Tunbridge Wells
From BrethrenPedia
Contents |
The Tunbridge Wells Brethren
WARNING - The neutrality of much of the following can be easily disputed, is biased, poorly written, and makes little sense. This article needs feedback from some disinterested experts. Till then this is not to be taken as authoritative. Kindly post your comments on the discussion page
The designation "Tunbridge Wells Brethren" arose as a result of a disciplinary issue among the Lowe Continental branch of Plymouth Brethren at Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent, UK between 1903 and 1909.
In 1940, the meeting at 41 York Road, Tunbridge Wells recinded the 1909 decision and resumed fellowship with their brethren in most locations in the UK. About 75% of the Tunbridge Wells believers outside of North America re-united with the Kelly Lowe brethren (non-Taylorite exclusives) in 1940 and at various times thereafter. In North America the TWs are also known as Natural History Hall (NHH) Brethen. They have divided into numerous fragments. Napoleon Noel in his History of the Brethren (currently published by Chapter Two books) gives details of these fragments until 1936).
In North America, they remained a separate exclusive (or "closed" to distinguish them from the even stricter Taylorite, Raven and Hale Exclusives) group until further broken up in 1992 over conflict between the Perth and Nepean assemblies in Eastern Ontario, which resulted in a 60-40% split into two factions that had no further dealings afterward. This conflict separated many families and friends and, as with all ecclesiastical divisions, has inflicted deep and enduring wounds.
TWs, like other exclusives, believe that there can be only one gathering that can claim Christ in its midst (as per Matthew 18:20, which they interpret as an exclusive rather than inclusive promise) in a given city (i.e. one assembly in a town). This may mean two or more separate meeting places, but each affiliated with the others. The ostenisble peculiarity of the TWs is that they claim, alone of all, to be a correct representation of how to meet at (or when being sloppy in their doctrine to even, somehow "be") the Lord's table and that all other groups of brethren and Christian churches of any stripe are meeting at sectarian tables or table of men, so to speak, without God's sanction, not meeting as laid out in scripture, not led by the Holy Spirit, but set up for human reasons.
On May 14th, 1992, the TW brethren split between the assembly in Nepean, Ontario, and that in Perth, Ontario. The main issues in this division were "the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ" and "the truth of the one body." Some of the TW meetings who joined with Perth in the 1992 division have joined the Open Brethren, though the majority have remained as a separate group with little or no ties to the Open Brethren, while those who sided with Nepean remained together and separate until 2004 when they had another split, involving many of the same people who fought so vigorously in the 1992 one on the same side, now turning against one another. This split also started at Nepean, Ontario. A certain group of men there broke fellowship over administrative issues (whether or not to excommunicate an individual, and then a larger doctrinal debate of what constitutes an "assembly decision", including "can three people who are seen as in some position of leadership make decisions on behalf of a still-very-much divided assembly and call it "an assembly decision" and expect all other cities to support it as such, with further discussion forbidden) and began breaking bread in a conference room of the Embassy West Hotel in Ottawa, ON. The majority of assemblies in North America were quick to join with those gathered at Embassy West Hotel (having been told "an assembly decision took place, you just have to honour it" which seemed simplest), with only a few assemblies in Phoenix, Arizona; Des Moines, Iowa; Alberta, Canada, Ontario, Canada; and Saskatchewan, Canada taking exception to the action and remaining associated with those gathering in the original building in Nepean, which connected them to the individual, the officialness of whose excommunication was the central point of contention to begin with. (He was excommunicated primarily for disagreeing with and speaking critically of the assembly dealings of the men who then wanted him removed.) Both sides of this divison, maintain that they are "the original" and that the other side "left," and not them, as they are just "continuing on as before." As such, Embassy West brethren are certain to take exception to descriptions such as "A certain group of men there broke fellowship...and began breaking bread in a conference room of the Embassy West Hotel in Ottawa, ON" because they would word it something more like "A certain group of men found it neccessary to withdraw fellowship from a rebellious faction of men who refused to bow to an assembly decision that had been made." As in all TW divisions, each side claims direct lineage back to the New Testament church, and that all other groups have "fallen away from" or "lost sight of" the correct truth and/or association that they themselves enjoy.
