves the unity of the assembly.
Secondly, the KLC Re-union brethren are trying to practice the truth of the “one body” without reference to the one gathering center—the one Lord’s Table. They—and this you well know—do not believe that the Lord’s presence, as in Matthew 18:2020For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20), is only in one place or assembly position, ecclesiastically. They believe that He could be in the midst of many groups of Christians, even though they are not in practical fellowship with each other. I believe that Scripture does not support this. The Lord’s presence in Matthew 18:2020For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20) has to do with Him sanctioning the position or ground on which He has gathered His saints in a corporate sense, and thus, authorizing the administrative decisions made in that place. If the Lord were in the midst of various groups of Christians according to Matthew 18:2020For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20), and they were in division from one another, then He would be sanctioning division in the public testimony of the Church. It is not something I believe He would do because He would be denying His own Word that says, “That they all may be one” (John 17:2121That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21)). If we say that the Spirit of God is leading Christians to be gathered to the Lord’s name, yet they are in different positions ecclesiastically, then we are saying that He is the Author of the sad divisions in the Christian profession. This simply cannot be, because it would attribute sin to the Holy Spirit. I have gone into this subject (the one place of gathering) in some detail in my books, so there is no need for me to go any farther with it here.
Thirdly, while the KLC Re-union brethren are to be commended for their desire for healing among brethren, sadly, I believe they are going about it in an unscriptural way. They want to get the splinter-groups back together again for prayer, humiliation, and the owning of general failure. But from what I have read about this, there is no confession regarding their rebellion against the Lord’s authority in decisions of the assembly (that is, in not bowing to the assembly actions made in His name)—which has caused them to go off independently. Hence, they want to get back together again, but without owning the real sin that is at the bottom of it, and what has caused all the trouble in the first place! And why would they confess to something they don’t believe is a sin? In their thinking, it is quite acceptable to reject an assembly decision if they don’t think that it is a righteous one. I don’t like to say it so bluntly, brother _____, but it is really a re-union of rebels who have never owned the real cause of their departure.
If these brethren want to be together—and I don’t doubt their sincerity—they need to understand that God’s way is to return to the ground from which they have departed. It is not re-union that is needed; it is restoration. And there is no restoration without getting back to the point of departure. This means that they would have to own that they are part of a group of Christians who have rebelled against an assembly decision that was made some time ago in the name of the Lord. Sad to say, this is something they have not done to this date. It makes us wonder how real their exercise is to see healing and unity among brethren. You say that we (and the Grant/Ames party—which is minute) are holding out in joining the re-union, but really, it is you and your brethren in the KLC fellowship who are holding out. As long as you maintain your erroneous principles and refuse to own the real sin in the matter, there will be no real healing. There can be no true restoration without it.
You would think that it would have at least crossed the minds of some of your brethren that they should placate us—giving us what we want, so to speak—even if they were not sincere about their confession—just to get us all back together again. We would gladly receive them then, and there would be the healing that they, and we, are looking for. Of course, I don’t suggest that they do this, because it wouldn’t be real (Psa. 51:66Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. (Psalm 51:6)), but I would think that it would have at least crossed their minds at some point.
Let me say it again, brother ______, I don’t want to offend you in any way by pointing these things out, but I believe that they are the truth and that they need to be stated. Please accept it as from the Lord.
Your brother by grace,
Bruce Anstey