Ministers’ Fraternals

When I agreed to lead this session on ‘ministers’ fraternals’ last month, I assumed that there would be an abundance of material for me to turn to with which to furnish you with a helpful introduction to the subject. What I have discovered is that there is in fact a great paucity of material. Very little seems to have been written on this subject at all. The standard Reformed and evangelical books dealing with the Christian ministry and related subjects have nothing to say on the subject, it seems, and there do not appear to have been any articles on the topic in currently existing magazines aimed at ministers.

This seems a rather strange phenomenon to me as, since entering the Christian ministry, I have often been encouraged to belong to a ministers’ fraternal and I have often heard older men speak of the benefits of such fraternals.

Over the years I have belonged to two or three of these bodies, including this one. Among the seniors and peers I most respect it is generally accepted that fraternals are a good thing and the only people I am aware of who reject that idea have either belonged to a large church or have joined themselves to what is only an alternative form of fraternal or have sadly run into some sort of moral or doctrinal trouble.

There is a widespread acceptance, then, that fraternals are or can be a good thing but no-one seems to have established a biblical case for them, traced their history or gone into print at any length advocating their beneficial nature. Despite the non-existence of such materials I will endeavour to do something along those lines in this paper trusting that it will be of some use as we consider this matter.

1. What is a ministers’ fraternal?

The word fraternal, of course, refers to brotherliness and is the most widely used word to describe what we are considering. In Scotland, I believe, the fraternals started by Willie Still are known as the Crieff Brotherhood and here in London we have the Westminster Fellowship. American pastor and author Arturo G Azurdia III leads what is known as The Whitefield Fraternal. He describes it as ‘a fellowship of men in gospel ministry who meet regularly for the purpose of promoting the cause of reformation and revival in the local church.’ He states that the sessions they organise have been shaped by three basic objectives

1. To stimulate a more complete comprehension of the gospel of grace

2. To promote a clearer vision regarding the ministries of Christ’s church

3. To rekindle a fresh devotion to faithful Christian ministry

He sees the fraternal then as having educational, clarificational and devotional ends. It seeks to increase comprehension, clarify vision and rekindle devotion.

All these, a fraternal should seek to provide.

The Founders Fraternals among Southern Baptists go into a little more detail but are quite similar in many ways. They are intended to promote

• Personal holiness in the lives of those who pastor the churches
• Sincere prayer for the pastors and the work of God in the region
• Warm fellowship and lasting friendships among like-minded spiritual leaders
• Understanding of the great biblical doctrines once espoused and proclaimed freely by our forebears (ie the doctrines of grace)
• Encouragement in the proclamation of the gospel in the region and around the world
• Interest in the lives of our early leaders and the lessons we can learn from them
• Obedience to the standards and practices of church life prescribed by the Bible (ie expositional preaching, church discipline, Scriptural leadership patterns, Word-regulated worship, biblical evangelism, regenerate church membership, etc.)

2. Who convenes a ministers’ fraternal?

Fraternals can be convened by three or four different possible agencies.

An individual minister who invites likeminded friends to join him in fraternal. This seems to be the origin of the Westminster fraternal, although it has moved well beyond that. I believe that Michael Harley had something of this sort when he was in Finchley and I know that J Keith Davies did something similar in the brief period that he was at St John’s Wood Road.

A local church that organises meetings for ministers to attend. A current example would be the Spurgeon fraternal organised by the Metropolitan Tabernacle.

A denomination making use of its networking to organise fraternals in more than one place. This fraternal is officially of that nature – an FIEC fraternal. The EMW fraternals in Wales are well known and have been going for some time. I have attended fraternals organised by the Association of Grace Baptist Churches (South East).

A separate organisation that serves as an umbrella chiefly for the ministers’ fraternal. This is the current status of the Westminister Fellowship. I believe the same is true of the Whitefield Fraternal that meets down in Sussex. I have also spoken at fraternals in Bedfordshire and Kent that seem to meet on this sort of basis.

3. A biblical case for ministers’ fraternals?

There is, of course, no New Testament verse advocating that ministers of churches gather together every month or two and seek fellowship one with the other. The exact nature of church government has been an area for much contention over the years and until agreement can be obtained in those matters it is highly likely that there will be a consensus on the much more loosely structured idea of ministerial fraternals.