Part of the reason that divisions of this nature can occur is that there is no offical eldership named among TWs, so positions of power are understood to be held, rather than being officially delineated, and power disputes tend to occur regularly. Family connections traditionally muddy and complicate matters as well. For example: it is felt by the Nepean side of the division that a few men were acting presumptuously in trying to mandate an "assembly decision" when, properly, an entire assembly has to come to an agreement after fruitful discussion before an decision can be considered made, let alone acted upon.
The North American TW's have sometimes been nicknamed the "Hayhoe Brethren" due to the past prominence of some of the members from that family, for instance, Harry Hayhoe and later his sons Gordon Henry Hayhoe, Albert Hayhoe and Charles Hayhoe; and others such as Douglas Hayhoe, Henry Edward Hayhoe and E.J. Hayhoe. (Most of the Hayhoes listed here are now deceased.) The figurehead men (not through their own choice) in the Nepean division of 1992 were Gordon Hayhoe (with Charles' support) whose views were contrasted with those of Frank Allan. By the 2004 split, Gordon and Charles had both passed on, but their sister Ruth and her children (including Harold Smith) were vocally in opposition to the division happening, and sought to maintain a position of neutrality. The degree to which it is possible to remain neutral in an dispute of this nature remains to be seen. Prominent TW missionary John Kemp appears to have switched sides mid-division, and was therefore out of fellowship with both sides for some years, reportedly re-gaining his position with the Embassy West group only recently, due to pressure from assemblies in South America when he sought to marry a woman from that part of the world, or, perhaps a new-found belief that they were correct in feeling an assembly decision had been made to kick out David Grey. Who is "right" in these debates seems to be the central concern of those involved, who feel that's what it's all about. Being right and "dealing" with people who are wrong.
Writers such as Miles Stanford have speculated that the source of the problems among Plymouth Brethren in general, notably the numerous divisions, comes not originally from lapses into doctrinal error (as is normally asserted whenever a division is occurring) but because of an undue focus or emphasis upon correctness (to the exclusion of fairness, decency, tolerance, grace, love etc) resulting in acrimonious dividing being seen as a regrettable but defensible response to almost any disagreement among them, even in matters of political infighting and disputes between families. This view holds that an emphasizing of the rightness of individuals and tables above all other considerations is bound to result in this sort of situation.
Here's the ACTUAL source of the problems: People don't agree with some decision that is made, so they claim that the decision was not an "assembly decision." There will always be divisions, the Bible says so, and basically this page is really biased and it's making me angry.
An example: two different men each believes that the Lord is in the midst with them Sunday morning. One puts it "The Lord is in our midst" and the other puts it "We were in the presence of the Lord." This is, primarily, not a doctrinal or theological (or even grammatical) difference, but is, rather, a difference in emphasis and perspective on the same thing. The spirit that may arguably be seen to be causing these divisions would feel that, as there is a difference in how this "truth" is worded, this diversity is a problem, and judgment must be reached as to which of these two brothers is right (correct) in his wording of the matter. What would then happen is that the first brother would hold to his wording, the second to his wording, the gathering would then erupt into a spate of personal attacks and secret alliances, letters would be mailed across the globe, seeking support in "dealing with this evil" and soon enough, there would be two unaffiliated Brethren groups worldwide where there was once only one, and each person in every assembly worldwide would be asked to judge the rightness of the matter and side with one or the other of the two factions.
Sources of TW Literature
Publishing Houses: Bibles and Publications in Montreal, and Bible Truth Publishers in Addison, Illinois are TW publishing houses. HoldFast Bible and Tract Depot [[1]] at 41 York Road, Tunbridge Wells is also a Brethren literature outlet, although associated with Reunited, not TW, Brethren.
A Consideration of the present postion of TW Brethren by one of them
A CONSIDERATION OF THE TUNBRIDGE WELLS DIVISION 1909
Addressed by the writer, K. F. Reid, to the saints with whom he meets to the Name of Lord Jesus Christ in Belfast and Cardiff, comments and conclusions.
