Thread: MW2897 Bethany Evangelical Church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030395
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The service described by the reviewer sounds exactly typical of the "Open Brethren", except for the seating arrangement; worshippers usually sit in a circle or square with the Communion elements in the middle. Even the use of "Hymns of Light and Love" (in tiny print!) is typical - in fact that took me straight back to services I used to attend in the early 70s.
It's interesting that the church has a Family Service later in the morning. This reflects a trend in Brethren churches, which used to have the "Breaking of Bread" in the morning and a "Gospel Service" at night. Many churches wanted a more "accessible" service in the morning, but without losing the "Breaking of Bread" which is really the glory of their tradition.
However the two services are, I suspect, gradually being conflated into one in many places such as this chapel which I used to know well and held the same pattern as Bethany. I suspect this is a natural process as older worshippers die - can others verify if this is happening elsewhere?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
There is a Brethren place opposite my house which still advertises morning Breaking of Bread and evening Gospel services - but how would one tell whether it was an "Open" Brethren or which other congregations it was associated with?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Link to the report is here...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a Brethren place opposite my house which still advertises morning Breaking of Bread and evening Gospel services - but how would one tell whether it was an "Open" Brethren or which other congregations it was associated with?
In my experience the "Closed" or "Exclusive" Brethren only display the times of their "Gospel services", not the "Breaking of Bread". And often they will append something like "D.V." or "God willing" to the announced times.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a Brethren place opposite my house which still advertises morning Breaking of Bread and evening Gospel services - but how would one tell whether it was an "Open" Brethren or which other congregations it was associated with?
You could possibly try turning up and seeing if they let you in!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Brethren place near me has reduced Breaking of Bread to monthly - the other 3 are mission servicews - and very popular too.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a Brethren place opposite my house which still advertises morning Breaking of Bread and evening Gospel services - but how would one tell whether it was an "Open" Brethren or which other congregations it was associated with?
In my experience the "Closed" or "Exclusive" Brethren only display the times of their "Gospel services", not the "Breaking of Bread". And often they will append something like "D.V." or "God willing" to the announced times.
There's a Taylorite congregation in Coventry and they don't have any services advertised - only a contact number. Wiki says this is standard for the very strict Exclusive Brethren.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
In my experience the "Open Brethren" fellowships have modernised to considerably varying degrees. I grew up in what was regarded as an Open Brethren church but if it has remained as it was then it would now be regarded as much "tighter" than others. Some churches with a brethren heritage would probably be indistinguishable from a non-denominational evangelical church.
Two things usually stand out as indicators of an open brethren church:
1. Plural leadership. The church will probably be led by a group of Elders rather than a single minister (even if one of those a Elders is employed as a minister/pastor).
2. Open communion. The unstructured "open worship" style communion service as described in the MW report. Churches still identifying as Open Brethren will retain this format. Churches with brethren heritage may have kept the service going as, say, an early morning or evening service that mostly only the old faithful attend. The open worship style is so alien to most Christians these days it can be hard to maintain - especially it doesn't suit children which is an issue if you have a thriving church with many families.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
2. Open communion. The unstructured "open worship" style communion service as described in the MW report. Churches still identifying as Open Brethren will retain this format.
I'm unfamiliar with this tradition so bear with me. What does "open worship" mean in this context? That anyone can take communion? That there is no presidential minister and members take part as the Spirit moves them?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Very much so, indeed. Although one must remember that, even in so-called "open worship", unwritten liturgies and expectations tend to develop: that's human nature. (The same is true in charismatic/Pentecostal churches and probably in "Fresh Expressions", too).
Also don't forget that there are elected - and respected - elders in each congregation, so it's not total anarchy; indeed, that would be frowned on. And there is most definitely no "priestly caste" in Brethrenism - anyone (or, at least, any male "in good standing") may break the bread and pour the wine, asking God's blessing on them.
This is felt to be a return to New Testament simplicity, and a visible expression of the "priesthood of all believers". In practice, just as in Quakerism, folk who attend soon get to know "how things are done" and fit in with it.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
Having grown up in the Open Brethren myself, I would point out that the elders are not always elected. We never had elections. Instead they were appointed by the existing elders (who collectively in my congregation were simply known as 'the Oversight')
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a Brethren place opposite my house which still advertises morning Breaking of Bread and evening Gospel services - but how would one tell whether it was an "Open" Brethren or which other congregations it was associated with?
You could possibly try turning up and seeing if they let you in!
I once turned up, out of curiosity, at a supposedly public gospel meeting advertised by a Brethren splinter group known as Needed Truth, and had to explain myself at the door before they would let me in!
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Having grown up in the Open Brethren myself, I would point out that the elders are not always elected. We never had elections. Instead they were appointed by the existing elders (who collectively in my congregation were simply known as 'the Oversight')
The system I am familiar with is one in which the existing eldership appoints new elders, but the congregation expresses its agreement or disagreement by means of a secret ballot.
If the congregation's opinion varied from the eldership's, then the decision would be rethought, but I have never known this to happen, mainly because a wise oversight will always gauge the congregation's attitude thoroughly beforehand.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Well, this sounds very much like Culver Grove, Stanmore, Middlesex (now Culver Evangelical) that I grew up in. I still have my baptismal Hymns of Light and Love.
The one big difference is the open communion. It was expected that new visiting brethren would have letters of introduction from their elders.
I left at 16 and thought that, despite some of the things I loved (I conduct a very similar Lord's Supper in our house church), the Brethren would always be too narrow for me. (Interestingly, the most open person was a lecturer (and contributor to the New Bible Dictionary) at the London Bible College) This assembly does sound like one I could at least visit.
Thank you for the report. It does gladden my heart.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Having grown up in the Open Brethren myself, I would point out that the elders are not always elected. We never had elections. Instead they were appointed by the existing elders (who collectively in my congregation were simply known as 'the Oversight')
Ah, my mistake then. I may well have unintentionally assumed that Baptist/Congregational practice applied in the Brethren situation.
The word "oversight" is familiar from my experience in Southampton in the 70s.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
2. Open communion. The unstructured "open worship" style communion service as described in the MW report. Churches still identifying as Open Brethren will retain this format.
I'm unfamiliar with this tradition so bear with me. What does "open worship" mean in this context? That anyone can take communion? That there is no presidential minister and members take part as the Spirit moves them?
Yes. Exactly as you say there is no-one presiding over the service. It is entirely "open" for anyone to take part. This would normally take the form of asking to sing a song or hymn, praying (though typically prayers of worship not petitions), reading a passage of Scripture and/or sharing a thought. At some point in the service someone would give thanks for the bread & wine and the congregation would share communion. The intent is that the service is entirely led by the Spirit (though in practice of course there will be certain patterns and expectations).
There would be a huge variation in minor details though depending on the congregation, e.g.
1. In some congregations someone would be pre-assigned to lead off the service and formally open it in some-way. In others it would be entirely open.
