The Seat of the Unlearned

[outdeep]

One practice in the Assembly that I don't remember discussed is the infamous "back row".  The way the Assembly dealt with folks who were dealing with serious issues in their life is make them sit in the back row of the worship hall.  They were specifically set apart as those who were not to be served the Lord's Supper.  In some ways, it amounted to public shaming.

I suppose the rational for this was to keep the Lord's Supper "pure" since it was so central to what was considered the heavenly pattern of worship.  And I supposed the thinking was that this shaming pressure would cause the person to repent and be a full member of the fold.

However, I remember one brother who sat with his wife on the back row for years and years.  I'm sure he did some bad things at one time but it seemed to me that he probably repented enough.

My wife and I are supporting a new ministry at our church called Celebrate Recovery.  It takes the opposite approach - we believe that if people are struggling with serious issues, they need a safe place where they can come and deal with those issues without fear of public humiliation.

What are other folks thoughts and experience with this?

[Joe Sperling]

Dave---

I would mention that I purposefully sat in the last few rows because I felt "unworthy" and also because I was just plain shy. I remember feeling terrible a couple of times when Tim Geftakys or some other brother talked about the "weak brothers in the back". I knew I was weak but thought it strange that one would think because someone was naturally extroverted and "liked" sitting in the front that they were somehow more spiritual than those sitting further back.

Jesus mentioned how the Pharisees liked the premier places where they could be seen. I'm not saying that everyone who sits near the front is a Pharisee by any means, but I think anyone with a Pharisee type mentality would naturally want to be seen as "more spiritual" than everyone else. So, I would say the brother sitting in the back with his wife could have just been shy rather than necessarily being punished for something. I guess what I'm saying is that many of us punished ourselves needlessly in the hyper-proud grouping of "religious" people that the Assembly was.

--Joe

[Mark C.]

Good topic Dave!

  I was thinking that this kind of service that you describe is one that I would feel comfortable in, though I have no personal experience with such a ministry.

  When in the Assembly, and "partaking" of the Lord's Supper, it was almost a Roman Catholic kind of mystical experience for me--- mixed with a lot of desperate prayer that God might (after many thousand requests for this) make me truly pure hearted.

  The difference between me and those on the back benches, in my own mind, was that though I had not arrived I was somehow more serious in my desire "to make Christ real" in my life.  My desire for purity, though I had the same sinful heart as the Publican at the rear of the Temple, some how made me better and more holy in God's eyes!

  I am now totally ashamed of this former attitude and realize how sick Jesus must have been to see this pathetic Laodicean expression coming from my thoughts and emotions!   Jesus much preferred the "sinners" to draw near and the Pharisees (like I was) to take a hike until they could come back minus all the religious pretension.

  The fact is, we all have "serious issues," though mine may not be exactly the same as the next guy's, and church should be a safe place to confess my faults and find loving support.  If it is not, then it becomes a place of hypocritical religiosity that not only does not help, it actually hinders true religion.

  Please keep us informed as to how this ministry of yours progresses and let us know what you are learning.

                                                                  God Bless,  Mark C.

   

 

[moonflower2]

Did anyone ever sit there because they liked it back there?

We usually got to the meetings way after the front row regulars, so all we could get was a back seat. The kids got to move around more freely in the back, and it was more relaxing sitting on the couch back there, too. The bread and wine made it back there; it was just difficult getting out for a bathroom break.

I did notice a number of times when a front-row-seater(s) was sitting in the back with unhappy expressions on their face(s). (During those times we happened to get seats closer to the front.) So they weren't served the B&W, eh? Why were they in the back? So no one else knew that they weren't partaking?

[Oscar]

Did anyone ever sit there because they liked it back there?

We usually got to the meetings way after the front row regulars, so all we could get was a back seat. The kids got to move around more freely in the back, and it was more relaxing sitting on the couch back there, too. The bread and wine made it back there; it was just difficult getting out for a bathroom break.

I did notice a number of times when a front-row-seater(s) was sitting in the back with unhappy expressions on their face(s). (During those times we happened to get seats closer to the front.) So they weren't served the B&W, eh? Why were they in the back? So no one else knew that they weren't partaking?

Moon,

In Plymouth Brethren terminology, the brother who has been judged unworthy of "partaking" is asked to "sit back" at the Lord's supper.  In an exclusive assembly that I once visited they actually had a section in the corner for this purpose, and for seating visitors who weren't "in fellowship".

Believe me, the words I used, "once visited" were meant quite literally.   

In the warped legalism of Brethrenism, they have twisted "let a man examine himself and so partake" into "the leading brothers/elders will examine the sheep and judge who is worthy to partake.

Sad, but that's legalism.

Blessings,

Tom

[Margaret]

This is how the the founding fathers of the PBs used the back row:
 

[Margaret]

Oops! Here it is:
     
"Dr. Cronin, another of the founding leaders, was excommunicated by the exclusives in 1879 on the charge of "independency".  He sat in the back in the "seat of the unlearned" for three years, until he died broken-hearted at the age of 82."

This is exactly how GG used it in some cases,  i.e. Jim Hayman and Gerald Mathias. It was retributive humiliation to a leader for being critical of him or doing something he didn't approve of. It signified demotion. GG didn't call it excommunication in these cases.

[outdeep]

I remember it being used in a few non-leadership situations.  As a door-keeper, I remember a couple of people we had to make sure they would not take the Lord's supper.  One person eventually got discouraged and left - I always wondered how he came out.  Another brother sat back for years and the last I spoke with him he is a dear, positive brother in Christ. 

Personally, I didn't have the courage to talk about certain struggles in my life for fear of this public humiliation.  I wonder how many people struggled with secret sin or compulsive behavior in the Assembly but had no place to turn.

I was just thinking about this in contrast to this Celebrate Recovery ministry that works hard to enforce group guidelines that make the environment a safe place to talk about struggles and thus find healing.  (James 5:16)


By the way, CR originated at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest.  Those of you who live in Southern California might want to visit the church on Friday night to see their program.  Loretta and I went out to their annual conference this year and ran into Randy and Connie Wellick as well as Enoch Yousling.  It probably would be fitting if Saddleback added a Spiritual Abuse group.

[Oscar]

Oops! Here it is:
     
"Dr. Cronin, another of the founding leaders, was excommunicated by the exclusives in 1879 on the charge of "independency".  He sat in the back in the "seat of the unlearned" for three years, until he died broken-hearted at the age of 82."

This is exactly how GG used it in some cases,  i.e. Jim Hayman and Gerald Mathias. It was retributive humiliation to a leader for being critical of him or doing something he didn't approve of. It signified demotion. GG didn't call it excommunication in these cases.

Margaret,

Do you have Ironside's "History of the Brethren Movement"?

Tom

[outdeep]

Margaret,

Do you have Ironside's "History of the Brethren Movement"?

Tom

I remember reading part of this book when I came across is at (of all places) the CSULB library.  Doing a quick scan, the book seems to be out of print and is selling from $50 to $245 depending upon the condition.

I wonder of T&T would consider reprinting it.  We could use another book for plain readers.

[Margaret]

Tom,

We used to have it, but lent it to someone "back in the day." I've used several articles on the web as references for PB info instead.

Margaret