Sept. 22, 2011
Dear Brother ______,
Thank you for receiving my letter graciously. Your spirit is commendable; I trust mine has been too. I don’t mean to prolong the correspondence. I realize that you and I both have other things to attend to, so I’ll make this my last communication for now. Feel free to contact me again, though, if you wish.
It is clear to me that you understand that we believe that the Lord’s Table is an ecclesiastical position, and that it symbolizes God’s one gathering center on earth where Christ is in the midst (Matt. 18:2020For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20)). It is also clear that you understand that this doctrine is what is at the bottom of the separation between the KLCs and those whom I believe are truly gathered to the Lord’s name. Knowing this, you suggest that if we would abandon our belief, it would be “easier” for us to join the re-union movement! But brother ______, you are suggesting something that is a bit preposterous. You are asking us to compromise some part of the truth for the sake of re-union. How can we do that with a good conscience? And how can God bless such a move if we have given up some part of His truth to do it? Proverbs 23:2323Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding. (Proverbs 23:23) says, “Buy the truth and sell it not.” I was told that the JND Vevey (French) Translation says—to transliterate it—“ ... and sell not a point of it.” The truth of the Lord’s Table is a very important “point” in Biblical ecclesiology, and we can’t let it go.
As you say, many of those with whom you are in fellowship in the re-union make the Lord’s Table to be nothing more than a position of all Christians before God; they do not see that it has a practical bearing on Christian fellowship on earth. This, to me, defies the logic of the passage in which it is found (1 Cor. 10). Paul’s exhortation as to carelessness in fellowship at the Table is meaningless then. I understand why they want to make it something abstract—it is to facilitate their objective in the re-union. As I pointed out in one of my previous letters, there is a Scriptural way for us to be together—and we don’t have to dump any Scriptural principles to do it. It is God’s way; let them return to the point of departure and own that those whom they are in fellowship with have not submitted to a bonafide assembly action (or actions) made in the Lord’s name. Let them abandon their position and be received into fellowship (as individuals) at the Lord’s Table (Jer. 15:1919Therefore thus saith the Lord, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them. (Jeremiah 15:19)). Why not do it in this Scriptural way? Then we would be united properly and have the Lord’s blessing in it.
In an effort to show that the one place of gathering (the one Lord’s Table) is an erroneous idea of the TWs, you ask who or what group of Christians had the Table before the brethren did in the early 1800s. You imply that this is a great flaw in the TW doctrine of the “one place,” and your seemingly unanswerable question proves (in your mind) that the whole idea is wrong.
But there is a simple answer. Scripture indicates that God has always had a remnant of faithful believers throughout time (1 Kings 19:1818Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. (1 Kings 19:18); 2 Peter 2:99The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: (2 Peter 2:9)). But this does not mean that all the collective privileges that God desires for His people are always afforded to them. On account of ruin and failure among the people of God, in general, many such privileges have been forfeited, and the faithful have had to walk in what they had. An example of this is when the Jews, through their own failure in the land of Canaan, were carried away to Babylon. They could no longer enjoy the privileges at the temple that God intended for them because the temple had been destroyed and they were a thousand miles from Jerusalem. Another example is in the coming 7-year Tribulation period. The faithful remnant of Jews in the last half of the prophetic week (3½ years) will be cast out of Jerusalem and the privilege of going into the temple to worship Jehovah will be taken away from them (Isa. 66:55Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. (Isaiah 66:5)). This is seen in the difference between the first book of the Psalms (1-41) and the second book of the Psalms (42-72). In the first book, the remnant is seen going into the temple to worship during the first 3½ years of the Tribulation. But in the middle of the week when the Antichrist arises, they will have to flee. The second book depicts the remnant bereft of their Jewish privileges and unable to go into the temple to worship.
Similarly, when the truth of being gathered to the Lord’s name on the ground of the one body was lost through failure, sometime after the apostles’ day, the collective privilege of breaking bread at His Table was taken away from the Church. It was a governmental judgment of God. For many long centuries, the Lord’s Table was not known—at least in the way Scripture presents it. The faithful acted on the light they had, and I believe the Lord met them in their simplicity and they enjoyed communion with Him in an individual way. The collective expression of the truth of the one body did not come into view again until the truth was recovered in the 1800s. Therefore, the answer as to where the Lord’s Table was prior to the truth of it being recovered in the 1800s, is, nowhere; the Lord had taken that privilege away from believers. Why would you think that there had to be a continuous expression of the one Lord’s Table from the Apostles’ time to the present before it could be acknowledged as being the truth? We don’t believe in apostolic succession.