2. Some congregations would still not permit women to participate though many open brethren churches would now welcome the participation of women in the "breaking of bread" service
3. The more traditional congregations will also avoid use of musical instruments and singing will be a Capella as in the MW report. Much more likely is the use of a piano to accompany and some congregations will use other instruments . Note this kind of service demands a lot of musicians given that potentially you could be asked to play any song out of a large hymn book at a moment's notice!
Having grown-up in this sort of church I really value this style when I am able to attend such a service. There is time for quiet reflection (sometimes absent in lively, family-orientated churches) and the service usually feels unrushed with space to focus on and worship God. There is an unspoken rule that the purpose of the service is worship - I.e. There is an expectation that everyone will come prepared with something to give. It is not about coming to receive (like with the equally unspoken rule that petitioning prayers aren't really the done thing).
Sadly this type of service is disappearing as the more traditional Brethren churches literally die out and the more modernising ones push the format to the sidelines.
[ 04. August 2015, 07:26: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
quote:
The one big difference is the open communion. It was expected that new visiting brethren would have letters of introduction from their elders.
Oh yes, I remember the 'letters of commendation'. (which one of my younger sisters accidentally called a 'letter of condemnation'). Zealous Brethren people would even obtain one when they went on holiday, so that they could be welcomed at an assembly in the area they were visiting. My father was a little bit rebellious and didn't bother with the letters, instead sometimes taking the opportunity to visit other types of churches (eg FIEC or Baptist, shock horror!) when we were on holiday. Or if we did attend a Brethren meeting while away, it was normally the slightly more progressive type than we attended at home, less likely to expect a letter. But we never ever went away on holiday (on a Saturday) as kids, without the first priority for the next day being to find a church to go to (usually both morning and evening services). Not entirely sure how my dad tracked them down in the pre-internet age!!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Well, this sounds very much like Culver Grove, Stanmore, Middlesex (now Culver Evangelical) that I grew up in. I still have my baptismal Hymns of Light and Love.
My wife remembers taking part in a missionary meeting at Culver Grove in the 80s. As a woman, she was allowed to speak of her missionary service, but not to pray aloud in the subsequent prayer time.
quote:
The one big difference is the open communion. It was expected that new visiting brethren would have letters of introduction from their elders.
As a student attending an Assembly in Southampton in the 70s, I was never asked for a Letter; I was however able to take part in the worship and even break the bread. However I was brought by a friend whom they "knew" and I suspect the ruling was relaxed for students anyway.
quote:
I left at 16 and thought that, despite some of the things I loved (I conduct a very similar Lord's Supper in our house church), the Brethren would always be too narrow for me.
Of course, the New Church movement was strongly influenced by Brethren principles, especially through the late great Arthur Wallis. Perhaps that's not surprising when one remembers also that the Albury Conferences of the 1840s which sought to re-establish "New Testament churches" spawned both the charismatic/liturgical Catholic Apostolics and also one strand of Brethrenism.
[ 04. August 2015, 07:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Having grown up in the Open Brethren myself, I would point out that the elders are not always elected. We never had elections. Instead they were appointed by the existing elders (who collectively in my congregation were simply known as 'the Oversight')
The system I am familiar with is one in which the existing eldership appoints new elders, but the congregation expresses its agreement or disagreement by means of a secret ballot.
If the congregation's opinion varied from the eldership's, then the decision would be rethought, but I have never known this to happen, mainly because a wise oversight will always gauge the congregation's attitude thoroughly beforehand.
Yes exactly this approach would be the most common. (Though I would be surprised if there was a formal ballot - normally this would just be down to individual members to express any disquiet or disagreement privately to one of the Elders). Again some churches would have moved away from the original Brethren model of eschewing full-time ministers and the church would employ a full time pastor or minister. However, this person may or may not be regarded as one of the Elders. They may just be an employee if the church as a pastoral worker say or they may be an Elder who happens to work full time for the church.
Also typically Brethren churches are likely to own a building and/or be set up as a charity - this will mean that there is usually a set of a trustees of the charity - again this may be the same group as the Elders or a separate group. Once you get into the details there is a huge variety due the very loose affiliation within the network (if at all) and the strong tradition of the independence of local congregations.
In the UK there is an organisation called Partnership that is an affiliation of Open Brethren congregations. See here.
[ 04. August 2015, 07:36: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
We never ever went away on holiday (on a Saturday) as kids, without the first priority for the next day being to find a church to go to (usually both morning and evening services). Not entirely sure how my dad tracked them down in the pre-internet age!!
I think that there was quite a strong Brethren "mafia" or "intelligence service" in existence - people who knew people, as it were. Open Brethrenism (in those days anyway) was an "ipso facto" denomination, defined to an extent by the churches which subscribed to its missionary arm, "Echoes of Service".
Interestingly enough I met, some years later, a young man who wouldn't go to any "denominational" church because they were all "unscriptural". The only church he would attend was the "right type" of unaffiliated church - and, of course, all these churches knew each other! He couldn't (or wouldn't) understand that this was a denomination in everything but name. I presume he was an "Exclusive" or possibly even part of the "Little Flock", but I may be wrong (he came from a European country, I can't remember which).
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
The one big difference is the open communion. It was expected that new visiting brethren would have letters of introduction from their elders.
Oh yes, I remember the 'letters of commendation'. (which one of my younger sisters accidentally called a 'letter of condemnation'). Zealous Brethren people would even obtain one when they went on holiday, so that they could be welcomed at an assembly in the area they were visiting. My father was a little bit rebellious and didn't bother with the letters, instead sometimes taking the opportunity to visit other types of churches (eg FIEC or Baptist, shock horror!) when we were on holiday. Or if we did attend a Brethren meeting while away, it was normally the slightly more progressive type than we attended at home, less likely to expect a letter. But we never ever went away on holiday (on a Saturday) as kids, without the first priority for the next day being to find a church to go to (usually both morning and evening services). Not entirely sure how my dad tracked them down in the pre-internet age!!
It is precisely the requirement (or not) for a letter of commendation that determines if a Brethren church is open or closed. Open Brethren churches welcome people to take part in communion with no need for a letter. Closed congregations would require one.
[ 04. August 2015, 07:41: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
P.S. My previous comment cross-posted with Jammy Dodger (not the last post, but the one before), who's clearly much more up-to-date than I am!
[ 04. August 2015, 07:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
It is precisely the requirement (or not) for a letter of commendation that determines if a Brethren church is open or closed. Open Brethren churches welcome people to take part in communion with no need for a letter. Closed congregations would require one.
That wasn't the case in the 1960s. Ours was an open brethren, though I am not sure how rigid they were on the letter. I do know in some cases it was sufficient to have a quick word with one of the elders to be allowed to take part in the Lord's Supper. It was OK for anyone to attend the service (though a woman had ought to have had hair covering).