In this early period of the church’s history one sees little evidence of formal meetings for ministerial fellowship but one does get the impression from Paul’s letters of a great deal of interaction between Paul and the others – people like Peter, John, Barnabas, Luke, John Mark, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Aquila and a host of others. Their fraternal attitude is summed up in the words of Peter in 1 Peter 5:1, 2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers - not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be.

Fraternals are not a matter of Law or of ecclesiastical church government but a matter of wisdom and perhaps the best place to turn in Scripture for guidance on this matter is to the Book of Proverbs, so full of good advice on all sorts of matters.

An obvious place to begin is in Proverbs 27. There we have two verses that touch on this topic. Firstly, verse 9 Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart, and the pleasantness of one’s friend springs from his earnest counsel. The simile is drawn from the enjoyment that perfume and incense give by means of their penetrating aroma, especially in a hot climate. One of the advantages of friendship or fraternity is that a friend and fellow can tell you your faults and passionately urge you in the right direction in a way that an enemy cannot and in a way that even a family member cannot do so well. This is a part of fraternity.

Secondly, verse 17 As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. This simile is from the kitchen and is drawn from knife sharpening, which is often done by means of rubbing the knife up and down another piece of metal. Presumably the point is that friendly debate can be tremendously stimulating as scholars and artists and others will testify. Peer criticism brings many advantages. Loners can be very dull and boring. They can often lack penetration in a way that the man who has debated with others does not. In friendship sometimes the sparks fly but that is part of it. Certainly this is part of the reason for fraternals.

Similar to these is Proverbs 16:24 Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones. The simile highlights two properties of honey – its sweetness and its healing properties. The pleasant words that are in mind are those that are both sweet to the soul and likely to heal the bones. We instinctively think of pleasant words as being sweet to the body rather than healing the soul but this form of expression means all aspects are covered. The right words can heal relationships and restore well-being. Interestingly the only other place that mentions a honeycomb is Psalm 19:11 where it illustrates the sweetness of God’s Word. Think of the way that in a fraternal ministers can do good to each other through Word centred conversation.

Other more general proverbs regarding speech are also, of course, relevant.

12:18 Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

15:23 A man finds joy in giving an apt reply - and how good is a timely word!

15:26 The LORD detests the thoughts of the wicked, but those of the pure are pleasing to him.

25:11 A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.

25:12 Like an ear-ring of gold or an ornament of fine gold is a wise man’s rebuke to a listening ear.

These fit in with similar general New Testament exhortations to holy speech and to fellowship among believers. Together all this serves to underline the wisdom of ministers, as those who fear the LORD, meeting together and talking with each other, with the hope that the LORD will listen and hear (Malachi 3:16). In Hebrews 10:24 the writer says And let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds and immediately goes on to talk about the importance of meeting together. Surely a ministers’ fraternal is one way of obeying such a verse.

4. A brief history of ministers’ fraternals

So, given that Scripture spells nothing out about ministers’ fraternals, where did the idea come from? Who first decided that this would be a good way of spurring one another on?

From the little research I have been able to do, I would guess that, as with the whole idea of societies in general, the eighteenth century is the place to look. From the end of the seventeenth century right through into the nineteenth century there was something of a craze for forming societies of all sorts. The Methodist revival was marked by the use of societies for prayer and mutual edification. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, societies for ministers were beginning to be popular.

As early as 1714 the Baptists had a fraternal in London. This was despite the break down of the churches association and according to some authorities, coincided with an increasingly high view of the responsibility, privilege and dignity of ministers. It was reconstituted on strictly Calvinist lines in 1724 and became known as The Baptist Board, taking on several functions normally assumed by associations, including giving advice to ministers and churches located both in and beyond London. The Northamptonshire Association of Particular Baptists began in 1763 and included a ministers’ fraternal. One of its meetings in 1787 is the one where Carey was famously put down regarding his crazy ideas about missions to the heathen. It was eventually the cradle, of course, for the Particular Baptist Mission to the heathen whose first missionary was Carey himself. In the same period, there was also a successful Baptist fraternal in the Bristol area.

Perhaps it was what he saw of this association when he was in Olney that led John Newton, at the age of 73 and then ministering in London, to form The Eclectic Society, a fraternal of ministers that has become more widely known through the Banner book The thought of the evangelical leaders which contains notes of their discussions in the years 1798-1814.

