A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement. #1

READING IRONSIDE ON THE BRETHREN –

A Commentary on His Book.

“A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement.”

I’ve a personal interest in the Brethren movement, even though I have profound differences with their doctrinal basis and church polity.  Under this category I look at their history, in an attempt to unravel the torturous splits and divisions that have plagued the movement.

In this particular series of posts, I will chart my progress as I read through ironside’s book on the history of this religious movement; one with which I have some passing acquaintance, and I intend to comment in writing on my impressions and perhaps provide a little much needed analysis.  This is NOT a book review, but rather an essay, with additional material and illustrations, based on the structure of Ironside’s favourable (if not fawning) coverage of Brethrenism and Brethren history.

First Impressions.

The book is a paperback which appears to be a self-published reprint by ‘Solid Christian Books’. There is no publisher’s location, and the book was printed by Amazon in 2016.  The original date in the Preface is 1941.  Ironside has a brethren background and is highly sympathetic toward them, even though his acceptance of the pastorate of Moody Memorial (Independent) Church in Chicago has broken his formal association with them.  The account of the history of the Brethren at first seems to be uncritical and from a favourable point of view.  Brethren people are treated with great respect and no critical or adverse analysis of their views, beliefs of actions seems to be offered, other than to question the wisdom of their penchant for division over relatively minor issues.  I read on…

H A Ironside

Chapter 1. The Beginning of the Movement.   TIMELINE: Early 19th Century.

‘The Brethren as a whole are fundamentalists.’  Ironside’s opening paragraph admits to a narrow minded fundamentalist within Brethren ranks.  This had several effects:

• In its favour, this protected the movement from modernism, in the mid 19th century, when German and other theologians were introducing the ‘Higher Criticism’ which brought many of the mainline denominations into error.
• Brethren Fundamentalism spread, influencing many other evangelicals outside their own circles.  The influence of dispensationalism, aided by the Schofield Bible, and a semi-Pelagian soteriology greatly affected the Irish Baptists, and the early Pentecostals in NI, at least up until the 1980’s.  
• The influence of brethrenism was greatly hindered by this fundamentalist attitude, which seems to have fostered an uncompromising spirit, leading to divisions and splits over seemingly trivial matters, a poor witness, and a source of some sorrow among brethren people and families divided by such divisiveness.  The phrase, ‘There’s brethren and there’s brethren,’ – a reference to the differences between halls – can still be heard today.
• Ironside also refers to ‘an unexpected sectarian bias,’ which seems to have derived from this fundamentalist attitude.  The idea that ‘we alone are correct’ is noted among some brethren circles even today.  I visited a relative of my wife’s, some years ago, and a Brethren evangelist also turned up at the home we were visiting.  In conversation he asked what my occupation was, and when I informed him I was a Christian minister, he immediately reached into his coat pocket and produced a large bundle of tracts.  He peeled off several of them, and held them out to me, with the remark,  ‘You’ll need to read these.’

What were the societal and religious factors that influenced the Brethren pioneers?  Ironside notes:-

• An early 19th century restlessness within the professing church, a desire for a simpler form or fellowship and worship.  He mentions similar desires in America, England, Ireland and further overseas, even in India.
• The Napoleonic Wars, which had turned people’s thoughts toward the end of the age, the apocalypse and the return of the Lord.  This eschatological emphasis became an early feature of Brethren preaching and doctrine.
• Anglicanism was on a downgrade.  The Tractarian Movement  in the Church of England was promoting a Romeward trend, while the Higher Critics were doing their best to undermine scriptural authority.  Priests and Bishops in the established church could be far from evangelical, gospel preachers.  Meanwhile in Ireland the move toward disestablishment was disrupting the church.
• In the other denominations, the fervour of the Wesley revivals was dying, leaving splits and divisions, while the influence of Edward Irving was gaining strength, encouraging an early form of charismatic experience, and a restored Apostolate. Strangely though, the Brethren had no qualms about adopting and expanding Irving’s eschatology, the pre-tribulation rapture theory.

Incredulously, Ironside (p7.) without any further explanation, notes that out of this milieu grew several other (other than the brethren?) organisations to stand counter to the religious philosophies of the age including the Bible societies and the great worldwide missionary movements.  I say incredulously, because the worldwide missionary movement owes much more to the Puritan view of eschatology, the Post-millennialist hope of a converted world, with the nations worshipping the Lord, from coast to coast, in a time of holy righteousness, than to the father more fanciful eschatalogical expectations of the Brethren.

Ironside then begins a short sketch of the very early days of the brethren, in Dublin, Ireland, naming some of those early pioneers.  Here the account is informative, though not at all analytical. He gives some details of:-

• Dr Edward Cronin.  Around 1825 Cronin was attending a Congregational Church in Dublin, but he was troubled by the idea of a ‘one man ministry,’ excessive denominationalism, and seeking a simpler meeting, he began meeting with one other person on Sunday mornings.  This grew as by ones and twos others joined in, until a sizeable meeting became established, and they began to meet in a sizeable room in Fitzwilliam Square.
• Rev J N Darby.  John Nelson Darby was an Anglican Curate, ministering in the hills of Wicklow, and by all accounts a conscientious minister, who travelled many miles by foot, and late into the night To attend to the spiritual instruction of his flock.  Trained as a lawyer, and called to the ministry, Darby is described in the book as a man of weak appearance, whose stature had become stunted by his ascetic lifestyle, who cared little for his appearance. In 1827 the Archbishop of Dublin sought state protection for clergy in the exercise of their duties.  Darby objected, for why should people about the business of the Lord have to seek comfort from the world?  It was at that time that he began to meet with the small group meeting with Cronin.  As time went on he decided that his affections lay with the Brethren and  he resigned his curacy, and departed from Anglicanism.
• Other men meeting in Dublin in those early days, of whom less was known were J Parnell, W Stokes and George V Wigram.

In an interesting note on p.13, Ironside records that Darby had ceased to read any books other than the Bible.  While it is admirable and essential to make scripture reading our priority, and just as essential to realise that only the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, the idea of abandoning the works of Godly men throughout the centuries who had commented on God’s Word, had written systematic theologies, etc., cannot have been helpful as the early Brethren constructed their theological dogma.  The idea of ‘accredited authors’ still persists in some Brethren groups, and reading other authors outside the Brethren discouraged.

That early meeting soon shifted from Fitzwilliam Square to a borrowed auction room in Angier Street.  The meeting was still regarded as a group of malcontents who ordered their meetings among themselves, deciding in a week by week basis which of them should distribute the elements of the Lord’s Supper, and who should speak.

Throughout this chapter Ironside is at pains to explain that although he refers to this movement as the ‘Brethren’ he does so only for convenience, for the Brethren themselves do not formally use that term.

COMMENTS BASED ON CHAPTER TWO TO FOLLOW SOON.