There was a closed Brethren assembly in Harrow-on-the-Hill that had a sign outside that said "Everybody Welcome" until someone took them at their word.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
It is precisely the requirement (or not) for a letter of commendation that determines if a Brethren church is open or closed. Open Brethren churches welcome people to take part in communion with no need for a letter. Closed congregations would require one.
That wasn't the case in the 1960s. Ours was an open brethren, though I am not sure how rigid they were on the letter. I do know in some cases it was sufficient to have a quick word with one of the elders to be allowed to take part in the Lord's Supper. It was OK for anyone to attend the service (though a woman had ought to have had hair covering).
I bow to your superior knowledge! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My understanding was that the open-ness (or otherwise) was around the welcome at communion.
quote:
There was a closed Brethren assembly in Harrow-on-the-Hill that had a sign outside that said "Everybody Welcome" until someone took them at their word.
So true.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And not just of Exclusive Brethren churches!
On a different slant, the MWer refers to being surprised at the use of "real" wine. Is this normal? At my 1970s church, they used port (no less!) although, I suspect, many of them were normally teetotallers.
Since I normally didn't have breakfast on Sundays, this gave me quite a "sensation" when the wine came round. (I hasten to add that my non-breakfasting was not due to a religious vow nor a nutritious decision, simply that our Hall of Residence kitchens opened too late on Sunday for me to catch my bus to church).
[ 04. August 2015, 08:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Thank you very much for all of this.
There was a prominent Brethren chapel in our town (although called Gospel Hall - we never knew they were Plymouth Bretren) which I passed on the bus to school every morning. Several very prominent citizens (including the sweet schoolmaster who took me for Religious Studies O level and my parent's solicitor) were members.
I only found out about what went on there when I read Mrs Beer's House, an account by Patricia Beer of her upbringing in a Brethren family.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And not just of Exclusive Brethren churches!
On a different slant, the MWer refers to being surprised at the use of "real" wine. Is this normal? At my 1970s church, they used port (no less!) although, I suspect, many of them were normally teetotallers.
Since I normally didn't have breakfast on Sundays, this gave me quite a "sensation" when the wine came round. (I hasten to add that my non-breakfasting was not due to a religious vow nor a nutritious decision, simply that our Hall of Residence kitchens opened too late on Sunday for me to catch my bus to church).
Yes. I always thought this was strange when I found out - back in the 70s and 80s you could typically expect most Brethren congregations to be largely teetotal (in practice if not on principle) so it was always a strange juxtaposition for communion to be real wine (or indeed port, I've also experienced that).
Again the divergence that has happened means that if you attend an open brethren church now they may have real wine or use a non alcoholic alternative (I may be wrong but I would guess the change on policy is to avoid excluding anyone from participation - either those who are teetotal on principle or due to previous alcohol dependence).
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Thank you very much for all of this.
There was a prominent Brethren chapel in our town (although called Gospel Hall - we never knew they were Plymouth Bretren) which I passed on the bus to school every morning. Several very prominent citizens (including the sweet schoolmaster who took me for Religious Studies O level and my parent's solicitor) were members.
I only found out about what went on there when I read Mrs Beer's House, an account by Patricia Beer of her upbringing in a Brethren family.
Yep "Gospel Hall" is a dead giveaway for a Brethren church. Usually only the "tighter" or closed congregations have kept this moniker most others have rebranded as they've evolved/modernised. But probably not exclusively (if you'll pardon the pun).
P.S. Randomly there was a Beer family in the Brethren church I grew up in.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
A friend brought up in the Exclusives (but later entirely ex-communicated to the extent of not speaking to his own mother for more than 40 years) once told me that the habit in his group was to visit local congregations throughout Sunday for multiple services. Given that they all used port, this meant he was a bit tipsy by the afternoon.
I never really understood why the same people went around to all the services.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
Wow! That's a new one on me. Maybe it was a competition to see who was the most holy. Interesting that independent congregations colluded together with different service times to make this possible!
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
Dodgy signal meaning I can only post in bite sized chunks. On the exclusive/excommunication thing mr cheesy I regard my upbringing in an (admittedly open) Brethren church as largely positive and I have a lot to thank them for.
However, also very conscious that others (especially in the Exclusive Brethren) have had a very different experience and I also personally know people damaged by that experience.
[ 04. August 2015, 09:08: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
On a different slant, the MWer refers to being surprised at the use of "real" wine. Is this normal? At my 1970s church, they used port (no less!) although, I suspect, many of them were normally teetotallers.
Culver Grove normally used grape juice. It so happened on my first participation in The Lord's Supper they had run out of grape juice and used a red wine instead, surprising my friends. Wine was used occasionally when cartons of grape juice ran out.
On reflection, it is not so surprising that they could lay their hands on wine easily. Drinking wine was not spoken about in the assembly, but whenever members of the assembly came to dinner my father would say, "I don't know about you, but we like to have a glass of wine with the meal." The response was usually, "So do we."
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
There was a prominent Brethren chapel in our town (although called Gospel Hall - we never knew they were Plymouth Bretren) which I passed on the bus to school every morning. Several very prominent citizens (including the sweet schoolmaster who took me for Religious Studies O level and my parent's solicitor) were members.
I only found out about what went on there when I read Mrs Beer's House, an account by Patricia Beer of her upbringing in a Brethren family.
Yep "Gospel Hall" is a dead giveaway for a Brethren church. Usually only the "tighter" or closed congregations have kept this moniker most others have rebranded as they've evolved/modernised. But probably not exclusively (if you'll pardon the pun).
It's only thanks the Ship that I've realised the connection between the Gospel Hall 'label' and the Brethren churches.
In the West Midlands you do see Gospel Halls round and about. I don't know how strict they are on the whole, but I know that one congregation regularly used to participate in the ecumenical church concerts that I went to every year or so. (Maybe they still do participate in such events). In fact, when it was the Gospel Hall's turn to host the concerts they eventually switched to using their local URC because it could hold more people than their own building.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I'm very interested in all this.
Why no or few prayers of petition? Are they strict predestinationists?
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm very interested in all this.
Why no or few prayers of petition? Are they strict predestinationists?
No - I grew up in the Open Brethren and they are not at all Calvinistic. As strict as the Calvinists, sure, but I hadn't a clue what predestination was, or who Jean Calvin was, until I studied Reformation history at school!
They were, however, anti-liturgists. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The irony of that being that a Brethren service could be as tightly controlled as a liturgical one, if not more so! For all the being open to the Holy Spirit ... Of course, women were not allowed to pray or speak publicly, so that only gave the Spirit 50% of the congregation to work with. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I do remember the lovely white crusty loaf and the divine scent of that rich, ruby-red port they used at the Lord's Supper (Brethren-speak) though ...
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Brethren are definitely Arminianist.