Most, perhaps all, of my readers will be familiar with the private document, dated December 1988, by our beloved brother J. R. Smith, in which, amongst other matters, he goes into that of our position vis-à-vis other groups of believers who are collectively designated “Brethren”. I have to admit that, so far from acting according to 1 Thess. 5:21, to “prove all things”, I have, for most of my life, allowed myself to remain ignorant of most of what has passed amongst Brethren, including the so-called fellowship with other believers. Until fairly recently I was content to accept J.R.S[mith].’s comments on this “Divergence” as a satisfactory explanation of its origin and cause; but for a number of reasons which need not be detailed here, a strong desire grew in me during the past few months to look into the question of the ground on which we gather in the Name of the Lord Jesus, yet in separation from saints between whom and us no basic doctrinal differences exist. In spite of this desire I hesitated to undertake the work of examining the information now available to me from the resources of our brother Mr. A.T. Poots (of the so-called “Reunited” meeting in Belfast), hesitating for 3 reasons: (i) in my state of greatly reduced mental energy, I feared the mental strain I might impose on myself; (ii) I distrusted my spiritual competence and wisdom to reach true conclusions; (iii) Since the beliefs of one who is in fellowship with other saints have a moral and spiritual effect on the fellowship, I feared that the very action of enquiring into such a serious question could sadden and harm the affections of brethren with whom I have shared so much happy fellowship for so long. Nevertheless, if the Lord Jesus (to whom I feel deeply answerable in respect of this undertaking) grants me all that I need as wisdom and strength, surely I have a duty to present; but submitting my comments and conclusions as provisional and to the judgment of my brethren to whom they are addressed. Provisional for two reasons: First, they are based on material drawn from just a few sources, as stated below: my brethren may have factual information (which of course would have to be published and not hearsay) that would throw doubt on some of the sources I have used, so calling in question the inferences drawn from the latter. Second, my spiritual discernment of some points, and/or my application of Scripture, may be defective to the point of invalidating individual or overall conclusions. So I trust that those who consider the comments below will feel free to express themselves on any point as frankly and forcibly as they see fit, in view of the gravity of the matter at issue. And if they prefer to respond with a collective reply, rather than individually, such a response will be perfectly acceptable.
It is regrettable that I do not have a narrative written by a T.W. follower: sources (i)-(iii) take the opposing view, and N.N. uses devices like capitals or exclamation marks to high-light events, etc., that consist with his overall position. Still, I have confidence in the essential accuracy of his account, and in those of S.L. and W.J.O, because when two or all three of these narrators cover the same events they agree either in detail or at least in substance. I have noted no inconsistency in N.N.’s account, and only one as between S.L. and W.J.O., viz. The date of he London brothers’ letter to T.W. On p. 642 N.N. gives “Sept. 4 or Sept. 14”, S.L. gives Sept. 14, W.J.O. Sept: 4. This minute disagreement tends to suggest that the sources of information of S.L. and W.J.O (also of N.N.) are independent, which itself gives greater credibility to all 3 writers. This important independence of the ultimate sources is further indicated by the fact that all 3 narrators provide details, indeed considerable amounts, of information missing from the other two. Since the Scriptural norm of evidence is 2 or 3 witnesses, if any point of significance is drawn from only one of the 3, I shall intimate this fact. Anyone who has both of N.N.’s Vols. will see that he treats of the T.W. Divergence with the same degree of detail and thoroughness as he employs on all other divisions in his History of the Brethren. If we cannot depend on him in what concerns the T.W. controversy, we cannot also as regards the other divisions, unless his account is corroborated by some other independent writer. Since the same principle applies to every narrator on Brethren controversies, it leaves us, - and especially any newcomer, or younger brother or sister, -to mere hearsay, -which was exactly my own position when I had discussion about “our” fellowship with our late brother Mr. S. Esler, before taking the step, in all good (if unenlightened) conscience to join the Belfast meeting more than 29 years ago. To facilitate the writing of this “Consideration”, a system of abbreviations has been adopted: C.S. for Mr. C. Strange; W.M.S. for Mr. W.M. Sibthorpe. York Road for the Tunbridge Wells meeting or, according to context, W.M.S. and the saints who went along with him. T.W. for the wider “T.W. fellowship” up to the division. The saints who did not agree with York Road after the division will be called “the Lowe brethren”.