The society actually began in 1783 without a name. D Bruce Hindmarsh (in his biography of John Newton, p 312) describes it as ‘a regular, informal synod of evangelical ministers and leading laymen’. John H Pratt states that it was ‘for mutual religious intercourse and improvement, and for the investigation of religious truth.’ It first met at the Castle and Falcon Inn, Aldersgate, on January 16 and was attended by Newton and three fellow ministers, his later biographer Richard Cecil and Rev Henry Foster and one Eli Bates, esquire. It slowly increased to around a dozen and began to meet fortnightly in the vestry of St John’s Chapel, Bedford Row. Most were Anglican ministers but there were always one or two dissenters and ‘laymen’. It too was a cradle for mission, the Church Missionary Society in this case. Josiah Pratt whose notes are preserved in the Banner book became secretary also to the CMS.

The pattern was to meet for tea at four and then after a brief prayer to discuss a pre-arranged subject for around three hours. Hindmarsh interestingly says that it embodied Newton’s ideals – ‘A non-partisan group of evangelical believers, gathered in a spirit of friendship for ‘improving’ spiritual conversation.’ He quotes Newton himself, saying in a letter, ‘I am not fond either of assemblies, consistories, synods, councils, benches, or boards. ... [Ministers’] associations, in my judgment, should always be voluntary and free. Thus there are ten or a dozen of us in London, who frequently meet; we deliberate, ask, and give advice as occasions arise; but the sentiment of one, or even of the whole body is not binding on any.’

If we skip forward to the twentieth and twenty first centuries, the fraternal best known to people like ourselves is, of course, The Westminster Fellowship. According to Iain Murray, this began as a quarterly Tuesday morning meeting at Westminster Chapel. Attendance was, as with the Eclectic Society, by invitation. Dr Lloyd-Jones had had a similar meeting when he was in Aberavon and, encouraged by Douglas Johnson, he began something on similar lines here in the capital. There were about a dozen at first but then in 1942 Oakhill Principal Alan Stibbs invited the Doctor to speak on the subject of original sin in a small IVF study group. This led to Stibbs, P E Hughes and others joining the Westminster Fellowship too.

From October 1942 Stibbs became secretary and they began to meet at 1.30-4.15 pm. The first half of the afternoon was given over to sharing. (The fellowship got the name ‘The confession’ due to that. It was also known as the black hole of Calcutta as it met in the downstairs parlour where no natural light entered.) The Doctor was keen to discuss things rather than hear papers and was insistent that it should be only for ministers not students or others.

By 1955 the fraternal had outgrown the parlour and was meeting in the Institute Hall (now the Dr Lloyd-Jones Memorial Hall) and by 1958 a ‘large group’ was gathering there. A tradition developed of an away day in June when the Doctor would speak in the morning and discussion would follow in the afternoon. Towards the end of the fifties these meetings began to be at Guessens in Welwyn (now the EMF HQ). Murray says that over a hundred were present in 1959. He says that the standard of debate was often high with men like Ernest Kevan able to challenge the Doctor at times. He also remarks on the humour that was even then an essential part of the fellowship. In January 1960 the meeting day changed from Tuesday to Monday (to suit the ladies who made the tea and also met on Tuesdays). From 1963 the meetings also began to include morning sessions when speakers would usually address matters pertaining to church polity and evangelical unity.

On November 29, 1966 the Fellowship met for the last time in its initial form, the Doctor announcing at the end of the morning session ‘The present Westminster Fraternal must be considered as disbanded’ (Murray, p 532). The fraternal was, of course, reconstituted as a separatist grouping, and continues to this day. Dr Lloyd-Jones continued to chair it, even though latterly hampered by a measure of deafness, after his retirement form the Chapel, led discussion being the norm. Murray gives an example of debate on pp 703f of the biography. The Doctor chaired his last Westminster Fellowship in June 1980. Since that time it has been in the hands of a committee with various chairmen. Numbers have dwindled from over a hundred to a present attendance of around 20-40. It is now back downstairs again in the refurbished church parlour. Innovations include many more addresses and occasional preaching sessions. Its strength lies beyond what goes on in meetings and extends to the fellowship that it fosters beyond the four walls of the meeting place.