Confusingly, there were/are non-Brethren Gospel Halls that are Grace Baptist/another Calvinistic Baptist group. Quite rare I think, though. There's an old Gospel Hall (a converted house) up for sale in a village near me (Sherborne St John, Hampshire) and I find it fascinating - would love to know what it looks like inside, and whether it's Brethren or not.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Brethren are definitely Arminianist.
Agree they are definitely Arminian. I had to re-learn my theology when I joined the Calvinistic Grace Bapists! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Another important difference that sets the Brethren apart from most other groups in the UK is their dispensationalism. .... And the insistence of women remaining silent in church and wearing head coverings. ..... And the rejection of paid clergy.
On the plus side they are excellent Bible scholars. Everybody is expected to know the Bible inside out. I think this is because Bible study/teaching is not left to the 'experts' ie clergy, so everyone is encouraged to engage with the text themselves.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Brethren are definitely Arminianist.
Agree they are definitely Arminian. I had to re-learn my theology when I joined the Calvinistic Grace Bapists!
Another important difference that sets the Brethren apart from most other groups in the UK is their dispensationalism. .... And the insistence of women remaining silent in church and wearing head coverings. ..... And the rejection of paid clergy.
On the plus side they are excellent Bible scholars. Everybody is expected to know the Bible inside out. I think this is because Bible study/teaching is not left to the 'experts' ie clergy, so everyone is encouraged to engage with the text themselves.
ETA in answer to the question about why no prayers of petition at the Breaking of Bread. I think this is because of their guiding principle of 'worship before service'. The Sunday morning B of B is for worship alone. Other activities would follow at different services throughout the week. This will include 'children's work' (Sunday school was traditionally held on a Sunday afternoon) and the gospel meeting on Sundays, then during the week there would be a Prayer meeting, and a Bible Study meeting on different evenings, as well as more children's activities. The mid week Prayer meeting was the proper time and place for prayers of petition.
ETA sorry I meant to edit rather than double post!
[ 04. August 2015, 18:25: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
My mother was brought up Brethren, though my parents were both Baptists by the time they met. I've been to a few Brethren services and they didn't seem that different from the FIEC Baptist church in which I grew up - though these were the more standard hymn-sandwich type evening services as far as I remember. We did go to a morning service there once and it felt more like the Monday night prayer meeting at my own church, except everyone was dressed in formal Sunday clothes.
In my mid teens, the church I went to started Covenanters as its main youth organisation. In Cardiff that seemed to be predominantly Gospel Hall groups. There was one local Covenanter rally we went to, in our usual Friday night jeans and T shirts, where one group of girls all turned up in longish skirts and headscarves. I remember overhearing them having an anguished discussion in the corridor and one saying, firmly but rather desparately, "Well, this is a church, so at least we're doing right, whatever the others are wearing, aren't we?"
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Aravis,
I never worked out the thinking about buildings. It was frequently asserted that the church is the people. That is why we assembled in assembly halls and would not call them churches. Similarly the bread and wine and the table were important for the part they played in the act of remembrance, but when the Lord's supper was over the children could break off a chunk if they wanted too, or they could be taken to feed the birds, and the table could be used for any functional purpose.
On the other hand there were similar occasions when we would regard the place as sacred in itself.
As to liturgy, on Brethren discussion board when some declared they were spontaneous and did not have liturgy they did not argue when I said that there was an accepted approach to starting the Lord's supper with prayer and then people leading Hymns, prayers and scripture readings accompanied by expositions in which you could feel the leading up to the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine followed by a final prayer/Hymn. And everyone would bow their heads in silent prayer before getting up from their seat at the end.
If it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, sounded like a duck etc.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pomona:
Another important difference that sets the Brethren apart from most other groups in the UK is their dispensationalism. .... And the insistence of women remaining silent in church and wearing head coverings. ..... And the rejection of paid clergy.
Traditionally yes. But my point upthread was that now many Open Brethren fellowships will have diverged from this. Many will welcome the participation of women, employ church workers or ministers and be operating in the gifts of the Spirit in a thoroughly non-dispensationalist manner!
quote:
On the plus side they are excellent Bible scholars. Everybody is expected to know the Bible inside out. I think this is because Bible study/teaching is not left to the 'experts' ie clergy, so everyone is encouraged to engage with the text themselves.
Indeed. It is one of their great legacies to the church I think.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
The thought that crossed my anglo-catholic head was that they managed to be liturgical (and impressively sacramental) within a Quaker framework (no ministers and leaving it to the Spirit.)
But why no intercessory prayer?
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Brethren are definitely Arminianist.
Agree they are definitely Arminian. I had to re-learn my theology when I joined the Calvinistic Grace Bapists!
Another important difference that sets the Brethren apart from most other groups in the UK is their dispensationalism. .... And the insistence of women remaining silent in church and wearing head coverings. ..... And the rejection of paid clergy.
On the plus side they are excellent Bible scholars. Everybody is expected to know the Bible inside out. I think this is because Bible study/teaching is not left to the 'experts' ie clergy, so everyone is encouraged to engage with the text themselves.
ETA in answer to the question about why no prayers of petition at the Breaking of Bread. I think this is because of their guiding principle of 'worship before service'. The Sunday morning B of B is for worship alone. Other activities would follow at different services throughout the week. This will include 'children's work' (Sunday school was traditionally held on a Sunday afternoon) and the gospel meeting on Sundays, then during the week there would be a Prayer meeting, and a Bible Study meeting on different evenings, as well as more children's activities. The mid week Prayer meeting was the proper time and place for prayers of petition.
ETA sorry I meant to edit rather than double post!
Yes agree. Exactly this.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I see Gracious Rebel has answered me above.
It does seem a bit odd.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The thought that crossed my anglo-catholic head was that they managed to be liturgical (and impressively sacramental) within a Quaker framework (no ministers and leaving it to the Spirit.)
But why no intercessory prayer?
It's simply a time and place thing. Intercessory prayer would be a vital part of a Brethren church's make-up and would happen in many places and in other services on a Sunday.
It's just that the Breaking of Bread particularly would be reserved for worship only. Therefore any prayers offered would, by convention, be prayers of worship not intercession.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Agree they are definitely Arminian.
I have come across some of the most rabid and strident Calvinists I have ever met in the Brethren.
The majority are probably Arminian (even though many would not be familiar with the term) but it is by no means universal.
In our last assembly, there was no set party line, but for the sake of unity, doctrinaire Calvinism could not be pushed explicitly by speakers, and the same was true for enthusiastic supporters of other potentially divisive topics such as pentecostalism and young earth creationism.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I know next to nothing about the Brethren these days, and don't come from a Brethren background, but from what I have seen of them over the years, I have a great respect for the Open variety. They often get a lot of things right. After all, in 1965, say, the CofE wasn't that happy about women speaking and in some places made them feel pretty uncomfortable if they weren't wearing hats.
They have produced some very distinguished and respected theologians. If you encounter a theologian who isn't 'Rev', it's sometimes a sign that they come from a Brethren background.