You say that while we don’t claim or declare that we are at the one place of God’s gathering, we “sure come close to saying it.” You say that all my softening remarks really don’t change the underlying belief that we “have the Table.” You ask, “Why not clearly say the obvious?” Your point is that if we believe it, why don’t we be honest and say it. I think the answer is simple. It is for the same reason that you don’t officially state that you are a pastor. (I’ve heard somewhere—I don’t know where—that you really do have the gift of a pastor.) If this is true, why don’t you put a badge on your shirt stating the obvious? And maybe get some business cards stating it too—“Pastor ______.” But you don't do it. Is it because it’s not true? No, it’s because it’s not in keeping with the spirit of Christian grace to go around proclaiming something that you have been privileged to have. You don’t do it because you know that there should be humility connected with having such a gift. (I realize that many Christian ministers do take that title formally, but I don’t believe that the Word of God would support it, and I’m sure you would agree.) Similarly, it is a privilege to be at the Lord’s Table, and anyone who truly believes that God has gathered him there wouldn’t parade it around before others who are not; it would only incite accusations of pride of position, etc. Hence, we don’t plaster Matthew 18:2020For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20) to our meeting halls (like the Open Brethren do) and proclaim that we are the ones who have the Lord in our midst. We believe it to be true, but we don’t advertise it—especially in a day of ruin, which calls for self-judgment and humility (Dan. 9). We can unintentionally give that impression, but it is not pride to believe what Scripture says; it is faith. Catholics will tell us that it is pride and presumption to say that we are saved, but Scripture states it, and we believe it. Is it really pride to believe Scripture and to act on it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope I’m not wearying you with my difficulties in regard to the re-union principles of the KLCs, but there is another thing that I honestly don’t understand. When a merging takes place, and two groups who were formerly apart come together, they declare that they are merely “recognizing” the fact that both groups are gathered on the same ground—the ground of the one body—and therefore, they come together as one fellowship thereafter. What I can’t figure out is how they arrive at the conclusion that both groups are on the same ground. Historically, one group was with those who accepted an assembly decision to put the others away from that ground; how can they a few years later declare that they are both on the same ground?
For instance, those who ended up with the Lowes were in fellowship with the assembly action in 1885 to disown the Reading assembly (or a faction thereof), which upheld and defended Mr. Stuart and his erroneous teaching. The action stated that they no longer recognized the Stuart party as being gathered on the ground which they were on; the Stuarts were declared out of fellowship. But then, after some years (1953), the two groups came together to discuss the sad division, and they came away declaring that both were on the same ground and that both were truly gathered to the Lord’s name! Therefore, they began breaking bread together. My question is, “How did they get onto the same ground when one side had put the other side away from that ground?” Essentially, they are saying that when they divided many years earlier and went their separate ways, both sides took the Lord’s Table with them! But how could this be?
Mr. W. R. Dronsfield states this strange principle of action in his book (“The Brethren Since 1870”) in connection with the Lowe/Kelly division. He says, “In the case of the ‘Lowe’ and ‘Kelly’ brethren, however, they realized that they were gathered on the same ground already—the ground of the one body with Christ as Head—and therefore, there was no receiver and no received, but a mutual recognition of each other. It was not a case of one company being received by another.” As you can see, I have a difficulty with this because it is saying that the assembly decision that was made years earlier—which lays at the bottom of why these two groups were divided—means nothing. If they really believed that, then why did they accept the decision and walk in separate paths for many years? To me, this “re-union principle” denies the Lord’s authority in binding assembly decisions. It slights His authority vested in the assembly that originally made the action. I see it as an affront to the Lord.
The whole “recognition” rather than “reception” thing is a KLC invention—pure and simple. They speak about it freely in their re-union papers. The brethren with whom I am in fellowship do not accept this for the reasons that I have given. I understand why those who promote the re-union would speak of “recognition.” They pretty much have to take that line in order to facilitate their objective of re-uniting scattered brethren. Neither group in the merger has to own that they were wrong by having rebelled against an assembly action that was taken; they just “recognize” one another. It’s convenient, but it’s not God’s way.
The practice of the KLCs in absorbing whole gatherings (or groups of gatherings) into fellowship is something that Mr. C. H. Mackintosh denounced as unscriptural. He stressed that the only correct kind of reception is individual and stated that the mistake brethren made in the 1830s was to receive, en masse, the group under Mr. Muller and Mr. Craik who were meeting in a Baptist church building. He said, “The fact is, Bethesda ought never to have been acknowledged as an assembly gathered on divine ground; and this is proved by the fact that, when called to act on the truth of the unity of the body of Christ, it completely broke down.” You would think that brethren would have learned from the Bethesda (Open Brethren) matter that receiving groups en masse is not God’s way, but evidently not. I notice that Mr. Dronsfield acknowledges that Mr. Mackintosh taught this but implies that he was wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have heard that many who are with you in the re-union fellowship say that the whole idea that there is only one gathering center (the exclusivity of the Lord’s Table being in one place of gathering on earth) is a new idea that the TWs have invented. This simply is not true.
