I was recently taken to task by a friend who, like me, has spent the greater part of his Christian life associated with that group of (widely diverse these days) Christians known as the Christian Brethren, of which there are two main branches: Open (OB) and Closed (XB), and which I refer to as the Plymouth Brethren (PB).

His gripe was that Plymouth Brethren is not a term commonly used when referring to those who belong to the Open Brethren and that was the term that I should be using. He asked why I did not use it, persisting with my Plymouth fixation instead. In my initial response to his question, I told my friend I did so to wind him up and meant to add that “Plymouth” had a nicer, less stuffy ring about it than “Open” and I found by using the term it often opened up interesting dialogue, especially as most people expressing some interest did not know the difference between OB and XB. I did promise a fuller answer, and this is it. Moreover, defining terms is all important.

In order to give presenting my response my best shot, we need to go back into the origins of the PBs (OB and XB) and follow this up with my own history when it comes to my long PB/OB association. As a history nerd, and someone profoundly influenced by and keen to research the Brethren movement, I have done so, coming up with a paper over 25 years ago that I titled “Who are the Brethren” (see here). I am mindful throughout church history of many groups that have little of nothing to do with the Plymouth variant (my interest) calling themselves “Brethren”, making defining terms (which my paper did) all the more important. I joined a group called Brethren Archivists and Historians Network (BAHN) (see here for their website) doing so as part of my research interest.

The movement me and my friend belonged to emerged in the 1820’s in Dublin, and included leading lights coming from and dissatisfied with both Dissenters and Establishment, with the first gatherings, referred to as “Assembly” (most members disliked term  “church” as it was misrepresenting what their meetings were about) with clearly identifiable PB traits, being seen from the 1830’s, beginning in Plymouth. It is why later the term Plymouth Brethren was used.

A split in what was becoming a growing movement occurred in the 1840’s giving rise to the Open and Closed (Exclusive) sections of the Brethren that can be identified to this day. A lot more can be said about the PBs, what they believed, how they differed from other mainstream Christian groupings, their particular take on End Times events, their anti-clericalism, their worldwide spread and, in places like the UK, decline, Progressive and Traditional exponents etc. For that, read my paper or read books like “Gathered in His Name”.

According to Wikipedia: “The United Kingdom Census of 1851 recorded the people residing in every household on the night of Sunday 30 March 1851, and was the second of the UK censuses to include details of household members. However, this census added considerably to the fields recorded in the earlier 1841 UK Census, providing additional details of ages, relationships and origins, making the 1851 census a rich source of information for both demographers and genealogists”. I mention this because some of the findings of this particular census, back in the day, revealed something pertinent to the dispute I am having with my friend. PBs, whether OB or XB, typically did not like being associated with a denomination because of their understanding of ecclesiology, including use of the word Brethren, and was something picked up by those doing the census at the time when coming across groups that preferred not to take on a denominational label, many likely to be XB with some OB. That antipathy has long since remained.

While neither wanting to delve too deep, nor be over-simplistic, I believe I have answered my friend’s question and would add the point – use whatever term you wish when describing groups that can be referred to as Brethren but be prepared to define it. When I left my OB assembly 11 years ago, when it decided to close, I joined the Strict Baptists with their own set of traditions, some at odds with my PB ones, but I recognised the need to adapt yet without having to compromise my beliefs or preference for the “PB way” of doing things. I have come to see in many of my new SB friends, what I saw in my old PB ones, a heart for God, and that is what truly matters.

My PB associations still continue (e.g. I support OB initiatives like Echoes and Counties – given missions home and abroad was always a Bethren priority and maintain links with PB/OB folk). This is especially so in my second home, India, where the Brethren movement still flourishes. I neither identify with the “progressive” nor “traditional” brands of OB and see good and bad in both.

There are many PB principles not widely adopted outside of PBism, at least in those early days, that I love and favour, like the open meeting especially that for breaking of bread, the importance attached to all scripture, the need for gospel and missionary endeavour and the belief every member is a priest and some practices I don’t, such as bigotry, distancing themselves from those who weren’t PB and dogged attachment to traditions not biblically mandated (room for a follow-up to this article, methinks).

According to Strong, “ekklēsia” in the New Testament primarily refers to a gathering or assembly of people, often used to denote the community of believers in Jesus Christ. I am all for supporting the ekklēsia, whether one of the OB or XB variants or neither of them, for having thriving, healthy assemblies is of upmost importance.