I may be wrong on this, but I think John Lennox, the Oxford Mathematician, is Brethren.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
After all, in 1965, say, the CofE wasn't that happy about women speaking and in some places made them feel pretty uncomfortable if they weren't wearing hats.
There is an old and possibly apocryphal story about two Brethren worthies, illustrative of a sense of proportion or lack thereof, which runs:-
"Say what you will about Roman Catholics, at least they are rock solid on Christ's divinity".
"Yes, and they also make their women cover their heads".
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I know next to nothing about the Brethren these days, and don't come from a Brethren background, but from what I have seen of them over the years, I have a great respect for the Open variety. They often get a lot of things right.
I agree. One of the things that I believe many Open Brethren churches get right is the ability to hold unity in church practice whilst potentially holding together a very diverse range of theological views of the kind of spectrum that Kaplan Corday describes above. My theory is that the breadth of theological views comes from a number of sources. Firstly from within the Brethren tradition itself the independence of local churches and the emphasis on everyone becoming their own Bible scholar (also mentioned upthread by someone) encourages people to come to their own (hence different) conclusions (but still maintain unity within the fellowship). Also as Christians tend more towards attending churches whose practice suits them rather than because they are part of a specific denomination, then Open Brethren churches that are "getting it right" as Enoch says are likely to attract Christians from non-Brethren traditions (and hence an even wider theological range). Just a theory.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I understood that there was quite an overlap between people (usually young people leaving) the Open Brethren and the FIEC. Which is odd, if the above is correct and the Brethren is essentially Arminian.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I get the impression they don't normally say the words of institution but have an extempore thanksgiving over the bread and wine.
Which would be in line with primitive practice. I understand other protestants would have the words of institution (from 1 Corinthians) and nothing else.
Have I got that wrong?
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I get the impression they don't normally say the words of institution but have an extempore thanksgiving over the bread and wine.
Which would be in line with primitive practice. I understand other protestants would have the words of institution (from 1 Corinthians) and nothing else.
Have I got that wrong?
No that's correct. There is extempore thanksgiving for the bread & wine - which usually would then be distributed to a seated congregation. In theory, any of the membership could give thanks though in my experience it would often fall to the Elders. There maybe 1 person that gives thanks for both elements or one person who gives thanks for the bread (which is then distributed) followed by another giving thanks for the wine (which is then shared).
Whilst in theory there is no liturgy at all I think if you attended for a few weeks you would quickly spot the conventions that have grown up, for example I would imagine the words from 1 Corinthians appearing fairly regularly in one form or another.
So I think your earlier point around an almost liturgical approach in a Quaker framework was a good description. There would never be a formal liturgy but I think there would be a very, very recognisable pattern at play every week. I also think you were right about with your "almost sacramental" comment. There is a real deep reverence for the Breaking of Bread within the tradition which whilst not "sacramental" in a strict theological sense nonetheless holds communion as a very special "sacred" practice.
(Again to the earlier discussion I think in an exclusive Brethren assembly as a visitor you would not be permitted to share communion, whereas in an open brethren church there would probably be some form of words at the start of the service (said with liturgical regularity) that "everyone who knows and loves the Lord is welcome to join us in sharing communion together" or similar).
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
But it does seem to me that the Brethren demonstrate just how liturgical worship developed. And they might not call themselves “sacramental” but they are as far as I can make out. I said “almost” because they might not see it that way.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
But it does seem to me that the Brethren demonstrate just how liturgical worship developed. And they might not call themselves “sacramental” but they are as far as I can make out. I said “almost” because they might not see it that way.
Yes I think you are right many Brethren would probably be horrified to hear their worship described as liturgical or sacramental but I agree with you they demonstrate the kind of approach from which those things can (or did maybe?) develop. Fascinating really,
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Did the thanksgiving for the bread and wine (real wine in a common cup of course gets big Brownie points from me) ever include thanksgiving for Christ's person and work or just for the bread and wine?
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Did the thanksgiving for the bread and wine (real wine in a common cup of course gets big Brownie points from me) ever include thanksgiving for Christ's person and work or just for the bread and wine?
In my experience - yes definitely the thanksgiving would usually include a focus on the person and work of Jesus. Though part of my point upthread is that practice amongst the open brethren has diverged considerably so there may be more variety in approach now.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I think your earlier point around an almost liturgical approach in a Quaker framework was a good description. There would never be a formal liturgy but I think there would be a very, very recognisable pattern at play every week.
As I said above, the same is usually true in a Pentecostal or Charismatic church. I used to go to a Pentecostal church in Glasgow and one of the Elders said to me. "We say that we're free in the Spirit - but I can tell you within 5 minutes who's going to speak in tongues and what they're going to say". There's nothing wrong in this - I think it's simply how humans work!
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I understood that there was quite an overlap between people (usually young people leaving) the Open Brethren and the FIEC. Which is odd, if the above is correct and the Brethren is essentially Arminian.
It's hard to say essentially anything; as has been said they tend to be tight in some ways, but hold together a range of views.
The movement you are suggesting isn't uncommon. Quite a lot of FIEC churches are not Calvinist. But more than that, lots of FIEC churches have similar expressions of faith to the Open Brethren - plural eldership, everyone a Bible scholar, conservative on dead horse issues, lots of room for open participation in various forms, call to take one's personal faith seriously.
The people (and churches) who make this move do so, IME, because FIEC churches tend to be slightly more driven and directional. The downfall of the incredibly egalitarian OB approach is that, again IME, the church can become a total hotchpotch of different bits and pieces with a different meeting running for each particular preference group within the congregation.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Brethren are definitely Arminianist.
Confusingly, there were/are non-Brethren Gospel Halls that are Grace Baptist/another Calvinistic Baptist group. Quite rare I think, though. There's an old Gospel Hall (a converted house) up for sale in a village near me (Sherborne St John, Hampshire) and I find it fascinating - would love to know what it looks like inside, and whether it's Brethren or not.
Some are Arminian, some Calvinist. It seems to depend on the area - East Anglian brethren are pretty similar to Grace Baptists in their Calvinism IME.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It's hard to say essentially anything; as has been said they tend to be tight in some ways, but hold together a range of views.
The movement you are suggesting isn't uncommon. Quite a lot of FIEC churches are not Calvinist. But more than that, lots of FIEC churches have similar expressions of faith to the Open Brethren - plural eldership, everyone a Bible scholar, conservative on dead horse issues, lots of room for open participation in various forms, call to take one's personal faith seriously.
Oh fair enough, I have been out of it a long time, but many years ago it was certainly a Calvinistic group.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I think your earlier point around an almost liturgical approach in a Quaker framework was a good description. There would never be a formal liturgy but I think there would be a very, very recognisable pattern at play every week.
As I said above, the same is usually true in a Pentecostal or Charismatic church. I used to go to a Pentecostal church in Glasgow and one of the Elders said to me. "We say that we're free in the Spirit - but I can tell you within 5 minutes who's going to speak in tongues and what they're going to say". There's nothing wrong in this - I think it's simply how humans work!