A. Introduction
The controversy that fragmented the T.W. fellowship (and possibly ensured that we in Belfast, Cardiff, Cheltenham and Sheffield are not now in fellowship with our brethren in the “Reunited” brethren) began to surface just over 90 years ago, and it may be wondered whether (i) it is desirable to revive an interest in a matter in relation to which persons’ views and convictions for the most part have been settled many years ago, and (ii) it is possible to reach a Scriptural decision based on what is admittedly incomplete, and possibly at least somewhat biased, information. I wish, with the Lord’s help, to, look briefly at these two questions, in their order. (i) (a) Passage of time does not grant freedom from “proving all things” and seeking with diligence to know whether our path is according to God’s will, 1 Thess. 5:21; Deut. 13:14; 2 Kings 22:5-13. We may be in path in which, because of not having a bad conscience about it, divine blessing can be largely bestowed on us; but whether as individuals or viewed collectively as members of Christ’s body, it is necessary for us to be always seeking to be more “complete as regards the fruit of righteousness” (Phil. 1:11), “filled with the full knowledge of His will” (Col. 1:9), more perfectly “rooted and founded in love” (Eph. 3:17) and so on. (b) Our position collectively, as individually, must be the outcome of faith, obedience to God’s word and to the true application of its principles. Perhaps most of our failure (I speak as involved in the public ruin of God’s testimony in the church to the world, and in the dispersion of His people) stems from the maintenance of beliefs that are in opposition to His word, because this, and the application of its truths, are wrongly perceived. Wholly wrong, too, is the attitude of resting on the assertions of our brethren, maybe made in sincerity that they are alone on truthful ground as to assembly fellowship, alone sit at the Lord’s table, gather in some spiritually superior way to his Name. Certainly, we must in all good conscience seek His approval, nor fear to claim that we do seek it (cf. Gal. 1:10); but it is His approval that matters (1 Cor.4:1-5; 2 Cor 10:18; Rev. 3:9; etc.), not man’s, nor self-approbation. (c) It is not the Lord’s will that any of His own should be either indifferent to or in doubt about the ground of gathering to His Name. In the ministry of the gospel to sinners there must be, associated with the message of divine imperative to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus; but the call to His own to the Lord’s table is one of pure grace,-the love of Jesus seeking the response of our love to Him. Anything on our side, which detracts in any way whatsoever from a truthful response that honours His gracious request to remember Him, and recognizes His giving Himself for His assembly, should be of the utmost concern to us. Surely He has furnished us with all that we may need, at any time in the church’s history, in order to fulfil this essential desire of his heart and mind. And this leads to the second question.
(ii) Through the providence of God and the labours of a few of his saints, we have available remarkably concordant accounts of the events of 80-90 years ago, along with statements of the opposing views of how those events should be interpreted in the light of Scripture. While not wishing to be dismissive of views which were held strongly (and perhaps after much exercise of heart before the Lord), it is with the facts as we have them now,-when strongly held views, too, have been tested by the passage of time, -that we must be mainly concerned, if the sad and longstanding status quo of separation is to be justified, or rejected righteously. Nor must sentiments of past associations, even natural ones, be allowed to sway us. Joshua and Caleb, but not their relatives, entered the land by their own faith. We have also the word of God as supplying every direction and principle of grace and truth needed for a godly walk in all circumstances, 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:3. None of us would claim competence in ourselves to apply the world unerringly (hence the conflicting views of saints mentioned above); but always available are the wisdom and power of the power of God in the assembly, if we are sensitive to His leading (which of itself will always tend to unity of saints in the unity of saints in the uniting bond of peace, Eph. 4:3), as well as the authority and discipline of the Lord Jesus as Head of the assembly, which again, if bowed to, makes for unity of mind, 1 Cor. 1:1à; Phil. 2:2; etc. Our competence is not of ourselves but of God, and our faith must never stand (indeed in the long term cannot stand) by human wisdom or persuasiveness but by the Spirit’s power and wisdom, which always work in the direction of subduing us, and the conscience of an assembly, to the Lord’s authority. There will be no “dead-lock”, whatever the problem, where Christ is alone before us and where party feelings and other unrighteousness are refused (see J.N.D. Vol. 3, pp. 46-7;58). Each of us can contribute our little bit of spiritual intelligence and knowledge of God’s word and, as the Lord did with the few loaves and fishes, Divine Persons can use it to bring us to the point where we may justly say “we have the mind of Christ”, - or, at the very least, “I think I have also God’s Spirit”, 1 Cor. 7:40. To quote J.N.D. again, dear Brethren, “I do not look to the state of personal feeling, much as I may desire it, but bona fide corporate action … I desire healing; but I desire no healing which lowers the standard of Christian walk, or hinders bringing God and his word to bear on conscience”, Vol.3, p. 75. Certainly, His word presses on us righteousness and truth, but how much else! The church on earth, awaiting the day of its display in glory, must not lack those moral features that mark even the kingdom of the heavens as we find them in Matt.5:3-9: absence of self-assertion (“poor in spirit”), meekness, being merciful, peace-making etc.; to which we might add Paul’s words in Phil. 2:1-4, Rom. 12:8-10), and elsewhere. Surely it is altogether contrary to the grace of this dispensation, which we first learn as sinners trough the gospel, to be slack in seeking its healing application to assembly difficulties, and allow divisions to be perpetuated when they might be removed. The Tunbridge Wells division must be unique in Brethren history for the ecclesiastical confusion and sheer indecision that marked it; and because of this it seems to me to be most helpful, in understanding just how matters managed to go so needlessly wrong, to keep before us, as we study the narrative, the questions, How did this action, or this attitude, or that claim or response, agree with the paramount consideration of the Lord’s honour and glory and authority in the midst of His saints? See 2 Thess. 1:11-12.