Some other fraternals are similar to the Westminster Fellowship but many more are like our own, meeting over the lunch period to hear papers or to discuss.

5. The strengths and weaknesses of ministers’ fraternals

Finally, I want to say something about the strengths and weaknesses of a ministers’ fraternal. I have already quoted from Arturo G Azurdia III regarding the fraternals that he runs. He also says

The challenges of Christian ministry are unique and consuming. Church leaders are expected to provide spiritual motivation, pastoral care, theological insight, evangelistic vision, and forward-looking leadership. But to this end ministers themselves need resources. They need practical tools and continuing education. They need collegial fellowship and intellectual stimulation. They need spiritual refreshment and personal encouragement.

It was with the aim of providing such resources for church leaders and ministers that the fraternals he leads were begun.

In November, 1807 the Eclectic Society discussed the subject of the chief duties of Christian ministers to one another. Some of the duties they mention are to

• Love one another
• Maintain spiritual unity
• Pray for one another
• Guard against envy and mutual jealousy
• Rejoice in one another’s success
• Honour and defend one another, being jealous each for the other’s character
• Admonish and exhort one another in love
• Enlighten one another
• Tenderly help any who are in trouble
• Forgive one another
• Think the best of one another rejecting prejudice and intolerance
• Avoid emphasising minor differences and allow the right of private judgement
• Avoid gossiping about one another
• Avoid flattering one another

I would be willing to argue that most of these duties can best be promoted through the means of ministers’ fraternals.

On the other hand, it is right that we recognise the limitations of fraternals. In a series of articles for Rutherford House Dr Montagu Barker has been quite critical of fraternals. In an article on The Minister as a member of the fellowship he argues for pastor’s pastor’s pastors.

He says that for most ministers

Their sustenance has been the company of other clergy, with fraternals, retreats and conferences. How inadequate they prove; they are the very worst places for ministers to be pastored! Ministers meet and discuss their work, with banal generalities about recent encouragements. I myself have spoken to ministers’ fraternals and seen how little real sharing goes on.

He continues

How can you say you are depressed and feel a failure, that the work is going badly and you feel responsible? How can you share that your home life is in chaos, with your wife having gone off you sexually, and the children acting up mercilessly? All you can share is vague generalities, and exaggerate the spiritual growth of the work.

Clergy do not care well for other clergy, doctors care very badly for other doctors and lawyers give terrible advice to fellow lawyers because they identify too closely with the other person. In medicine, we are well aware of this, if a little ashamed of ourselves. When I see a doctor as one of my patients, I have to remind myself that while in my clinic, he is just someone who has problems. I may meet him later in committees, and see many issues in him that I recognise in myself; yet I must regard him as a person who is depressed. I know that my heart is beating faster and my blood pressure rising, but if I make concessions simply because he is a doctor, I will eventually run into trouble. Some doctors find this easier than others; but we do not care well for our kith and kin because we identify in this way.

In an article for Selwyn Hughes’ CWR organisation Allan Cox, in an article entitled ‘Ministerial survival kit’ argues in a similar way.

As I meet with other ministers and leaders I am continually struck by how all-consuming the job is. There are so many fraternals, ministers’ meetings and the like that it is so easy to slip into a nodding acquaintance or be business-like with each other. In truth, many of us are lonely. Although we may be accountable in an official sense, unofficially it is all too easy to have no one to whom we can turn with our personal struggles.

Perhaps the FIEC strike the right balance when they say on their website that although most men find fraternals an adequate means of finding the support they need, others need more.

I suppose there are two factors at work here. Firstly, how helpful the fraternal that you attend is and, secondly, the extent to which you take advantage of what is on offer. The voluntary principle is at the same time both the great strength and the great weakness of fraternals. The freedom is much appreciated but it means, as we know, that some never join one and others drift off and there is little that can be done to draw them back.

In conclusion, we would say then that the idea of a ministers’ fraternal is perfectly consequent with the Bible, one with much historical and contemporary backing and a potential means under God of great good. However, as with other things, it is not a panacea or an automatic means of blessing. A successful fraternal needs to keep itself under regular review and none if us should suppose that in and of itself a fraternal can prevent all the problems that we know can arise in the Christian ministry. It is only as we look to the Lord that disaster can be avoided and good promoted.

This paper was read at a local FIEC fraternal