Yep we like our regularity, patterns and routines even if we pretend they are spontaneous
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The charismatic Baptist minister John Leach called services 'planned spontaneous Spirit-led happenings'. I think he got it pretty right!
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
That's something that irks me about charismatic churches (which I've been a part of for many years, having previously been FIEC). The idea that 'now is a time for prophecy' or 'now is a time for tongues' just seems completely contradictory and I wish we'd cut it out.
As a tangent, mention of non-Calvinist FIEC was something that piqued my interest, as I understood the FIEC was inherently Calvinistic. So I went for a search around their website. Thought about finding a place to visit and saw one that had the following in their directory entry (capitals original): quote:
If you are already in Fellowship elsewhere, the Lord bless you WHERE YOU ARE!!
If you have NO spiritual home and are looking for a Fellowship or are just looking into what it means to be a follower of the Lord Jesus you would be MOST WELCOME!!!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
The idea that 'now is a time for prophecy' or 'now is a time for tongues' just seems completely contradictory and I wish we'd cut it out.
Why? If you believe both that these things are genuine, and if you take St. Paul's injunctions about worship being done "decently and in order" and about the "spirit of the prophets being subject to the prophets", then surely this is the right way to do things.
Is your difficulty that you don't believe in these things and think they are spurious (and, goodness, I have heard enough trite "inspired" messages to last me a lifetime)? Or is it more along the lines of "If the Spirit inspires, then one must not hold back and formalise what is uttered"?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I understood the FIEC was inherently Calvinistic
So did I.
quote:
So I went for a search around their website. Thought about finding a place to visit and saw one that had the following in their directory entry (capitals original): quote:
If you are already in Fellowship elsewhere, the Lord bless you WHERE YOU ARE!!
If you have NO spiritual home and are looking for a Fellowship or are just looking into what it means to be a follower of the Lord Jesus you would be MOST WELCOME!!!
But, presumably, only if that has been foreordained since eternity ... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It seems there has been quite a change at the FIEC relatively recently. Apparently there is some discussion about ecumenicalism, and how it might not be a really bad thing.
Many years ago I had a conversation with the then leader of the FIEC in his garden. My wife, who I was woo-ing ( ) was one of his church members, and I was an interloper as a member of a local Anglican church. It didn't go down well.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems there has been quite a change at the FIEC relatively recently. Apparently there is some discussion about
Now that would be a change - especially in light of the Martyn Lloyd-Jones/John Stott argument about "coming out" or "staying in" the traditional denominations.
Having said that, we have a local clergy meeting here which is held in (but not organised by) an independent and very evangelical Baptist church; the Minister (who is FIEC) acts as host. And the participants, although mostly evangelical, actually range from MOTR Anglican to Charismatic to traditionalist RC.
This is the latest (2011) FIEC Statement on Unity. Nice and brief, isn't it? The last short paragraph is interesting.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
I have read the MW report and followed this thread with interest. I know quite a lot about the Plymouth Brethren and I used to know someone of that persuasion.
That persuasion has a fundamentalist interpretation of the scriptures, so that to them, the Word of Moses and of Paul ranks of equal importance to the Word of Jesus. In this connection, I could argue that no man can serve two (or even three!) masters; but that idea may be an overdone cliché.
That said, which the report does not make clear, is that they are supposed to be a male-dominated community and with no ordained ministry, only male members in the assemblies can take part in leading the worship meeting. By taking Paul’s words literally, women are supposed to be quiet in the assemblies. Also, ladies have to have their heads covered. By taking the words of Moses literally, they are so-called creationalists.
In view of the foregoing, I wonder whether clarification is available about the position of female participation in their acts of worship.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I have read the MW report and followed this thread with interest. I know quite a lot about the Plymouth Brethren and I used to know someone of that persuasion.
That persuasion has a fundamentalist interpretation of the scriptures, so that to them, the Word of Moses and of Paul ranks of equal importance to the Word of Jesus. In this connection, I could argue that no man can serve two (or even three!) masters; but that idea may be an overdone cliché.
That said, which the report does not make clear, is that they are supposed to be a male-dominated community and with no ordained ministry, only male members in the assemblies can take part in leading the worship meeting. By taking Paul’s words literally, women are supposed to be quiet in the assemblies. Also, ladies have to have their heads covered. By taking the words of Moses literally, they are so-called creationalists.
In view of the foregoing, I wonder whether clarification is available about the position of female participation in their acts of worship.
This strict approach to the non participation of women is probably only still evident in exclusive Brethren assemblies. In the Open Brethren church I grew up in, in the 70s, women were not required to wear head coverings and their participation was welcomed in all meetings (except the Breaking of Bread). I would expect now that most Open Brethren churches would've left all that behind them now - the only exception might be that all the Elders are still male in some fellowships. As my wider experience of the denomination is rather dated I can't be sure but many Open Brethren churches were on a definitely modernising trajectory back in the 1990s.
[ 05. August 2015, 16:42: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
In the assembly we have just left no women wore "head coverings", and while women were not prevented from contributing in the traditional Breaking of Bread service (which attracted about 30 people, all middle-aged or old, as opposed to the family service which had about 300 of all ages), none did.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
At the risk of putting the cat among the pigeons, were the Brethren REALLY such good Bible scholars as everyone tries to make out?
Sure, they produced F F Bruce and could hold a mean Bible study - I fondly remember some Bible studies I attended as a young evangelical that were led by a former Pentecostal turned Plymouth Brother ...
I found these were great for giving a good overview of the scriptures - where things were, what followed from what in terms of OT history etc - and we could all draw nice charts of Paul's missionary journeys and so on ...
But 'scholarship' ... you've got to be kidding ...
For a kick-off, even then I used to cringe at some of the bonkers, nut-job interpretations of Revelation I sat through during Gospel services ... the use of the Readers' Digest as some kind of confirmation of Biblical prophecies coming true and so on ...
Whilst they were certainly good 'biblicists', I'm not sure I'd want to attach the label 'scholarship' to what they were doing -- there was seemingly no understanding of certain literary forms, no insight into the actual dating of biblical texts ...
If anyone had introduced such topics they would have been shown the door ... given the right boot of fellowship ...
I well remember sitting through a Brethren youth meeting during one university holiday and the sweet old couple who led it gave out a Bible quiz. I was struck by how everyone present seemed to know how many Philistines Shamgar struck down with an ox goad but if you'd asked them any actual theological questions they wouldn't have had a clue ...
I'm not knocking Bible knowledge in and of itself - far from it -- when I was a GLE I felt rather proud of myself for my apparently encyclopaedic Bible knowledge and capacity for reeling off chunks of learned by rote scripture - something I'd picked up from the Brethren whilst passing through ...
