Deja Vu all over again?

I've remarked to a few people that what I have been reading about the emerging church tends to put me in mind of the Christian Brethren. This blog is about that impression.

Do read the disclaimer at the end. I'm emphatically not saying "this is that", nor would I dream of making predictions, or offering warnings.

The Brethren have their origins in the early decades of the 1800s, in various places in England and Ireland, most famously Plymouth. Though they attracted people from various backgrounds, the bulk were from the Anglican (Church of England) tradition: they were disaffected with the lack of real spiritual life they found there, and wanted something more. The same malaise in the Church of England is also what gave rise to the Oxford Movement - the Anglo-Catholic Wing of the Church.

These men (and women: it must be said they only got a background part) did their best to throw off all the trappings of the Church. Their principle act of worship together was a "meeting" (never a "service"), where everyone met together (in a "room" or a "hall", never a "church"), without any pre-planned order of events. Everyone (well, ok, every man) was free to speak, pray, read the bible, begin a song/hymn, or, well, whatever, really. The climax was sharing communion - bread and wine - together.

Well, that's the typical pattern, anyway. Each local gathering (which was often called "the assembly", or "the meeting") was entirely autonomous, so all kinds of local patterns grew up. Some were led by a group of "elders", others, simply by having another open meeting to discuss the plans and life of the community. Paid, full-time leaders were very rare - though some would serve the church, and rely on gifts (and God's provision) for their subsistence.

Most assemblies would also hold mid-week meetings for prayer and bible study. There was a strong sense of community life here, and also much openness - itinerant speakers from other like-minded fellowships would visit, and, at least in some places, there would be cordial links with other local Christians. There never has been any Brethren "denomination": some have taken it upon themselves to publish directories of like-minded fellowships; in the hey-day there were several magazines appealing to the constituency, and there have been a number of mission agencies dominated by Brethren ideals.

Indeed, these groups have been characterized by a very high commitment to mission. Most would hold a regular "gospel meeting"; engage with the needs of the whole person in a variety of ways (Muller and Banardo did huge amounts of good work with orphans, for example), and most notably be very involved in overseas educational and medical missions. Proportionately, the Brethren are reckoned to be among the most mission-sending denominations (if they were a denomination).

There's a rosy picture. I wonder if it strikes any chords. How did it pan out?

Well, rather early on, there was a big split. I forget what the original split was over, but those with a more purist approach left, to form a more exclusive group. These "Exclusive Brethren" continued to split and fight among themselves, eventually becoming sect-like in quite a few ways. These days, one thing which characterizes the few remaining Exclusives is an unwillingness to use computers, for example.

The majority, "open Brethren", thrived and developed - with all sorts of patterns of activity arising in many places. The mission work has given rise to like-minded meetings in many countries, all of them autonomous communities, and almost without exception with shared leadership - though some will have paid full- or part-time staff these days.

The Brethren have not tended to be terribly prescriptive when it comes to theology. There is a common point of view, but an openness to differences of emphasis. I've belonged to three Brethren meetings, I don't think any of them has a doctrinal statement or basis of faith. Yet the Open Brethren have tended to be mercifully free of perambulations into paths of heresy.

Indeed, perhaps the biggest problem the Brethren have had has proven to be an unwillingness to change. Proceeding by consensus, and bearing with each other in love, often tends to discourage us from big initiatives. Without some initiative-takers, we have a danger of being stuck in the good ideas of the 1840s. Quite a number of the dwindling meetings are using a staggeringly ancient hymn-book, full of the most atrocious Victorian poetry.

"Dwindling" is probably an accurate term. Many are now disappearing. Some have seen a pattern at work throughout history: God by his Spirit does something new and mould-breaking. It has an enormous energy for a while, and then things ossify and fossilize. Then they decay. That's quite an indictment of our fallen nature.



Final note: as I said at the beginning, I wouldn't presume to say "this is that", nor to offer predictions or warnings. Emerging Church puts me in mind of the Brethren, and that thrills me, because I think some of the Brethren ideas are awesome ones whose time has come. If a new generation is discovering them (with a different spin, with other ideas thrown in), that's great.