Members and congregations that arose from Church of the Brethren mission work in India since 1895 joined a process toward church union that formed the Church of North India (CNI) in 1970. The Annual Conference celebrated this union and many thought that this was the way forward for these few congregations in a nation where Christians are a small minority. Within the first few years there was discontent among some Brethren within CNI. By 1978, some members left CNI and a few congregations split over the issue. In time, at least one whole congregation also withdrew.

In 1980 and 1986, queries came to the Annual Conference seeking to re-establish relationships with these India Brethren. In response to the 1980 query, the Annual Conference expressed concern for all involved, and called for prayer, mediation, and reconciliation. In 1986, three queries related to mission and international relationships prompted, among other things, a committee that carefully studied the India issues. This committee brought a thorough report including the following recommendations, which were adopted in 1988:

1. That the Annual Conference instruct the General Board to continue its recognition of the covenant made with the First and Second Districts Church of the Brethren in India, to uphold the formal actions of the District Meetings to amalgamate their separate Trusts with the church of North India, and to transfer relevant church properties to the Church of North India. That we also use our influence to encourage the CNI to permit the sharing of the church buildings and facilities with the separated Brethren until such time as they are able to provide their own.
2. That the General Board continue to support the work of the Church of North India at levels deemed appropriate by the General Board Staff in consultation with the CNI Synod and the Partners in Mission Committee.
3. That the Church of the Brethren tradition of “no force in religion” be upheld in recognizing the right of individuals in India to discontinue membership in the CNI and to regroup themselves as congregations separate and distinct from the CNI.
4. That the Church of the Brethren in the U.S.A. is not in a position to grant the use of the name, “Church of the Brethren in India,” since the Trusts holding this name, through legal actions, voted amalgamation with CNI.
5. That the General Board staff be directed to work with the CNI and the separated Brethren and to find ways to establish meaningful relationships with the separated Brethren. Further, that the General Board staff be directed to encourage cooperation rather than competition in the work of the Kingdom.
6. That we encourage the CNI and the separated Brethren to work seriously and in the Spirit of Christ toward reconciliation and an amicable settlement of their differences. And that if or when both of these parties should request our help in mediating such a reconciliation, that the Conference Officers be empowered to serve in that capacity or to appoint a committee for this task.
7. That the Officers of the Annual Conference be directed to continue to monitor the progress towards resolution of the concerns expressed in the query, which was responsible for the appointment of this Study Committee.
8. That Annual Conference encourage the designation of World Wide Communion Sunday, October 2, 1988, as a day of prayer and fasting in support of healing of the “brokenness” between the CNI and the separated Brethren.

1998 Request for Recognition
In October 1999 the General Board formed “a committee to continue the conversation about recognition with the India Brethren, to visit the Indian churches, and to report back to the Board toward a possible proposal for recognition of the Indian church at the Annual Conference in 2001. The committee will consist of a General Board member, the Board’s mission director, a former India missionary, and a member of the Indian community in America.” The request from the India Brethren to be recognized as a part of the global Church of the Brethren had come to the Board in 1998. Because staff-sponsored reconciliation efforts were underway at that point, it was decided to give that process time to progress.

Being aware of decades of conflict between these two groups in India and the contemporary realities of churches being burned in parts of India, including in southern Gujarat State where the India Brethren are located, the committee approached its work as not merely exploring a request but seeking to discern where God was leading the church today. We felt compelled to ask, “Where is God in all this?” In the process of visits and interactions in India, the committee sought to be mindful of historic India relationships with CNI and the on-going effort by Board staff to help the two parties to come together to talk about the issues that divide them.

The committee made an initial visit to the Brethren group in India in March 2000. This was a whirlwind visit of 25 congregations and centers, along with several schools, in just over five days on the ground. In these packed days the committee observed and participated in breaking ground for new buildings, baptizing new members, dedicating babies and buildings, and even planted trees. The communion with feetwashing at Pervad was a highlight, with an estimated 1200 persons present. The committee reported some initial impressions to the Board and to our membership at the 2000 Annual Conference.

Regrettably, CNI pastors in southern Gujarat State who had been invited to meet with us during the visit declined the offer. We were also prevented from meeting in CNI-controlled buildings. Some incidents and angry meetings with CNI leadership and congregations during both visits conveyed the intensity of feeling surrounding CNI-Brethren relationships. While staff had been engaged with CNI leadership on partnership and reconciliation processes for some time, the committee as a whole was also able to meet with CNI leadership during CNI-COB partnership conversations in October 2000. In December, the committee also met with former India mission workers to hear their perspectives on India relationships.

In January 2001 the committee made a second visit to India, including Board chair Mary Jo Flory-Steury and General Secretary Judy Mills Reimer. At CNI’s request, this visit began with conversations with Church of North India leadership at New Delhi, where the committee was able to join partnership discussions continuing from the October meeting in Elgin. The group also visited CNI congregations and continued conversations with groups of CNI leaders in Ahmedabad, Baruch, and Ankleshwar. This part of the visit was especially helpful to see and hear more of CNI’s point of view.

The second visit with the India Brethren was more focused. The committee had requested less travel and more time in conversation with groups at fewer places in order to gain a fuller understanding of their faith, practices, and concerns. These were rich conversations with groups of women, youth, and elders, that were especially meaningful and valuable to understand at a deeper level this body of believers and its functioning.

This visit included worship at Champavadi, Saraiya, Kikakui, and Karanjvel. A brief stop at Mypur’s new church building, completed since the previous visit, reflected solid progress. There was also a groundbreaking for a new pastor’s house at Sadanvan, and brief stops at Dolora High School and CB High School-Valsad. The committee also met with trustees of the CBGB trust seeking greater understanding about property matters. At the Vocational Training College at Ankleshwar the committee observed new student hostel construction made possible through funds generated from the sale of trust-held land.