H. A. Ironside notes in his book (“A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement”) that before the Bethesda division, in the late 1830s and early 1840s, the brethren “were not backward in claiming in some instances the exclusive possession of the Lord’s Table.” Mr. Ironside decries it, but nevertheless, you can see that the truth of the one Lord’s Table being in one ecclesiastical position on earth has been part of the gathered saints’ portfolio of doctrine pretty much from their beginning.
Mr. Darby, who lived and died long before the trouble at Tunbridge Wells, said, “He [Christ] is the only center of gathering. Men may make confederations amongst themselves, having many things for their object or aim, but the communion of saints cannot be known unless each line converges towards the living Center. The Holy Ghost does not gather saints around mere views, however true they may be, but upon that which the Church is, upon that which it has been, or that which it may be on earth, but He always gathers them around that blessed Person, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. ‘Where two or three are gathered together in [unto] My name, there am I in the midst of them.’”
At the time of the Kelly division (1878-1881), Mr. Darby also said, “The great part of the collective conflict is with the wilful misunderstanding of the truth of Christ as the one gathering center ... .”
Mr. J. R. Gill, who lived in London in the 1890s, said that the truth of the one place of gathering on earth was commonplace teaching among the brethren. He said, “May I mention that sixty years have elapsed since I was first privileged to be at the Table, there to remember Him in His death. Nor have I forgotten how the sense of the preciousness of that occasion stole in upon my heart. I trust the flight of time has deepened that sense! In those days, and earliest of all in England [circa 1891], it was commonly taught and believed there was only one Lord’s Table. I was brought up in that atmosphere; never heard anything to the contrary. Father spoke of it at home, and I heard it frequently in the meetings. It became an article of faith with me: ‘The Lord’s Table’ (1 Cor. 10:2121Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:21)); not the plural—‘the Lord’s Tables’—only one!
“The holding of the old doctrine [the one gathering center] tended to stabilize us ecclesiastically. The thought of leaving the Lord’s Table, if there was but one, on a fleshly impulse, or for some unworthy reason, would be appalling—impossible! How shall I leave it, if in a special sense the Lord be there? I would be turning my back on Him and on the center of His providing. I remember when considerations of this kind fastened on my young heart like a vice. I trust that hold is still there. But if there are many Lord’s Tables—several conflicting centers of equal value—if it matters little where I go, I shall drift the more easily. Petty slights, injuries, misunderstandings, and the like may be the determining factors in leading me astray, without such restraint as the old teaching imposed, and, quite obviously, if I be adrift, the new and liberal theology would attract me. Let me be candid here; I, for one, reject it! I stand by the old teachings.” Here again, the 1890s (of which Mr. Gill speaks), were before the TW action was made.
Hence, from these references we can see that there is simply no truth to the idea that the TWs have invented the teaching of the “one place” of gathering in recent years.
The truth is that those who have gone out in division (whom the KLCs are trying to bring together) have given up this truth; those groups once held it but have let it go! For example, when Mr. S. Ridout, who went out in division, was asked why the brethren that supported Mr. Grant in that division hastily broke bread the very next Lord’s day after he was put out. He said, “We believe that in 1884 many of us, before the division, had the common thought that WE had the Table exclusively, and must not allow it to lapse a single day. This we think had something to do with the haste of breaking bread, without intermission, at Craig Street, Montreal.” A few months later, he wrote another letter on what constitutes, or characterizes the Lord’s Table, stating that “no one company can claim the exclusive possession of it.” In these two quotes, Mr. Ridout admits that they used to hold the truth of the one Lord’s Table but have since given it up.
Let me give you a quotation from a Grant publication (“The Gleaner”) in February 1914 that confirms this. The writer says, “But perhaps the biggest item on the credit side of our ledger, if one may be permitted to compare, when all is so precious and vital, is the truth that no company of Christians, not even ourselves, can claim a monopoly of the Lord’s Table, or of gathering in the Name of the Lord. Had this truth been known thirty years ago, perhaps division might have been averted.” Here, he clearly acknowledges that they once held the truth of the one gathering center but have since given it up.
The sad truth is that it is not us, but those with the KLC re-union who have departed from what was commonly held among brethren as to this truth. Again, I understand that it is in order to accommodate their objective of re-gathering the splinter-groups among brethren. In fact, I think that almost every so-called, “brethren” fellowship out there today has given up the truth of the one gathering place. Shall we give it up too? God forbid.
If you were to ask me: “What is it that holds you from joining the re-union?” In a word, I would say that it is principles—Scriptural principles.
Your brother by grace,
Bruce Anstey