Death by Denomination

” The histories of the monks and the friars shows that if a spiritual movement can be kept within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church or any similar system, it is doomed and must be dragged down to the level of that which it sought originally to reform.It purchases exemption from persecution at the cost of its life. Francis of Assisi and Peter Waldo were both laid hold of by the same teaching of the Lord and yielded themselves to Him with uttermost devotion. In each case the example set and the teaching given gained the hearts of large numbers and affected their whole manner of life. The likeness turned to contrast when the one was accepted and the other rejected by the organized religion of Rome. The inward relation to the Lord may have remained the same, but the working out of the two lives differed widely. The Franciscans being absorbed into the Roman system, helped to blind men to it, while Waldo and his band of preachers directed multitudes of souls to the Scriptures, where they learned to draw for themselves fresh )and inexhaustible supplies from the ” wells of salvation.” (The Pilgrim Church, pg 117)

Can you see what Broadbent is saying? Those who bow to an institution,any denomination, are doomed to die a slow death and that which began as fire is doused by the waters of compromise and idolatry. God is a jealous God. He shares His glory with no one and no institution. You cannot serve two masters, you will ultimately love the one and hate the other. The burning fire of God takes place outside the walls, outside the bounds of organized religion. This fire ultimately becomes the enemy of all religion. That is why Frank Bartleman was so upset when the Azusa street revival morphed into a denomination. This would guarantee the demise of the movement itself. Whether a movement begins within the confines of organised religion or becomes an organised religion, the end result is the same. Better to stay within the confines of God and God alone and be persecuted and killed, than to die the slow death of compromise and idolatry. The Waldenses that Broadbent makes reference to when speaking of Waldo, was ruthlessly hunted down and eventually wiped out by religion. Yet, the gates of hell did not prevail against the genuine Church nor can it. God always maintains a witness in the land, a remnant.

Gods end-time Church will burn with the fire of God outside the camp of religion. They will be no less hated by all men. They will fulfill the high priestly prophecy of John 17 and they shall be one for a witness to the world, without compromise and idolatry. The only authority that they shall bow to will be the authority of God. The authority of man ultimately corrupts the moving of God. Self preservation and a desire to avoid persecution in all its many forms is the death of any movement of God. The last great movement of God shall embrace persecution and count it an honor to suffer humiliation and rejection and persecution for His sake, for in this they follow closely in the footsteps of Jesus. And the greatest persecution will come from those who seek to control and organize the people of God. When Gods people reject the authority of religion, they become its greatest enemy and this leads to their persecution. Only lovers of truth will stand in the coming days of darkness. One must be willing to forsake all in order to gain eternal glory.......bro Frank

I believe Broadbent is speaking of primarily the Catholic system and other truly religious systems. He is not speaking of evangelical denominations by-in-large for he himself was involved in the brethren denomination which was a highly organized group.

I believe what he is saying is true movements and denominations (sects, groups or whatever name we call them) will free people to serve the Lord and recieve revelation from the Scriptures. While the system will make people serve it and its traditions and not Christ Himself.

Organisation is not the evil but rather those who teach brethren to serve traditions instead of following the Scriptures and God-ordained men.

The only authority that they shall bow to will be the authority of God

I would think that it is important for true brethren to be submissive to authority in the Church itself and also to the civil authorities as much as lies in them according to the scriptures. Of course if men in the church are leading people from the Scriptures in error they do not have to be submitted to in the end. God's people actually are marked by a spirit of "bowing" (that of humility and preferring others before themselves). The last shall be first.

Then we shall disagree brother. Here is what Broadbent actually said ...........

" The histories of the monks and the friars shows that if a spiritual movement can be kept within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church or any similar system, it is doomed and must be dragged down to the level of that which it sought originally to reform."

Note the words " or any similar system." It is the systems of men that kills and it is the Spirit that gives life to men who follow Him no matter the systems of men. No one said any of these systems were in and of themselves evil, they are inherrently flawed is what Broadbent is saying and they are not Biblical. Let Scripture be our guide and not the traditions of men..........bro Frank

amen, brother Frank.

or 'leaders'?...or "authorities?...in the "Church"?

that's the Body of Christ...yet how many denominations are there?

and I don't understand what you mean by "true brethren"?
whats the definition, in your mind, of "true brethren"?

and I don't understand why you bring "civil authorities" into the mix, as they have shown themselves to be the biggest enemy of Jesus, with their lies, and their greed, and lust for power, worshiping power and gold as an idol.

its pure evil....

like brother Frank, then I have to disagree with what you wrote.

Then we shall agree to disagree Gary :) As for Broadbent, he was a missionary who travelled to countless countries to share the gospel. He was associated with " The Plymouth Brethren." That was simply a designation given to them by others, they actually just called themselves brothers or brethren. Most within that early movement, especially those not so closely associated with Darby, simply called themselves Christian.

You will be glad to know that Broadbent was not a hypocrite but was in fact a very brave missionary who went into countries considered to be " closed," to share the Gospel.........bro Frank

Bro Alan writes......

"Not in its beginnings it wasn't. It wasn't highly organized, and in fact it wasn't a denomination. In its beginnings it was one of the strongest movements of the Spirit the world has ever seen."

