Plymouth Brethren

Worship and Sacred Actions Throughout the Year in Plymouth Brethren Assemblies

by

Powerful theological and historical positions make for continued resistance to the Christian year among the (Plymouth) Brethren. Christmas and Easter are viewed mainly as opportunities for evangelism.

The (Plymouth) Brethren, in the tradition of free-church Protestantism, have historically been adverse to practices such as the Christian year that they cannot justify with a direct appeal to Scripture. They have given minimal recognition to Christmas and Easter as Christian holidays and have observed these days more for their evangelistic potential than as a celebration of the lordship of Christ over time. The reason that since many unbelieving persons in North America still have some consciousness of the importance of going to church on these holidays, Christmas and Easter are opportune times to preach the gospel themes of Incarnation and Crucifixion/Resurrection to a larger-than-normal audience. But, for the most part, the Christian year is completely ignored by the Brethren.

Resistance to the Christian Year

Several reasons may account for this avoidance. First, the early Brethren were strict biblicists who had little room for extra-biblical traditions. They followed the principle that practices not found in Scripture must be disallowed rather than simply left as a matter of preference. Among their leaders were former Anglicans who were well-acquainted with the ecclesiastical calendar, but the strict model of sola scriptura they adopted left them without justification for following it.

John Nelson Darby, a former Anglican priest, and the dominant early Brethren leader explained their position in a response to a Roman Catholic priest regarding the historic practice of Lent: “tradition is obscure, variable, and establishes nothing—can demonstrate nothing—which Scripture does not prove; and that Scripture is clear and simple. For Lent, there is no warrant, and it is not in Scripture … ” (Collected Writings, 18:76). This kind of thinking was natural to the early Brethren who came from dissenting church bodies (such as Edward Cronin and Edward Wilson) and reinforced their disdain for “unbiblical” traditions.

A second reason why the Brethren disregard the Christian year is their tendency to identify the leading of the Spirit with that which is spontaneous in worship. This conviction led them not only to abandon or minimize any structure and planning in their worship (and sometimes preaching) but also to avoid the use of a liturgical calendar or set prayers. The Spirit of God was understood as only or predominantly manifest in spontaneous and immediate work in the assembly rather than in the planned or humanly-guided actions. If Christ is Lord of the assembly, then he is to lead the worship rather than any human leader who sets a pattern for the year or even the week.

A third factor is the tendency to follow a heavenly/earthly or spiritual/fleshly dichotomy. Liturgical practice is associated with the material or this-worldly, which must be avoided in favor of the “heavenly reality” and the eschatological hope that will at any moment swallow up the “evils of this world.” John Darby expressed this bifurcation with this appeal: “It is time to be entirely heavenly, for the earth is far from God, and daily its darkness closes in, but we belong to the light, and await another day” (Letters, 1:188).

A fourth reason for the avoidance of the Christian year can be found in the sectarian emphasis that developed particularly among the Exclusive Brethren under the dominant influence of John Darby and his form of dispensational thought. Darby taught that the church was “in ruins” at the end of its dispensation, simply awaiting the judgment of God. In his thinking, the Brethren were largely those who “came out” of the tradition-infested and degradation-infested ecclesiastical structures to “gather in twos or threes” so as to gather to Christ alone, and to await his soon return (see, in this regard, Darby’s 1840 essay “On the Formation of Churches” in his Collected Writings, 1:138–55).

Thus, to “bring over” any ecclesiastical baggage, such as a liturgical calendar that reflects the Christian year, would simply be unacceptable. Since the church is understood to be in ruins, believers ought not even attempt to imitate structures found in the New Testament church, much less the structures of the contaminated descendant of that church in the contemporary world. And this kind of thinking is not restricted to the Exclusive Brethren, in view of the cross-pollination that occurred (especially in North America) between Exclusive and Open Brethren.

A final reason is the dominant Brethren value of “simplicity.” To the Brethren, anything highly organized or structured makes the Christian faith too complex, and obscures the need for maintaining a simple and unabashed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his Word alone. With this dominating value, motivation toward any kind of liturgical calendar can find no room.

