Whatever happened to the Brethren?

A survey of the Open Brethren, conducted in 1998 but published last year, reveals a movement increasingly unsure of its past and much less sure of its future.

A precipice has appeared before them. Those churches, typically the smallest, seeking to maintain the traditions of the last 170 years are rapidly falling off the edge. The larger churches, casting off much of what they once were, have arrested their fall only by grasping hold of the wider evangelical world.

The survey is the fourth in four decades compiled by Partnership, a Brethren group concerned with providing statistics for the movement. As with all data, care should also be exercised when drawing conclusions. Just under one-third of the 1,106 churches in Great Britain said to be of Open Brethren origin replied to the survey. As the author admits, those that replied doubtless represent the more 'progressive' elements.

Decline

Nevertheless, Brethren assemblies are in decline. 1,106 churches in 1998 represents a significant reduction from the 1,356 extant in 1990 - a rate of closure of 30 churches per year. Membership of the movement is now said to be between 50,000 and 65,000 people, compared with perhaps double that 50 years ago.

These are worrying statistics; and, with 35% of congregations currently having three-fifths of members over the age of 60, the decline could be much greater in decades to come.

Not all gloom

But the figures are not all gloom. There are some heartening findings, especially when the data is split into three strands: small churches (the 35% of churches with less than 30 members), large churches (the 23% with more than 70 members), and the rest. Though the mean small church is said to be in 'terminal decline', the mean large church is growing. 17% of all congregations now have over 100 members and 14 of the responding churches had over 200. And although the movement as a whole is heavily made up of older generations- with less than a tenth of members under the age of 20, in the larger churches the demographic closely matches that of the UK population as a whole. In these, almost 60% of members are likely to be between the ages of 21 and 60.

By transfer

Where churches have been growing this has often been fuelled by Christians transferring from other non-Brethren churches, an interesting and perhaps unexpected result. Yet robust transfer-growth figures mask more serious worries elsewhere.

A question asking churches to estimate growth-by-conversion in the last two years revealed that the mean small church could estimate nil conversions, and the mean large church only two or three per year. (One quarter of responding churches declined to answer this question; some rightly observing that only 'the Lord knows the hearts of men'. Questions about believer's baptism were more fully answered and showed similar results.) For a movement that has placed great emphasis on encouraging people to 'make decisions', these are painful figures, and must surely lead to questions about the effectiveness of the services and activities offered?

Lord's Table?

Traditionally, the main worship service has centred around the Communion, the Breaking of Bread. The centrality of this service and the freedom of Christians to observe it at any time was one of the common principles of those fellowships that came to be known as Brethren. Therefore it is surprising to find that communion no longer occupies so central a place in their thinking. Only 91% of small churches, and 52% of larger churches, retain a near-traditional Breaking of Bread service. Large churches are increasingly apt to classify their main service as a family service, morning worship, or all-age worship - terms very familiar to the wider evangelical movement as a whole and presumably helping to attract non-Brethren.

Gospel preaching

Historically, the Brethren have laboured hard to preach the gospel. The regular Sunday evening Gospel Meeting was given to this purpose, and open-air meetings and door-to-door evangelism were common. But these activities no longer engage the secular society in the way that they once did. This is clearly evidenced in the smaller churches, where traditional methods are often maintained despite their failing to meet the need for which they were designed. In the larger churches, the older methods have been discarded in favour of Alpha courses, youth groups and the like, but are these an effective substitute? As the authors note: 'In practice "seeker friendly" programmes... may be mainly "incoming Christian friendly"'.

Trends?

But how legitimate is it to refer to mean churches and broad trends? In reality, categorisation of a church as small or large does not define the work of the Spirit. Though the large churches as a grouping grew by 5%, half of these churches individually reported no growth or declined in size. Similarly, while the mean small church shrunk by 5%, one quarter of small churches actually grew. One small church claimed 20 conversions, of which 14 were adults and a group of ten small churches accounted for 6% of all baptisms despite comprising only 2% of total membership. And though 25% of responding churches had no baptisms, 10% had over ten baptisms in two years.

Leadership

Questions about leadership have long wrought division among the Brethren. In reaction against perceived abuses of power by clergy in the existing churches, the early Brethren sought to emphasise the priesthood of all believers, by rejecting clericalism in toto. Over time, they also rejected the legitimacy of a single, salaried pastor. Ever looking back to these beginnings, the Brethren have continued to shy away from appointing full-time workers. Church leadership has usually been handled solely by a group of elders, or Oversight Committee. Services have been free for all [men] to participate in, as the Holy Spirit has led them.

But to what extent can these early churches, led as they were by gifted, eager young men in small, less-dispersed communities, continue to be an example today? Though 86% of churches still maintain an oversight committee, few assemblies resemble those first congregations. Of great significance then is the third of all congregations now employing a paid worker - a massive increase on 1988. Is this a departure from Brethren roots or the Brethren adapting to the world around them? Certainly there is a greater complexity of leadership and a new willingness to systemise the teaching (87% have teaching in over three-quarters of services; 90% use pre-arranged speakers). Indeed 36% of larger assemblies now have a pastor, working in tandem with other leaders.

There is also a new willingness to use non-Brethren speakers (66%). Though the movement has often mixed freely with evangelicals of other denominations, tendencies towards sectarianism have never been far away. Belief in the validity of only one local church and a strong sense of divine appointment has often led to an air of exclusiveness. As one 1913 history of the Brethren put it: 'We believe that we have a particular right to claim the Church of the Apostles as the first of those who are now called Brethren, seeing that the latter have copied more closely than other bodies of Christians the primitive Church order and worship and doctrine...'*

That confidence is now on the wane, perhaps all but gone, and in many ways the survey reveals a movement unsure of its purpose. Standing over a precipice, it is perhaps no surprise that some have come over dizzy and grasped hold of others who, superficially at least, boast a firmer footing in the modern world. In every area of church life there is a sizeable element of the movement that is rejecting 'traditional' Brethren forms and embracing all that is modern and popular within the broader evangelical world. Thus the use of 'charismatic gifts' is also increasing.

Inspiration

In some respects the current crisis is partly the result of a dispensationalist eschatology that placed great emphasis on the imminent return of Christ, yet focused too little on the present - so C.H. Spurgeon could write, 'Ye men of Plymouth, why stand ye here gazing up into heaven?' Having downplayed the idea of a structured church here and now, the Brethren have had no continuous foundation from which to build for the future. The absence of such foundation has left the door open for the laying of the false floor of tradition.

Now, having fallen through that floor, the movement is reaching out to those around them. But perhaps the Brethren do not need to be told the answers. Perhaps the answers are indeed in their past. What a blessing that modern Brethren can look back and see men of its communion with names like George Mueller and Hudson Taylor - men with outstanding zeal for God's Word and possession of a boundless gift of faith. What Christian could dare criticise such examples?

The survey does not mention these things. Perhaps that is telling. Perhaps this is where the questions should really lie, because the principles that long ago inspired those lives to missionary fervour are just as inspiring today.

Stephen Doggett

* Page 81. SHORT, A. Rendle, The Principles of 'Open Brethren', Inglis & Pickering, Glasgow, 1913.

Based on 'Whatever happened to the Brethren? A study of local churches 1998-99', Graham Brown & Partnership, Paternoster 2003. ISBN 0 900 12824 0.