B. Comments on the Tunbridge Wells Division
p. 633-4: 1-4: The general impression gained from 1,2 as to C.S[trange]. is to be gathered also from W.J.O., viz. That his conduct and manner of expressing his “ministry” evoked varied responses, ranging from a charitable view that he was becoming the victim of ageing but was basically sound in his teaching, through a more concerned view that he was taking a pleasure in uttering his statements in a recondite and hence confusing way, to downright opposition. Such divergent views of C.S. were not confined to the York Road meeting but also shared by other meetings.
1. May help to explain how he moved about when absent from York Road for long periods after 1903,- a nostalgic moving in the scenes of his better days. Recalling, too, the many able servants found in the London and surrounding gatherings from the 1860’s, if C.S.’s ministry was acceptable there in earlier days, many brethren from those gathering might well have found it hard to accept the bad reports about him coming from York Road unless these were thoroughly substantiated (see e.g. 11, 24, 33).
As to 2, the families of C.S. and W.M.S[ibthrope]. compromised about half of the 25 strong meeting.
3. I cannot see the relevance of this; who the “we” were, and the connection of York Road with the other places, so far apart, are not known from S.L. or W.J.O.
4. Only N.N. gives this. (Mr. O. Henley MAY be the brother “O.H.” much involved in the Reunion of 1926).
p: 635: 5,6: The self-righteousness, even unrighteousness, of W.M.S. emerge both here and later, as well as his prominence at York Road. A supporter of York Road (J.R.G.) is quoted by S.L. in his account as saying: “Without doubt …W.M.S. was the person most prominent in opposition to C.S. … It is quite understandable that in a small assembly, no matter where, there may be a brother exceptionally qualified to take the lead. “S.L. then affords a piece of information about W.M.S. absent from N.N. and W.J.O., viz. His authorship of two books, (i) The Ways of God Towards Man, 1899, and (ii) A Defence of the Truth, a second edition published in 1903. S.L. gives several extracts from these books to shed rather harsh light on W.M.S. as “exceptionally qualified to take the lead”. I shall not go into the details of the extracts as we have only S.L.’s witness in this point; if they are accurate, then C.S. was not the only teacher at York Road who allegedly held defective doctrine; W.M.S. is said to have held doctrines defective with regard to God’s counsels, redemption, the connection between “the mystery of God” and the church. One cannot gather from S.L. how widely known W.M.S.’s views were, or even if they were taught at York Road itself.
All 3 narratives refer to the charges against C.S., but only N.N. and S.L. supply the details (p. 635). All 3 give that same outcome of the meeting secured by R.J. Kell, i.e. that C.S. was not held guilty according to the terms of the allegations. Since our brother J.R. S[mith]. in his document of December 1988 refers on p. 7 to the first charge, we should note the following points:
(i) N.N. says the brothers professed themselves satisfied with C.S.’s answer. (ii) There was a vagueness about what he had really said or meant, - said about a year earlier. (iii) The meeting in R.J. Kell’s presence took place in 1900, but C.S. was not told to refrain from ministry until 1903 (see 9), and even then was allowed to break bread. (iv) Other assemblies do not appear to have been warned, before or after 1900, of evil teaching by C.S. (v) The exclusion notice of 1908 doe not appear to include the substance of this 1st charge as a reason for his exclusion (21); nor is it referred to as part of C.S.’s guilty conduct or the evil “system” (30) that professedly led to York Road’s “withdrawing” from him.
