The divisions among those who hold the truth of the gathering

What should be said of those who have been in the divine center of gathering, but divided and formed another fellowship of gatherings? As far as practices go, they continue gathering as we do. Would they be gathered to the name of the Lord and have His presence in their midst in the collective sense we are speaking of here?

The briefest answer is no. Those who left the center of gathering in a division could no longer be gathered to the name of the Lord. Even if outwardly and in their manner of gathering they appear to be the same as those in the center, this is not enough to have the Lord's sanction. It is possible to assemble in accordance with the biblical pattern for Christians and at the same time do so of one's own will. Just as with a denominational church, such a division among the people of God does not have the Lord's approval. In fact, those who abandon the divine center of gathering and organize a division would be more responsible for their actions than those in the denominations, for they had a considerably greater amount of light. Men can create more than one expression of the truth of the one body by establishing a table in division, but the Holy Spirit would not guide them to do so. Christ does not have one body in practice and many bodies in testimony. The apostle Paul asked: “Is Christ divided?” The term “Christ” used in Paul's epistles denotes the union of Christ with the members of His body. Paul was indicating to the Corinthians that such a union cannot be divided in practice, nor should it be so in testimony—which is what was happening in Corinth.

Therefore, in light of what the Scriptures teach, we do not believe that the Spirit of God would gather Christians into various fellowships (or federations of fellowships) without such groups being in fellowship with one another, even if outwardly they appeared the same. If the Holy Spirit did so, He would be contradicting the very Truth in which He wants Christians to be. W. Potter wrote, “The Spirit of God does not gather into separate gatherings; if He gathers us, the consequence of this is that you and I will be in fellowship with one another.”

At the Ottawa Conferences (April 1987) the following example was presented: “If we were to go back to the beginning—to the day of Pentecost—when the Spirit of God descended and united those 120 people into one body, and all of them gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, suppose Peter had a disagreement with John and both decided to form two separate fellowships. Then there would be a group that would follow Peter and another that would follow John. Could we say that the Spirit would guide some to go to one group, and others to go to the other? Or that the Lord would be approving both? We do not believe that the Lord would approve both fellowships with His presence in their midst, for if He did so He would in practice be condoning division in the church. If He did so He would be the Author of confusion.” J. N. Darby wrote: “If there is a local assembly, and another is established by the will of man independently of the first, only the first will be, in God's eyes, morally the assembly of God, and the other will not be, for it will have been established independently of the unity of the body.”

Many Christian groups will profess to be gathered to the name of the Lord. Some will even put a sign in front of their meeting halls proclaiming that they are the saints whom the Lord has gathered. But does this mean that they are? Potter wrote: “People say, ‘We are gathered to the name of the Lord.’ So let us see if you really are. How did you come to assemble to the name of the Lord?” If you put to the test the groups divided among the so-called brothers gathered to the name of the Lord, you will discover that there is a reason for their being divided. Potter wrote: “If there are dozens of gatherings [in a city], we should seek to know their origin.” And he continues: “What is the origin of such and such a gathering? Why are they separate from the others? Is the position they occupy biblical?”

We have noted that each divergent group that abandons the saints gathered in a division sets aside the truth that there is a divine center of gathering; they are forced to do this in order to justify their divergent position. One example was when Samuel Ridout (who left in a division) was questioned about the reason the brothers with whom he was associated had supported Grant in that division, and he replied: “In 1884 many of us, before the division, had a common thought that WE exclusively had the Table, and therefore we did not cease to be around it for a single day. I believe that had to do with the compulsion to break bread without interruption on Craig Street in Montreal.” A few months later he wrote another letter about what he believed to be and to characterize the Lord's table, saying that “no group can claim to have its exclusive possession.” Here Ridout admits that they used to profess the truth of a single Lord's table, but ended up giving that up. Notice also that Ridout said, “a common thought...” Yes, the truth of a single center of gathering was accepted in common among the brothers. What he is blatantly saying is that the brothers in general were lost on this point, and it was only after he and his party left in a division that they could learn the truth!

Once again a quotation from a 1914 publication by Grant, “The Gleaner,” says: “Perhaps what weighs most on our side of the scale, if indeed we can make such a comparison when dealing with things so vital and precious, is the truth that no group of Christians, and not even we ourselves, can claim a monopoly of the Lord's table, or of being gathered to the Name of the Lord. If this truth had been known thirty years ago, perhaps the division would have been avoided.” Once again we have individuals who formerly professed the truth of a single center of gathering acknowledging that they have set it aside. After having abandoned the truth of a single center of gathering they regard the error they adopted as a great “truth.”

Napoleon Noel, after having gone out in a division, declares in his book “The History of the Brethren,” vol. 2, p. 658, that “no group of Christians can have the exclusive possession of the Lord Himself.

To claim such a thing would be pure intolerance.” Many similar quotations could be added here, but we would be redundant.

To make very clear what we affirm it is necessary to ask: “Would it be possible to find anyone among those who went out in the Perth division (1992) who affirms that there exists a divine center of gathering on earth, and that the Lord's table could only be in that single place?” Leaving aside the Raven division -- which involves blasphemy -- I do not believe there exists a division among the brothers that affirms there exists a divine center of gathering. The question is simple: there cannot be two or more Lord's tables. There cannot be two or more communions of Christians on earth with which the Lord identifies Himself as being the divine center of gathering, even though outwardly they may assemble in a similar manner. If He did so He would be condoning division in the church.

For those who have been gathered to His Name there is always the danger of being diverted from this ground by the enemy, and when this happens, such people become the fiercest opponents of the truth of the gathering. Before his death J.

1. Darby detected among the brothers a general degradation of the profession of this truth of the

single center of gathering. He wrote: “A great part of the collective conflict is with the deliberate lack of understanding of the truth of Christ as the single center of gathering.

No one is more resolutely opposed to this truth than the one who knows it, yet does not practice it.”