But looking back our actual theological application of this extensive appreciation of chapter and verse was somewhat thin ...
But hey ... the Brethren know their Bibles, that's for sure. Whether they really have a better grasp than anyone else as to what it all means ...
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
Thanks shipmates for clarification about women's participation (or otherwise) and about their use (or non-use) of head covering. I would make clear that I asked my question leaving aside the rights and wrongs of these practices.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In the assembly we have just left no women wore "head coverings", and while women were not prevented from contributing in the traditional Breaking of Bread service (which attracted about 30 people, all middle-aged or old, as opposed to the family service which had about 300 of all ages), none did.
Hmmm. Maybe things haven't moved on as much as I'd assumed. I think this is interesting though as my belief is this is a really very common pattern you describe in Brethren churches. They may have a thriving family service with 100s of people attending but the BoB is reduced (not intentionally just via decline in attendance) to a few die-hards - is that your experience elsewhere? What (if anything) would you do to reverse the trend do you think? (I speak as one who values the format when I can manage to get to such a service).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd be surprised to find many Brethren churches here in the UK attracting hundreds of worshippers. My guess would be that 60 people would be considered a large assembly here.
I might be wrong.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And, in any case, I think they had an unwritten rule that, once they got to around 100, they would split so as not to get too big.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
In my assembly I heard it linked to Jesus sitting down the crowds in groups of 50s and 100s. The idea was that if an assembly reached 100 it should split into two. At least that prevents megachurches. Sorry MegaAssemblies.
I never heard of Calvinism and Arminianism in my assembly. It was normal for us to know our Bibles well, but as Gamaliel pointed out, not usually be good Bible scholars (though I must say it helped when I did my studies). What we were big on was the typological interpretation of the OT. We were also rather legalistic in our use of the Bible. In the end what impressed me most was demonstration of (silent) Christlikeness by some of the women.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In the assembly we have just left no women wore "head coverings", and while women were not prevented from contributing in the traditional Breaking of Bread service (which attracted about 30 people, all middle-aged or old, as opposed to the family service which had about 300 of all ages), none did.
I wonder if you have any idea why "none did" - was it that they felt unworthy, that women never had, that it was somehow a man's role despite the absence of any formal rule?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In the assembly we have just left no women wore "head coverings", and while women were not prevented from contributing in the traditional Breaking of Bread service (which attracted about 30 people, all middle-aged or old, as opposed to the family service which had about 300 of all ages), none did.
I wonder if you have any idea why "none did" - was it that they felt unworthy, that women never had, that it was somehow a man's role despite the absence of any formal rule?
I think they were just going along with what they were used to and felt comfortable with.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At the risk of putting the cat among the pigeons, were the Brethren REALLY such good Bible scholars as everyone tries to make out?
Sure, they produced F F Bruce and could hold a mean Bible study
The Assyriologist D J Wiseman is another one I can think of off the top of my head who had global scholarly recognition, and there were others.
The Brethren also punched above their weight in providing competent and influential lecturers at the Bible college level, many of whom had Brethren origins even if they moved away from their roots later in life.
At the grassroots level, Bible knowledge was often vitiated by the Scylla and Charybdis of ultra-literalism (ie YEC, dispensationalism) and ultra-allegorisation (especially the Tabernacle, but also something as obviously historical as Paul's voyage in Acts 27, which I have heard typologised).
The average member of the Brethren, however, still had a good scriptural grasp of credal orthodoxy (even if unaware of their debt to the creeds and the creeds' compilers) as well as evangelical distinctives such as justification by faith and the atonement.
This was in contrast with members of other denominations who were far more ready to just accept what they were told from the pulpit without any effort to understand it, let alone test it, and who were not limited to Roman Catholics - as a young teenage evangelical converted through a Billy Graham crusade, I was shocked to find that my fellow Methodists just swallowed what the minister told them without question.
In other words, the Brethren preserved the Reformation priniples of sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers, an inchoate "hermeneutic of suspicion" which eventually burst its religious banks and affected every aspect of Western culture, political, social and intellectual.
[ 06. August 2015, 01:17: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At the risk of putting the cat among the pigeons, were the Brethren REALLY such good Bible scholars as everyone tries to make out?
I'm not sure that they were great Bible scholars. They certainly (much more than any other denomination even where I grew up in ultra-Prod Northern Ireland) actually made it clear you had to read the Bible, learn bits of it, know the stories. You are totally right that I had very little clue how it all fitted together or what it meant for real life. And certainly no knowledge at all of what we might call "scholarship."
But actually having in depth knowledge of what it says - well I think the way the Brethren do it is better than the way nearly everyone else doesn't do it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
An inchoate "hermeneutic of suspicion".
Wow!!!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, I'd certainly agree that the way the Brethren did it (do it?) in terms of Bible study and broad grasp of the trajectory of the Biblical narrative is better than how other groups don't - or hardly - do it at all ...
I'm not knocking the practice and was almost reluctant to post my observations lest they cause offence or provoke a defensive reaction ...
FWIW, I believe the Brethren 'punched above their weight' in all sorts of ways - in evangelism ... (not necessarily within their own immediate contexts but with other agencies and often other churches) as well as in influence on other networks, groups, denominations ...
I'd certainly balance my criticisms of trite and patronising youth-group activities with a profound level of gratitude to them for instilling a love for the scriptures and an appetite for Bible study and theological reading ...
I only 'passed through' the Brethren while I was in my early stages of evangelical involvement and looking for somewhere to settle. I was probably only involved - so far as I was - for about 3 months all told - although I kept in touch with my Brethren contacts for much longer than that.
What did rub off on me during that period was the appetite for Bible reading and Bible study - and that despite some of the silliness - particularly in terms of allegorising - I heard the Parable of the Good Samaritan allegorised in such a way as to be of no practical use, Paul's shipwreck allegorised and more detail of the significance of tassles and fittings in the Tabernacle to last me a lifetime ...
I never bought into the dispensationalism nor the cessationism - and I soon headed into full-on charismatic territory but did carry some Brethren Bible-study ballast with me which meant that I was always questioning and assessing and not necessarily going along with the latest charismatic fad or fancy.
So the balance in that respect is more towards the positive side and I certainly don't want to give the impression that it was otherwise.
The 'restorationist' new church scene I became involved with was studded with former Brethren - and on the whole, they tended to bring a level of stability and common-sense to the whole thing.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'restorationist' new church scene I became involved with was studded with former Brethren - and on the whole, they tended to bring a level of stability and common-sense to the whole thing.
Although they could also bring a strong "separatist" and "we are the true New Testament church for today" approach, too.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, that was very much the thrust - particularly from Arthur Wallis of course - but I suspect what they were doing in that respect was adding some 'weight' to a tendency that already existed to a certain extent.
I always had a lot of time for Arthur - everyone did - and in fairness, in personal conversation and in his attitudes he was a lot more eirenic than would appear from some of his writings and public pronouncements.