In view of these points, and further implications arising from this (and the 3rd) charge, set out below, I cannot accept that it is right to attribute, as part cause for the 1909 division, the teaching of such a monstrous notion as was alleged in that 1st charge.
According to S.L. the kind of discredit that was referred to in the 3rd charge was that the York Road meeting (of which C.S. was a member!) were like the bad figs of Jer.24 and that the assembly might well become a den of thieves, adding “I shall continue to attend the meeting even if you were a den of thieves”. As in the case of he 1st charge already considered, his statements either have been twisted, taken out of context, or they did reflect evil thinking on C.S.’s part. The issue I am concerned with now is not that C.S. was considered cleared of the charges but that York Road as a whole, and W.M.S. in particular as playing a leading part in its affairs, were guilty of gross negligence as to the Lord’s honour in an assembly gathered to His Name. If there was any semblance of truth in the charges, when C.S. created that semblance the matter should have been dealt with at once, and once and for all. W.M.S. should have gone to C.S. as a pastoral duty, or, if unable by himself to decide the question of what C.S. was teaching and holding, others in York Road should have become involved. Instead, there was indecision before R.J. Kell was approached (a correct enough step itself: see remarks of J.N.D. later). The statements attributed to C.S. as to the source of our blessings are so blatantly blasphemous, and the alleged characterisation of saints gathered to the holy Name of the Lord Jesus so dishonouring to his Name, that C.S. ought to have been put under examination at once, and, if necessary, put out of fellowship. At least R.J. Kell acted promptly. But while most brothers accepted C.S.’s replies (if N.N’s account is true), W.M.S persisted in attributing a meaning that should have made W.M.S. himself withdraw from C.S.; but he did not: he was prepared to continue at the same Table with a brother who ought to have been put out, if W.M.S.’s persistent allegation were true. In fact when (to put it mildly) doubt had been cast on the original meaning given to the first charge, and C.S. had expressed sorrow in relation to his part in causing the confusion, W.M.S. ought to have been relieved to know that C.S. (a brother redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ) did not after all hold to such views. This would have honoured God and demonstrated that love towards his brother of which 1 Cor. 13:6-7 speaks. But that love was not a strong point with our brother W.M.S.. Hence it appears from 6 that he was set to find in C.S. a brother grossly dishonouring the Father from whom every good and perfect gift comes to us (Jas 1:17, Luke 11:13, etc.), and the Lord Jesus whose glory we should seek in His saints as “in Christ”; cf. 2 Thess. 1:10.
p. 636:7-10: If W.M.S replied as reported here, 7, (and S.L. confirms N.N.), he was guilty of disobedience to Matt.18:16. As to 8, the subsequent history of York Road up to 1909 shows that this meeting lacked a brother of either the spiritual and moral knowledge or the power to deal with the growing animosity and confusion. Though non-local brethren did concern themselves with the strife later. York Road itself seems to have lacked individuals whose chief anxiety was the Lord’s honour. It is in the mature of local assembly responsibility that, even if it lacks intrinsic spiritual power, it can look for and find wise, godly intervention from elsewhere, but only if it has the heart for it.
9. We know that York Road were in great measure under W.M.S.’s guidance, as well as the audience for C.S.’s questioned ministry. The 1903 Decision had seriously implications for York Road as regards not only what ministry they might sit under locally but, much more importantly, how they viewed the authority which underlies and accredits all true ministry. The apostles go very far in their words on this, 1 Pet. 4:11, 1 Thess. 2:13-14, etc. It is a large subject (as we may see from
Let's Keep it Simple
There is no page more edited and re-edited on this site than the TW history. Zephaniah 3:12 -- I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.
It seems fitting and profitable to talk with those who know this history, so serious seekers might contact Bible Truth Publishers for their information, rather than those with Reunited Brethren who can only give the KLC viewpoint.
Please consider making contacts and see ministry at the Bible Counsel web site.
The following mp3's are also submitted for your prayerful consideration:
| http://whosefaithfollow.org/ | open access -- download right away |
|---|---|
| http://recordedministry.com/ | Believers only -- free subscription |
--Idiopathogen 01:18, 13 December 2007 (PST)
Jeremiah 15:19 -- Therefore thus saith the LORD, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.