Prospects for Change

Little change in attitude toward the Christian year has occurred among the Brethren in recent years except for scattered interest by “radical” Open Brethren assemblies that feel free to employ elements from the historic churches that may enhance or broaden their worship experience. But such attempts have brought the authenticity of these more progressive assemblies into question by others in the movement. The use of traditional elements such as the Christian year is viewed, all too often, as retrogressive: it represents what was “left behind” when the Brethren movement emerged.

Therefore, unless there is a fresh resurgence of biblical values among segments of the Brethren that are compatible with the historic core values they hold, there is not likely to be much collective appreciation of the Christian year in the near future. Additionally, the absence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy means there is no structure higher than the local congregation to encourage or impose such a practice. And, with the emphasis on lay eldership over theologically-trained leadership, it is unlikely that the Brethren will develop much interest in the broader church’s understanding and appreciation of the Christian year and the philosophy behind it.

The Arts in Plymouth Brethren Churches

by

Plymouth Brethren worship is characterized by a commitment to austerity and simplicity. Music in worship has traditionally been limited to unaccompanied hymn singing. Musical and artistic creativity is most prevalent in Open Brethren churches in worship services other than the breaking of bread service. In some cases, instrumental accompaniment, contemporary music, and dramatic presentations of portions of Scripture are now used.

The (Plymouth) Brethren Movement began as a reaction to the strict sectarianism and clericalism evident in England and Ireland in the 1820s. Among the early leaders were George Müller, Henry Craik, Anthony Norris Groves, J. G. Bellett, John Nelson Darby, and Edward Cronin. Its high goals included a return to a spirit of simplicity, catholicity, and equality of all believers in the worship and remembrance of the Lord, in anticipation of his imminent return.

As a result, artistic expression in worship among the Brethren was not held in high esteem. What was considered simple worship was more highly valued, that is, a type of worship that is “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). The first Brethren believed that such simplicity allowed for only that which is Spirit-guided and otherworldly and not that which is influenced by the trappings of this world or is used to stir the emotions and sensibilities. Austerity in individual and corporate lifestyles was encouraged as a demonstration of this simple, otherworldly faith. And, since the Lord was expected to return soon, there was no need to involve oneself in any lasting cultural expression. Simplicity and even barrenness of architecture and interior decor were cherished so as to keep the focus otherworldly in worship.

The only area of artistic expression considered acceptable to the early Brethren was hymn writing, but even hymns were regularly sung without instrumental accompaniment, and non-biblical imagery was infrequent in their composition. Any extant hymns adopted by the movement were carefully reviewed, and lyrics were corrected to ensure doctrinal purity. With the split of the movement into Open and Exclusive branches over the issue of reception (1845-48), the Darbyite Exclusives began developing their own hymnology, culminating in the many editions of Hymns for the Little Flock. The Open Brethren under the influence of Groves, Muller, and Craik, developed and used a number of other hymnbooks, though some among the Opens also use the Exclusive book.

John Darby, the chief Exclusive theologian, also wrote several well-used hymns for the Brethren. He capsulized the Brethren perception of the arts in his preface to the 1881 edition of Hymns for the Little Flock, where he stated that although a hymn did have something of the spirit of poetry, poetry itself was to be rejected as “merely the spirit and imagination of man.” In addition to Darby, the earliest of Brethren hymn-writers included S. P. Tregelles (of Greek/Hebrew concordance fame), J. G. Deck, Robert Chapman, and Sir Edward Denny. The central theme of many of these Brethren hymns is devotion to Christ and his sacrificial death. These hymns fit well within the weekly Brethren focus of the breaking of the bread. This concentration on one theme is also a reason why so few Brethren hymns have made their way into non-Brethren hymnbooks.

In the last decade or so, a number of leaders in both England and North America began to recognize the numeric and spiritual decline of the movement and spawned various calls and structures for renewal. The Open Brethren movement in particular has begun to see some renewal in the area of worship, although this is still not widespread and is viewed with suspicion in many Brethren quarters.

In the area of musical accompaniment, the Open Brethren have increasingly included in their central Breaking of Bread meeting the use of musical instruments (most often the piano, but also occasionally the flute and guitar), although a cappella singing was originally preferred. This preference grew from the desire to minimize or remove any form of human leadership, in deference to the Holy Spirit. The meeting was understood to belong under the leadership of the Holy Spirit alone, and the use of instruments or any other form of prearranged leadership was felt to be contrary to the Spirit’s ownership. But many newer Brethren have felt free to allow for the guidance of the Spirit in the planning and execution of certain elements of the meeting as well. Further, many newer worship choruses have been written and used, although there is a strong desire to use them only alongside more didactic, traditional hymns.