Looking back, the 'better' of the Bible-teachers among our particular network were mostly - but not exclusively - former Brethren.
There were a lot of former Baptists too and they brought a more reformed (small r) emphasis and some of them were no slouches when it came to preaching and teaching.
On the whole, though, my impression of the BUGB Baptists is that their ministers do have a better/wider grasp of the 'scholarship' issues I alluded to earlier.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you Kaplan Corday, as I had thought "it's always been that the men do it" and so a now authorised ministry does not get put into effect. The next generation might pick up on it though.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And, in any case, I think they had an unwritten rule that, once they got to around 100, they would split so as not to get too big.
I'm interested to know if this is still the case. I had thought that some of the open Brethren congregations had moved away from this and were meeting in larger congregations.
(Hence why you can get issues with the BoB service as the 'open' format only works group dynamics-wise up to around 50 people)...
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
Just to say what a fascinating thread; I was completely ignorant of the Open Brethren prior to this.
Are the Open Brethren in the UK related in any way to the Brethren Church that is somehow related to the Methodists in the US? (I'm guessing not...)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In other words, the Brethren preserved the Reformation priniples of sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers, an inchoate "hermeneutic of suspicion" which eventually burst its religious banks and affected every aspect of Western culture, political, social and intellectual.
Indeed. It is certainly possible to trace a trajectory from the Reformation to current atheism and secularism.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Just to say what a fascinating thread; I was completely ignorant of the Open Brethren prior to this.
Are the Open Brethren in the UK related in any way to the Brethren Church that is somehow related to the Methodists in the US? (I'm guessing not...)
No, according to Wiki there are several unrelated groups with Brethren in the name. The one linked to the Methodist church is the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, which grew out of the Mennonites. UK Brethren grew out of Anglicanism.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
There was also a Evangelical United Brethren Church which merged with the Methodist Church (USA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_United_Brethren_Church
There are a lot of different theologies which exist under similar names in these parts.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Silly question but I haven't noticed it dealt with.
I take it some man is moved to actually break the bread before communion. I take it there is a shared domestic leavened loaf.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes. In my experience it is often "precut" almost all the way through so it is easy to then break into halves or quarters. These are then circulated round the Assembly and people prize out a bit to eat. The wine is then poured into one or more cups and passed around in the same way.
This is in contrast to the frequent Nonconformist practice of using little cubes of bread and individual cuplets of "wine", served to the congregation by Elders or Deacons in their pews.
[ 07. August 2015, 14:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I'm sorry to remember here some evangelicals sneering at the use of the word "fraction" as jargon.
Is it possible that some evangelicals don't bother to have the physical breaking of bread? (I know my church uses individual wafers but the action of breaking is mandatory.)
Because all that matters is communion?
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
Certainly in the Brethren tradition the action of breaking the bread (and pouring out the wine) is important - even giving it's name to the communion service itself which is typically called the Breaking of Bread.
There are other evangelical traditions of having pre-cut little cubes of bread as mentioned by Baptist Trainfan and in these traditions I don't think there is any action of breaking involved (as the little cubes of bread are too small I presume!)
[ 07. August 2015, 15:11: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
There are other evangelical traditions of having pre-cut little cubes of bread as mentioned by Baptist Trainfan and in these traditions I don't think there is any action of breaking involved (as the little cubes of bread are too small I presume!)
Correct, unless the worship leader has a "demonstration" loaf to break before the people.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm sorry to remember here some evangelicals sneering at the use of the word "fraction" as jargon.
Could you explain this please, as I (for one) honestly have no idea what you're referring to!
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
O dear, sorry about that. Fraction is derived from the same Latinate stem as fracture and fragment and is a common mathematical term. I thought it would be obvious from the context and the related words. The OED defines
The action of breaking:
In Arithmetic A numerical quantity that is not an integer; one or more aliquot parts of a unit or whole number; an expression for a definite portion of a unit or magnitude.
in the Eucharist: the breaking or dividing of the bread
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
No, I guessed what you meant. But I've never heard the word used in the context of Eucharist (not even by my Anglican friends when they refer to breaking up the large wafer into small pieces). Nor have I ever heard Evangelicals sneering at it. That was my puzzle. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 07. August 2015, 15:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
It was one occasion here when an evangelical said "What the hell's the fraction?" as though it must be a silly idea just because they hadn't heard of it.
As if I said "What the hell's dispensationalism?" Which I wouldn't.
Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
There are other evangelical traditions of having pre-cut little cubes of bread as mentioned by Baptist Trainfan and in these traditions I don't think there is any action of breaking involved (as the little cubes of bread are too small I presume!)
In most Baptist churches here in rural West Wales, there is always a slightly larger piece of bread alongside the cubes, so that whoever is presiding has bread to break while the words of institution are being read.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
A fascinating thread – thanks.
Many years ago I was called-up for National Service. When I was posted to Malta my father (on the advice of others, I guess) encouraged me to attend the Brethren Assembly there, although we were members of an FIEC church. It was mostly military people who attended the Assembly in Floriana although the ‘leader’ (as he was perceived, I think) was a civilian living on the Island. I remain very thankful, though having rejected the faith, for the friendship, acceptance and encouragement to Christian growth that I experienced there. The older married couples were incredibly hospitable; all we younger service people could offer in return was a baby-sitting service. In Malta, the women wore head-coverings and did not take part in services, if I remember correctly (in the late 1950’s).
I believe there is still an evangelical church on the site although whether they meet in the basement as we did I do not know.
I have a feeling that the Open Brethren were active overseas amongst military people in those days.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
When I was posted to Malta
General William Dobbie, governor of Malta during WWII, was Brethren.
He appears to have got on very well with the Roman Catholic population, who of course won a collective George Cross for their conduct during his term there.
He was also incidentally, the uncle of Orde Wingate.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I have never, during my decades in the Brethren, ever come across the nature of the Communion bread - loaf, cubes, wafers, whatever - as an issue, and given the fissiparous proclivities of the Brethren, that is fairly remarkable.
At our last assembly we had cubes, with separate cubes of gluten-free bread for coeliacs such as myself.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
fissiparous proclivities of the Brethren
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
No, I guessed what you meant. But I've never heard the word used in the context of Eucharist (not even by my Anglican friends when they refer to breaking up the large wafer into small pieces). Nor have I ever heard Evangelicals sneering at it. That was my puzzle.
I'm not wholly surprised by your surprise - the term 'fraction' is used in the rubrics describing the actions to be made during Holy Communion/Mass in Anglican and Roman Catholic services, but I have never heard the word actually said. It is just something that the president does, usually while saying a prayer of some kind. Unless you read the full Missal or Prayer Book you would probably never encounter it.
Of course, most other denominations do the same thing, and may use the term in their official 'literature' as well, although I suspect it is rarer... and even less likely to be encountered.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
@Metapelagius (you know you're reading this): Your PM box is full ...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0