The KLC Re-Union Principles Examined: Four Letters to a Brother
Stanley Bruce Anstey
Table of Contents
Letter #1
May 10, 2011,
Dear Brother ______,
Thank you for your letter. It is nice to hear that you appreciate what I have written in my books on assembly truth—“God’s Order” and “The Search for a Scriptural Assembly.” My exercise has been to present the truth concerning the assembly as it was recovered in the 1800s, to my generation and to those who follow in the next generation in a simple and understandable way, with the hope that they will see it, value it, and walk in it. I believe that we need to serve our generation, as David did, by re-stating the truth in the same purity in which we have received it from the previous generation (Acts 13:36).
I have enclosed 2 more books for you—“The One Body in Practice” and “Questions, Vol. 1.” I hope that you will enjoy these as you have the other ones, but I suspect that you may not go for all that is found in them, as these books deal more specifically with issues that relate to your assembly position. I hope that you will not be offended but exercised about it. I truly love you as my brother in Christ and heartily desire your good and practical blessing. Please read these carefully and prayerfully.
Your brother by grace,
Bruce Anstey
Letter #2
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 3:3). 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. 18:18-19) 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. 21:25).
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 18:20, 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 18:20 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 18:20, 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 17:21). 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. 51:6), 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
Letter #3
August 5, 2011
Dear Brother ______,
It is nice to hear from you again. I trust that you and your wife are well through the Lord’s good mercy. You are very gracious in responding to my letter, and I appreciate your Christ-like spirit. I have been thinking about what we have discussed in our correspondence thus far and have been puzzled about the exact position the KLCs take in regard to the Lord’s Table. I say this because there are two different (and seemingly opposing) views among you. I’m not sure what your actual position is.
The first one, as I understand it, is that it is not possible for anyone to know where the Lord’s Table is today because the ruin in the Christian testimony is so great. Therefore, no company of Christians can claim to be at His Table. To think otherwise would be presumptuous and not manifesting the humility that should mark the godly in a day of broken testimony. I think Mr. R. K. Campbell takes this position in his book, “The Church of the Living God.”
If the KLCs really believe that it is not possible to know where the Lord’s Table is, then it seems to me that the only upright thing to do is not to break bread at all until the Lord shows them where it is. Every truehearted and right-minded believer would only want to break bread at His Table, because it’s the only way that Scripture indicates that it should be done. To cease to break bread at least shows godly care and concern for not setting up an independent man-made table, which, if done, would dishonour the Lord and further the ruin. I know of some in Australia who had lost their way in the fall-out of the sad divisions among brethren, and for many years they would meet together for prayer meetings and Bible meetings, but they were careful not to break bread for fear that they might be doing it on independent ground, and not at the Lord’s Table as Scripture states. You have to respect them for it. They honestly didn’t know where the Lord’s Table was and didn’t want to add to the ruin by going ahead and setting up something that quite possibly could be a schismatic table. But the KLCs have not done this; they evidently do not have this concern.
It sounds pious to say that we don’t know where the Lord’s Table is, but it’s hard to believe that the Lord would ask His people to do something in a collective sense—i.e., break bread at His Table until He comes—knowing at the same time that it would not be possible for them to do it. He would be asking us to do something that cannot be done! This, to me, doesn’t put the Lord in a good light. We live in days when the truth of the assembly has been recovered; the Lord has opened the door for His people to practice the truth of the assembly that has been closed for centuries. Scripture says, “I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it” (Rev. 3:8). This means that even our failures and divisions can’t shut that door! It will remain open until the Lord comes (Rev. 3:11). This being the case, God can, and has (I believe), made a way through the confusion for exercised believers to partake of the Supper at His Table. As mentioned, the Lord has asked us to remember Him in the breaking of bread at His Table “till He come” (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and now that the truth of the assembly has been recovered He will provide a way for us to do so until that moment. This shows that God is greater than all the ruin.
I’ve heard some say that the Lord’s Table was identifiable among brethren prior to the major divisions that took place in the 1880s, but since then it cannot be identified. Again, it’s hard for me to think that the Lord’s Table has disappeared from view when the Lord has promised to hold the door open as to the practice of the truth of the assembly till He comes. Prior to his death, J. N. Darby detected a general eroding of the holding of the truth of the one gathering center among brethren and said, “The great part of the collective conflict is with the willful misunderstanding of the truth of Christ as the one gathering center. No one is a more bitter opponent of this truth than the one who knows it but doesn’t walk in it.” It is clear from this that he believed that it was identifiable in his day. But where did it go since then? How was it lost? I believe that the right collective path can be traced through those difficult times in the 1880s by using the first principle I mentioned in my previous letter. I believe that it holds the answer for all who are truly searching. If you look at the five major divisions among the so-called “exclusive” Brethren (Kelly–1881, Grant–1884, Stuart–1885, Raven–1890, Lowe/Continental–1909) and note that a binding assembly decision was made in the name of the Lord in each case (Matt. 18:18-20), it will be clear as to who remained at the Lord’s Table and who didn’t. In each situation there were those who rejected the decision and departed from divine ground into division.
