Exclusive Brethren - History

History

The Plymouth Brethren split into Exclusive and Open Brethren in 1848 when George Müller refused John Nelson Darby's view of the relationship between local assemblies following difficulties in the Plymouth meeting. Brethren that held Muller's congregational view became known as "Open", those holding Darby's 'connexional' view, became known as "Exclusive" or "Darbyite" Brethren.

Darby's circular on August 26, 1848, cutting off not only Bethesda but all assemblies who received anyone who went there, was to define the essential characteristic of "exclusivism" that he was to pursue for the rest of his life. He set it out in detail in a pamphlet he issued in 1853 entitled Separation from Evil God’s Principle of Unity. But a tension had existed since the earliest times, as set out in a letter from Anthony Norris Groves in 1836 to Darby (who was not a believer in adult baptism):

Some will not have me hold communion with the Scotts, because their views are not satisfactory about the Lord’s Supper; others with you, because of your views about baptism; others with the Church of England, because of her thoughts about ministry. On my principles, I receive them all; but on the principle of witnessing against evil, I should reject them all.

For most of his life, Darby was able to hold the exclusives together by his great learning and tireless activity, although several longtime members had seceded after accusing him of similar errors about the nature of Christ's humanity of which he had accused Benjamin Wills Newton. The Central Meeting in London (London Bridge) would communicate with the other assemblies and most difficulties were eventually smoothed over.

But shortly before he died in 1882, things started to fall apart. It all started from an initiative in 1879 of Edward Cronin, one of the Dublin founding members, that paralled Darby's initiation of a new assembly at Plymouth thirty years before. Some members had left a failing assembly in Ryde and Cronin travelled down to break bread with them. When he reported back to London, different assemblies took differing views of his action. Though Darby was sympathetic in private he attacked him fiercely in public. By 1881 an assembly in Ramsgate had itself split over the issue and the division, over an issue not of doctrine or principle but church governance, became irrevocable.

The excluded party became known as the "Kelly Brethren", although William Kelly remained devoted to the memory of Darby and edited his collected papers. But after another division in 1885, when a London assembly excommunicated a brother in Reading over the "standing" of a Christian, the minority in the resultant split (Stuarts) adopted a more "open" approach to fellowship, as did those who followed Grant in America.

A more serious split occurred in 1890 around the teaching of Mr. F. E. Raven of Greenwich. "The seceders from his communion accused him of denying the orthodox doctrine of the union of the Divine and the human natures in the Man Christ Jesus — not indeed in a Unitarian, but in a Gnostic sense." After furious strife in which the leading opponent was William Lowe, many of the remaining assemblies in Britain stayed with Raven but those on the continent separated whilst the American assemblies were split.

Not all of the people remaining in fellowship with Raven agreed with him and this led in 1908-9 to further splits, that were initiated by actions of the Glanton assembly in Northumberland over dissensions in the neighbouring Alnwick assembly. Once more assemblies had to decide which side to support and this included those as far away as Melbourne, Australia. Thus the Ravens and the Glantons were established. In the same year a festering disagreement in Tunbridge Wells led to a minor breakawy from the Lowe group by a number of assemblies.

In America, Mr. James Taylor of New York was beginning to be seen as a future leader as early as 1897, and on the death of Raven in 1905 as his successor, books of his sermons began to be reprinted around the world. By the time another letter from Melbourne was received in 1920, resulting in the departure of 40 assemblies mainly in Australia, the London faction was also known as the Taylor or Raven-Taylor party.

By 1929, Taylor was denying one of the main orthodoxies of Christianity, that Christ the Son was truly God before his incarnation. This was reflected in the issuing in 1932 of a new version of the Little Flock Hymn Book, always a touchstone of Brethrenism. 40% of the hymns in the older version were omitted as "inconsistent with the truth".

After the death of Taylor in 1953, his son James Taylor Jr became the leader in 1959 and it was following his accession that scandals began to appear in newspapers around 1961. Members were forbidden from eating with family not in the movement, they were not allowed to join professional associations or their children to go to university. The most notorious incident occurred in 1970 when Jim Taylor, who had a fondness for whisky, was recorded drunk at a meeting in Aberdeen and was subsequently found with a naked woman not his wife in one of his host's bedrooms. He died a few months later and subsequent leaders concentrated on improving their business control of the sect. The Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren have become synonymous with Exclusive Brethren in much of the media although numerically they form a minor part.

However the history of Exclusive Brethren is not only one of division. Eventually several of the groups realised that the divisions caused by personalities clashes or ecclesiastical issues were no longer relevant and reunions occurred. The Kelly and Lowe groups reunited in 1926 to form the Lowe-Kelly group, in 1940 with most of Tunbridge Wells and in 1974 with the Glantons and are often known as Reunited Brethren. Most of the Grant party threw in their lot with the Open Brethren in 1932.

Most Exclusive Brethren have traditionally been described as "Darbyite" as they adhere in the main to the original doctrines and teachings of John Darby, and do not accept the concept of a doctrine that evolves through the teachings of successive leaders. Neither do they accept the concept that teachings of church leaders are authoritative, divinely sanctioned, and binding on those in fellowship, as is the belief of the Raven/Taylor/Hales Brethren.