Traditionally, Brethren have tended to treat the weekly Breaking of Bread meeting as the true locus of worship and have kept it separate from the preaching/teaching service (often called the Family Bible Hour in North America) and any gospel preaching services they may hold. A more integrative approach has been tried in some assemblies so that the entire morning has been considered a worship experience. One assembly placed the Breaking of Bread as the final meeting of the morning, and an extension that is climactic to the preaching session. But this practice is rare among the Brethren since the Breaking of Bread is customarily a separate meeting held either first on Sunday mornings or later on Sunday evenings.

Because the Breaking of Bread meeting has been deemed sacrosanct by the Brethren, it is the other meetings of the assembly, especially the Family Bible Hour, which have seen most of the creativity in music and the arts. Some younger music leaders and participants have come to believe that their work is very much a part of the worship experience as well, and have put much planning, practice, and prayer into the coming Sunday’s meeting. They have begun to employ newer hymns and choruses, synthesizers, electronic and traditional drums, acoustic and electric guitars, violins and cellos, and back-up vocalists to enliven the musical participation of the congregation. Dramatic life-presentations, creative dance, and creative signing to contemporary music have also been used in some assemblies. Newer choruses are often projected by an overhead projector rather than sung from a chorus book to lend greater corporate involvement. Occasionally Scripture has been read dramatically, such as in an oral interpretation of an entire biblical book that might be used in the place of a traditional Bible message.

In keeping with the Brethren commitment to simplicity in worship, the arts historically have not found expression either in architecture or interior decoration. Most Brethren meeting rooms, halls, or chapels have tended toward being very simple, functional, and unadorned. Decoration is often limited to a modestly adorned biblical text hanging behind the pulpit. Rarely a cross or other form of symbolism may be seen on their buildings or in their meeting rooms. Seating arrangement does have, in a number of instances, a certain symbolic element to it. Often the seating arrangement for Breaking of Bread is circular, with the table and elements in middle, to symbolize the centrality of the Lord’s Supper to this group. More progressive Open Brethren have been more sympathetic toward aesthetic concerns in their building design, but buildings still have a far more functional than aesthetic orientation.

Thus, as far as the arts are concerned, the Brethren are still in search of an identity that does not violate the essence of their weekly focus on Christ and his work, and yet may incorporate a more creative approach to the Spirit’s living presence among the people of God. The younger leaders among the Open Brethren are leading the way toward greater incorporation of the arts in worship. It remains to be seen whether they will be successful in integrating these newer ideas with traditional Brethren practices.

Ironside, Henry Allan (“Harry”)

by

Henry Allan (“Harry”) Ironside (1878-1951) was born in Toronto, Canada. He moved with his family in 1886 to Los Angeles and there accepted Christ at the age of 14. He joined the Salvation Army and began preaching at their gatherings and rallies. He became nationally-known as the “Boy Preacher of Los Angeles.” In 1896 he joined the Plymouth Brethren and spent nearly 35 years speaking at Bible conferences in the United States and Canada. In 1930 he became the pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. Here he began a radio ministry that was broadcast on the Moody radio network. He died in New Zealand while on an evangelistic crusade and was buried there. He was a well known and trusted Bible commentator and preacher whose books were among the best-selling inspirational works of his day.

Darby, John Nelson

by

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was the founder of the Plymouth Brethren. He was born in London and graduated from Trinity College. He began practicing law in 1825 but gave it up to serve as a curate in the Church of Ireland. He began to have doubts about issues like denominationalism, the role of pastors, and the relationship between Christians and the church. He gathered a group of worshipers to meet in Plymouth called the Brethren, later identified by the town from which they arose. He traveled extensively in France and Switzerland, establishing churches in many regions. He was a prolific writer and hymnist and he set up churches throughout Europe, the South Pacific, and North America. His efforts established the Plymouth Brethren and the various denominations and sects that have broken off of it in the last 150 years.