In the Kelly division there was a definite assembly decision made at Park Street, London, that Mr. Kelly and those with him would not accept. H. A. Ironside’s, “Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement,” states that Mr. Kelly “refused to bow to the London [Park Street] decision.” He put forth a public statement called, “Why Many Saints Were Outside Park Street in 1881,” explaining why. He and his followers had their reasons—stating that it was done in a high-handed and “regimental” way. But in view of the principle I referred to in my previous letter, even if it were so, it was still a binding decision. Mr. Kelly believed that a right assembly decision had to be discerned by communion with the Lord, not just by what took place officially. He couldn’t deny that an assembly decision had been made in Park Street, so he attacked the principle of bowing to assembly decisions prima facie, saying that brethren were “idolizing assembly judgments.” But when you leave things to what must be discerned subjectively, things are put on an unsure ground of feelings and impressions—some of which could be biased or founded on ignorance of Scriptural principles. This only confuses things and opens the door for the enemy to work. This mistaken idea led Mr. Kelly and those with him into division. Mr. Darby, on the other hand, believed that what was done officially (in assembly) should be bowed to—prima facie. If you follow it through, you’ll find that in each of the other divisions, there were definite decisions made in the name of the Lord, and similar consequences resulted when those decisions were rejected.
The second position that the KLCs apparently take in regard to the Lord’s Table is that they believe that the KLC re-union fellowship, and the TWs (those who submitted to the decision of the assembly in Tunbridge Wells – 1909), and probably others, are all at the Lord’s Table; it’s just that they are not in practical fellowship with one another. Mr. Edwin Cross said this to me in a personal conversation. (He was the founder of Chapter Two Booksellers, England, and is now with the Lord. You probably knew him.) This seems to contradict the first position of nobody knowing where the Table is today. Evidently those who take this second position believe that the Lord’s Table is not gone from sight, and they see it as being with these two fellowships, and maybe with others. But this confuses me. If the TWs and KLC fellowships are both at the Lord’s Table, where He is in the midst, then the Lord would be condoning and authorizing division among His people, because these two companies are not in practical fellowship with each other. Also, if they were both on the same ground, then they would recognize each other’s administrative decisions because the Table is one, but they/we don’t. How can both be at His Table, yet not be in fellowship? Fellowship at the Lord’s Table is a practical thing. Scripture says, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion [fellowship] of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16 – W. Kelly Trans.) If we take into consideration the three points I made in my previous letter, it seems clear which of the two is truly at His Table.
It is a mistake to think that there are those among us proclaiming that we have the Lord’s Table. We do not do this. Those who are not with us are the ones who are saying that we proclaim it. I don’t know if it is an attempt to put us in a bad light, or what—the Lord knows. We see from Scripture that God has one place (one ecclesiastical ground) on which He would have His people to meet for worship and ministry, and we trust that the Lord has led us there. But we don’t proclaim it because we could be mistaken. We have looked to Him for direction in being led to that one ground of fellowship and center of gathering, and we trust that God has directed us to that place of the Lord’s appointment. This is not presumption; it is faith. Those with whom I fellowship do not proclaim that they are on that ground, but we believe (until God shows us otherwise) that the Spirit of God has led us to that place. The truth of gathering is not about the people; it’s about the Lord having a gathering center. There is always a danger of shifting the focus from the Lord in the midst to the people whom the Spirit of God has gathered there and saying that they have the Lord’s Table. Our focus should be on Christ in the midst. Remember, our gathering together is “unto Him” (Heb. 13:13).
I believe that Scripture teaches that there is still a gathering center on earth. The question often asked is, “Which Christian group has the Lord’s Table?” But this is the wrong angle to approach the subject. The answer as to who has the Lord’s Table is—the Lord! It is His table, and He is leading exercised believers to it. God wants us to be exercised about it and to seek the Lord’s mind for guidance in this matter—just as Peter and John asked the Lord “where” that place was in their day (Luke 22:9).
Your brother by grace,
Bruce Anstey
Letter #4
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. 18:20). 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 23:23 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. 15:19). 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 19:18; 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. 66:5). 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 18:20 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. 10:21); 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
Addendum
There appear to be four main ecclesiological errors which the KLC fellowship is founded upon. They are:
They reject the idea that God has one gathering center for Christians meeting together for worship and ministry where the Lord is in the midst.
They believe that assembly decisions must be righteous actions in order for them to be bound in heaven. Hence, if an assembly makes a wrong decision, then it is not an assembly action at all, and thus, should be disregarded.
They believe that Christian groups that meet for worship and ministry along the lines of the Scriptural pattern for an assembly are thereby gathered to the Lord’s name and divinely owned of God—even if they have previously divided off from the assemblies thus gathered. Therefore, if they come into contact with such a group, it is not necessary to receive them, but simply to recognize that they are already gathered to the Lord’s name.
And (not included in the body of the previous letters) they also teach that Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper are synonymous terms.