Эксклюзивті Ағайындық: Тарихы мен ерекшеліктері

Christian evangelical sect

The Exclusive Brethren are a subset of the Christian evangelical movement generally described as the Plymouth Brethren. They are distinguished from the Open Brethren from whom they separated in 1848. The Exclusive Brethren are now divided into a number of groups, most of which differ on minor points of doctrine or practice. Perhaps the best known of these, mainly through media attention, is the Raven Taylor Hales group, now known as the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, which maintains the doctrine of uncompromising separation from the world based on their interpretation of 2 Corinthians 6 and 2 Timothy 2, believing that attendance at the Communion Service, the 'Lord's Supper', governs and strictly limits their relationship with others, even other Brethren groups. These brethren have one fellowship in some nineteen countries – including France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Argentina, Jamaica, Barbados, St Vincent and the Grenadines, but they are more numerous in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and North America,
where they are referred to as the Exclusive Brethren or just the Brethren.

The Plymouth Brethren split into Exclusive and Open Brethren in 1848 when George Müller refused to accept John Nelson Darby's view of the relationship between local assemblies following difficulties in the Plymouth meeting. Brethren that held Muller's congregational view became known as "Open", those holding Darby's 'connexional' view, became known as "Exclusive" or "Darbyite" Brethren. Darby's circular on 26 August 1848, cutting off not only Bethesda but all assemblies who received anyone who had ever attended Bethesda, was to define the essential characteristic of "exclusivism" that he was to pursue for the rest of his life. He set it out in detail in a pamphlet he issued in 1853 entitled Separation from Evil – God's Principle of Unity. But a tension had existed since the earliest times, as set out in a letter from Anthony Norris Groves in 1836 to Darby (who was not a believer in adult baptism):
Some will not have me hold communion with the Scotts, because their views are not satisfactory about the Lord's Supper; others with you, because of your views about baptism; others with the Church of England, because of her thoughts about ministry. On my principles, I receive them all; but on the principle of witnessing against evil, I should reject them all. For most of his life, Darby was able to hold the exclusives together, although several longtime members had seceded after accusing him of similar errors about the nature of Christ's humanity of which he had accused Benjamin Wills Newton. The Central Meeting in London (London Bridge) would communicate with the other assemblies and most difficulties were eventually smoothed over. But shortly before he died in 1882, things started to fall apart. It all started from an initiative in 1879 of Edward Cronin, one of the Dublin founding members, that paralleled Darby's initiation of a new assembly at Plymouth thirty years before. Some members had left a failing assembly in Ryde and Cronin travelled down to break bread with them. When he reported back to London, different assemblies took differing views of his action. Though Darby was sympathetic in private he attacked him fiercely in public. By 1881 an assembly in Ramsgate had itself split over the issue and the division, over an issue not of doctrine or principle but church governance, became irrevocable. The excluded party became known as the "Kelly Brethren", although William Kelly remained devoted to the memory of Darby and edited his collected papers. But after another division in 1885, three years after Darby's death, when a London assembly excommunicated a brother in Reading over the "standing" of a Christian, the minority in the resultant split (Stuarts) adopted a more "open" approach to fellowship, as did those who followed Grant in America. A more serious split occurred in 1890 around the teaching of F. E. Raven of Greenwich. "The seceders from his communion falsely accused him of denying the orthodox doctrine of the union of the Divine and the human natures in the Man Christ Jesus – not indeed in a Unitarian, but in a Gnostic sense." After furious strife in which the leading opponent was William Lowe, many of the remaining assemblies in Britain stayed with Raven but those on the continent separated whilst the American assemblies were split.

Not all of the people remaining in fellowship with Raven agreed with him and this led in 1908–9 to further splits, initiated by actions of the Glanton assembly in Northumberland over dissensions in the neighbouring Alnwick assembly. Once more assemblies had to decide which side to support and this included those as far away as Melbourne, Australia. Thus the Ravens and the Glantons were established. In the same year a festering disagreement in Tunbridge Wells led to a minor breakaway from the Lowe group by a number of assemblies. A further division took place in 1970. By this time, James Taylor, Jr. had come to control what had been the Raven group. At a meeting in Aberdeen, Scotland, on 25 July, it was alleged Taylor's behaviour was improper. Others, especially those further afield, believed Taylor's line that he was a pure man and that this incident was used by God to expose his enemies. Following this incident, those who separated from Taylor "rolled back" the changes in doctrine and practice that he had introduced, reverting to the teachings that had been followed in the time of his father, James Taylor, Sr., who had led the movement from 1905 till his death in 1953. Their ageing congregations have often not been replenished, and are dwindling. Most of the Grant party merged with the Open Brethren in 1932. Most Exclusive Brethren have traditionally been described as "Darbyite" as they adhere in the main to the original doctrines and teachings of John Darby, and do not accept the concept of a doctrine that evolves through the teachings of successive leaders. Neither do they accept the concept that teachings of church leaders are authoritative, divinely sanctioned, and binding on those in fellowship, as is the belief of the Raven/Taylor/Hales Brethren.

At one time, all Exclusive Brethren groups believed that there was a necessary unity of the local church or assembly, but some who once were in fellowship with the Raven/Taylor/Hales group have become independent companies modifying their requirements for receiving members to suit individual conscience. Amongst such groups views concerning their way of life and relationships are frequently affected by the varying standards in the general community. This is expressed practically in different ways by the different groups, but matters of fellowship and church discipline used to be generally not merely questions of local responsibility; such decisions would have been accepted in all meetings. Exclusive Brethren were therefore sometimes described as Connexional Brethren, as they recognised an obligation to accept and adhere to the disciplinary actions of other associated assemblies. For example, where one of their branches had excluded a person from Christian fellowship, that person remained excluded from all other branches, who must then treat the excluded person as a leper (according to the book of Leviticus Chapter 15).

It is difficult to number the Exclusive Brethren, with the exception of the Raven/Taylor/Hales group, of which there are approximately 46,000 meeting in 300 church assemblies in 19 countries, with strongest representation in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, and North America. Critics of the PBCC have accused it of using cult like techniques by controlling all aspects of its members' lives. The group uses a technique of "withdrawing from" or shunning members who are believed to have offended. Involvement of members of the Exclusive Brethren Church in New Zealand in electioneering led to criticism in the context of the 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy. The church distributed political material criticising the New Zealand Labour Party government, and the leader of the opposition party admitted knowledge of the church's activities. More recently, the church also hired private investigators to conduct surveillance on ex members who had criticised the church. There has also been criticism of the church's practice of "shutting up."