Indeed brother. And to answer your question in my opinion, if you were part of a group of two or three, or ten or twelve or fifty or sixty, the leadership would become apparent by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think about how the first deacons were called by the people, they were men deemed to be and apparent to all, to be " full of the Holy Spirit." I have seen this create jealousies in other men who deem themselves to be leaders. It's the old Saul/David spirit. Spirit and flesh do not mix very well.......bro Frank

Here is the quote in context from the Broadbent book (which I love and have read a few times and refer to many).

---

Within the Roman Catholic Church there were many souls suffering under the prevailing worldliness, who desired a revival of spiritual life yet did not come out of that system and join themselves to these churches of believers which, outside of it, were endeavouring to act on the principles of Scripture. In the same year (1209) in which Pope Innocent III inaugurated the crusade against the South of France, Francis of Assisi, then 25 years old, hearing at mass one winter morning the words of Jesus from the tenth chapter of Matthew, in which He gave commands to the twelve apostles as He sent them out to preach, saw in this the way of the reformation he had desired and felt himself called to preach in utmost poverty and humility. From this sprang the order of Franciscan Friars which so quickly spread over the world. Francis was a wonderful preacher, and his sincerity and devotion and joyous nature drew multitudes to hear him. In 1210 he went to Rome with the little company of his earliest followers, and obtained from the Pope a somewhat reluctant verbal approval of their 'Rule', with permission to preach. The numbers wishing to join were soon so great that to meet the needs of those who desired to keep the Rule, and yet continue in their usual vocations the "Third Order" was formed, the Tertiaries, who continued their secular occupations while submitting themselves to a prescribed rule of life, the pattern of which is chiefly found in the instructions of the Lord Jesus to the Apostles.[Page 95: The Friars]They vowed to restore ill-gotten gains, be reconciled to enemies, live in peace with all, live a life of prayer and works of charity, keep fasts and vigils, pay tithes to the church, take no oaths, nor bear arms, use no bad language, practise piety to the dead. The spirit of Francis burned for the conversion of heathen and Mohammedans, as well as for that of his own Italians, and twice he suffered almost to death in endeavouring to reach and preach to the infidels in Palestine and Morocco. In 1219 the second Chapter General of the Order was held and numerous friars were sent out to all countries, from Germany to North Africa, and later to England also. Five who went to Morocco suffered martyrdom. The Order soon grew beyond the power of Francis to control it, came under the organizing authority of men of different ideals, and, to his great grief, the Rule of Poverty was modified. After his death (1226) the division, which had begun earlier, between the strict and the lax friars, became more acute; the stricter ones, or Spirituali, were persecuted, four of them being burnt in Marseilles (1318), and in the same year the Pope formally declared to be heresy the teaching that Christ and His Apostles possessed nothing.

These new orders of Friars, the Dominicans and Franciscans, like the older orders of monks, arose from a sincere desire for deliverance from intolerable evils prevailing in the Church and the world, and from the soul's quest after God. While the older monastic orders were chiefly occupied with personal salvation and sanctification, the later orders of friars devoted themselves more to helping in their needs and miseries the men and women around them. Both institutions, the Monastic and the Preaching Orders, for a time exercised a widespread influence for good, yet both, being founded on the ideas of men, quickly degenerated, and became instruments of evil””active agents in opposing those who sought revival by carrying out and making known the Scriptures.

The histories of the monks and of the friars show that if a spiritual movement can be kept within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church or any similar system it is doomed, and must inevitably be dragged down to the level of that which it sought originally to reform. It purchases exemption from persecution at the cost of its life.

Francis of Assisi and Peter Waldo were both laid hold of by the same teaching of the lord, and yielded themselves to Him with uttermost devotion. In each case the example set and the teaching given gained the hearts of large numbers and affected their whole manner of life. The likeness turned to contrast when the one was accepted and the other rejected by the organised religion of Rome. The inward relation to the Lord may have remained the same, but the working out of the two lives differed widely. The Franciscans being absorbed into the Roman system, helped to bind men to it, while Waldo and his band of preachers directed multitudes of souls to the Scriptures, where they learned to draw for themselves fresh and inexhaustible supplies from the "wells of salvation."

from: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks10/1000351h.html

HI Greg,

Do you believe that changes anything or that the quote I gave somehow took the true meaning out of context? It only affirms my point about what Broadbent was saying about systems and what happens to those who compromise and stay within them. I appreciate you shedding more light on what Broadbent was getting at..........bro Frank

Thank you Maryjane,

And Noone, I am sorry " sister," :) ........bro Frank

I just wanted to state that this thread is not about leadership. This thread is about death by denomination. Now I understand that some people are very taken up with the issues of leadership. God always raises up leaders, that is just a simple fact. He is a God who gives gifts and one of them is leadership. Those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit and empowered for ministry and called by God shall certainly lead. That is why I mentioned the first deacons, their qualifications were that they were men who were full of the Holy Spirit and it was very recognizable to the saints. I am very sure that " strong leadership," came down from Jerusalem to spy out the saints liberty and not for one hour did Paul stand for it, even rebuking Peter publicly for playing the hypocrite when these strong leaders came down. Paul never paid them that much attention, these men or reputation did little for him.

No, the thread is about the confines and constructs of men and how it inevitably quenches the Spirit of God. Denominationalism is a construction of men and not of God. It stands in opposition to the Word of God, whether in John 17 or countless other Scriptures that talk about the oneness of the Body. Walls of partition are demolished by God, not constructed. The end results, as Broadbent was arguing,was death, whether it takes a few decades or a few hundred years. Again, we must be led by Scriptures and not the vain traditions of men...........bro Frank