HWGA 12

From BrethrenPedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Back to Table of Contents or perhaps forward to Chapter/Section 13?

Section 12 – Period from 1890 to 1895

Scarcely had the division over Mr. Grant’s teaching been completed before further trouble was brewing in England especially, but affecting the brethren on continental Europe, Egypt and America more particularly. The results can be seen in the U.S. Religious Census figures which gave the seceders 1235 whereas 718 were still identified with Park St., or as the seceders termed them “Raven Brethren”.

The leaders in the large centers, such as, New York, Philadelphia, Montreal, St. Louis, Des Moines, etc., carried almost the entire company with them. Mr. W.W. Potter of Chicago, Mr. A.H. Rule of Des Moines, Mr. Moore of Springfield, and Mr. J. Armet of St. Louis were important leaders in the movement against Mr. Raven. Mr. Armet was undecided for some time but finally cast in his lot with Mr. Rule. Mr. Armet ran the tract depot at St. Louis.

Among those who stood their ground were Messrs. Pellatt, Sinclair, Magowan, O’Brien, Taylor, Lock and Cathcart of the New York Tract Depot. Mr. Mace and Mr. George Cutting visited America in 1891 and helped Mr. Taylor and others to take a firm stand, they staying at home praying while Mr. Taylor went to the care meeting in New York. Mr. Taylor had to announce that the breaking of bread would be at his house next Lord’s day as the mass went out.

This breach first took place at Ealing, England, just outside of London, on June 15, 1890, when three leaders, Messrs. Lowe, McCarthy and Whybrow, asked those not breaking bread to retire and wished the brethren at once to decide whether they were in fellowship with Bexhill or Greenwich, because Bexhill had declined a letter of commendation from Greenwich on May 25th, and had followed up their act by a judgment on June 8th.

But their own account, since printed by the seceders, shows that the disowning of the assembly at Greenwich did not take place until June 29th (See notice from Hammersmith), and by other papers we have clear proof that Bexhill was still owning Greenwich as an assembly of God, as also every other assembly in England.

This went on for at least an hour and a quarter when Mr. Chater (Chator?) said, “If I break bread this morning, I break bread in fellowship with Greenwich” to which others assented. Then Mr. McCarthy rose up and read 2 Timothy 2:19 and then led the way out of the room, followed by Mr. Lowe and about half of those present.

Mr. Whybrow asked them to meet next Lord’s day at Shaftesbury Hall, etc. So they really left the assembly for what they thought the assembly was going to do, for there was to be another meeting to deal with a scandal case on the following Monday.

It was claimed by the seceders that the act of Bexhill in disowning Greenwich was binding on saints in general in the same way as its judgment in a purely local matter would have to be recognized in subjection to the Lord. The real issue of the time was the matter of the teaching of Mr. F.E. Raven, who was local at Greenwich, whose meeting was not disowning him. What was particularly objected to was the teaching of Mr. Raven and others with regard to eternal life and the work of the Spirit in the believer, or what may be called the subjective work in the believer.

One writer states that the gain in the conflict was immense, in that it was emphasized that Christianity was not only the conferring of a standing, but the full grace and purpose of God for us, and it also recognizes the necessity of a divine state in the believer formed by the Spirit, which fits him to enter on and enjoy his portion in Christ. Those who separated recognized the standing and practice but gave no place to state.

Mr. Mackintosh writes regarding the issue: “I have never known anything like it during the fifty years I have been on the ground. Only think of some who have walked for years in ostensible fellowship with us, now charging us with being identified with heresy, blasphemy and attacking the adorable Person of the Son of God;

Mark the bitterness of feeling, the diligent effort to gather up in all directions dirt to fling back upon their brethren, where is the spirit of Christ in all this? Where the broken heart and weeping eyes at the terrible thought of our being involved in much evil? Alas, there is what looks much more like a malignant effort to extract heresies out of papers, which if read with an unprejudiced mind would yield profit and edification.”

“As to the charges brought against Mr. Raven of heresy, blasphemy, and attacking the Person of the Son of God, they are simply monstrous, there is no foundation in them.”

“He has repeatedly conferred with brethren who had any difficulty or question as to his doctrine, and they have expressed their entire satisfaction and confidence. His oral ministry is highly appreciated in all quarters. As to his writings, he may have been misunderstood and misrepresented, but I believe he is ready and willing to satisfy any honest inquirer.”

Mr. Stoney writes on the same issue: “The work of the Son has secured everything for the believer, and the work of the Spirit is to make good in the believer all that the Son has secured for him”. Also, “The question raised was whether we were in eternal life or eternal life was in us.” F.E.R. Vol. 15, p. 33-34.

The spiritual gain of the conflict was the bringing out in a very distinct way that Christianity not only confers a standing, the full grace and purpose of God for us, but also recognizes the necessity of a divine state in the believer formed by the Spirit which fits him to enter on and enjoy his portion in Christ, all the epistles having this in view, as stated previously.

During the last ten years of Mr. Stoney’s leadership (he died in 1897), J. McCulloch of Edinburgh writes, there was associated with him F.E. Raven, who went beyond Stoney in pressing the subjective side of the truth. In 1890, Raven expressed views such as that “eternal life is not imported to the saint, it is a sphere in which he lives in the love of God, and is distinct from new birth;

Christ did not manifest eternal life to the world, but only to His own; eternal life is not a title of Christ prior to incarnation; and the righteousness of God in 2 Corinthians 5:2 is future. Irreverent expressions concerning Christ’s infancy were used by some of associates. These were condemned, etc. A separation took place in Bexhill.

This assembly refused to receive from Greenwich a person commended in the usual way, and cut off Raven and his meeting from fellowship (they claimed). The Bexhill decision was upheld by Messrs. Lowe, MacArthy, etc., in England, and by A.H. Rule in America; while on the continent C. Brockhaus and many Dutch, French and Swiss brethren. In England the division was serious. In France, Germany and Switzerland the brethren practically as a whole rejected Raven.

Back to Table of Contents or perhaps forward to Chapter/Section 13?