The Brethren in India- 2001
The committee found the Brethren in south Gujarat State, who claim some 4300 members, to be a community alive in faith and practice. Among its 25 congregations and centers are places from the missionary era as well as new names— places where the Brethren have reached out to neighboring communities and started new worshiping bodies since their separation from CNI. This group still finds its identity in Church of the Brethren beliefs, ordinances, and church structure— appropriately rooted within Indian culture. Indian-style praise hymns, with vigorous drumming, were observed to be a consistent part of worship.

The Brethren in India are predominantly rural, although some key urban centers like Valsad, Ankleshwar, Vyara, and Surat should be noted. Most members are from the lowest social and economic group in the society. Throughout the last century these marginalized peoples have been especially drawn to the Gospel themes of uplifting the oppressed and to the egalitarian church structure of the Brethren, both of which were articulated and modeled by Brethren missionaries. This style of church functioning is especially appealing to a group that has often been excluded by the larger society. In contrast, the Brethren mission offered them educational opportunities and major voice in shaping the direction of the emerging church.

Among the challenges facing the India Brethren is its relationship with the CNI, which continues to oppose it’s existence. Preparing and supporting pastoral leadership has been difficult. The small church’s existence and ministry within a sometimes-hostile, multi-faith society speaks to the commitment and energy that is present in the group. There are also internal challenges to maintain unity, given the rural-urban, educated-uneducated, and family power issues among the India Brethren, which echo similar questions facing the American church.

CNI and Brethren Viewpoints
Since the relationships in India are complicated by the history of union and separation, the committee sought to hear and understand the viewpoint of Church of North India as well as the India Brethren. While there are still unanswered questions and the committee heard different understandings both in India and in the United States, we have gained significant understanding of both bodies in their own words. The consistent, primary message of CNI is that the US church cannot consider recognition of the India Brethren because of the covenant, or commitment, made during the union process, which they view as binding and irrevocable.

CNI views the separated Brethren as “disaffected CNI members,” and is willing for the Brethren to return to the union if they wish. From this starting point, CNI is offended that the US Brethren would “interfere in an internal matter” among its members in India. The CNI view of the “separated group” is negative. One learning that surprised the committee was that present CNI leadership could not point to any instance where CNI had reached out to these “disaffected members” in an effort to reconcile during more than two decades of separation. At the same time it is important to note that a significant number of former Brethren are comfortable with CNI structure and functioning and remain within the united church.

The word “covenant” has rich meaning in the Old Testament, conveying a powerful, two-way commitment between God and God’s people. There are differing views about the meaning of the covenant made by the six Indian churches who signed the union document, and the linkage to the external “parent bodies” like the Church of the Brethren in the United States. The US Church of the Brethren was not a signer of this agreement, but the paper record and the accounts of mission staff involved at the time affirm that there was organizational ownership in the union process. Yet, if the covenant of union was entered into freely by the India Brethren, it seems fitting that there would be freedom to also choose to disassociate from the union. The committee heard both CNI and the India Brethren assert that the other side had broken the covenant of union.

The committee heard reasonable and seemingly credible perspective from CNI and the India Brethren and found truth in both views. Each party has felt compelled to assert its interests in the courts to protect its rights to property and existence. Actions of CNI blocking access to the ecumenical seminary or publishing the name and work of the Brethren in the ecumenical magazine were understood by CNI to be consistent with its position that the Brethren are not a church. Because of its power and status, these actions by CNI have restricted the Brethren from ecumenical cooperation. As a result, only a small Wesleyan church, also ostracized by the wider church community, recognizes and cooperates with the India Brethren. Being cut off from the wider church in India is a serious loss of pastoral training opportunities, Christian education materials, and interpersonal encouragement. All of these actions were viewed by the India Brethren as persecution.

While the views of CNI added important context to the committee’s research, the primary focus for the study committee was the India Brethren who had requested “recognition.” The committee heard from the Brethren that the union did not work for them. Some individuals speak in a confessional way about the separation, while others are angry and blaming. They report examples of heavy-handed bishops and church hierarchy that have alienated them. Since separation they have faced two decades of persecution from CNI. The India Brethren stated clearly and repeatedly that they have no interest in rejoining CNI. During this period, the perceived rejection by the US church during two prior requests for re-connection has also been painful and disappointing for the India Brethren. A new generation of India Brethren, especially the young people, want to get beyond the fighting with CNI and “be the church.”

The Brethren in India seek to re-establish a relationship with the US church. They view a renewed relationship as necessary to achieve their goal of fully reclaiming their Brethren identity. They also view such validation as helping to resolve many issues of exclusion by Indian Christian bodies and removing barriers to their fully being a church again in their society.

While there is evidence of behaviors that do not reflect well on the Christian community among both groups, the committee saw evidence of God’s spirit at work among both churches. Since we did not understand our function as choosing one over the other, the committee sought to listen and seek to understand the points of view each presented. This was often difficult because many individuals within each group tended to characterize the other side as evil and not to be trusted. While seeking answers to the questions we needed to explore about the India Brethren, the committee sought to respect and value the relationship of the US church with the Church of North India. The committee’s expectation is that the Church of the Brethren in the United States will continue in partnership with CNI, regardless of the outcome of our research and recommendations.

Changes in Church of the Brethren Mission Approach
Current global church and mission philosophy statements, and accompanying adjustments to church structure, support new mission efforts to establish the Church of the Brethren in other lands. This shift in mission approach came after the last action by the Annual Conference on India relationships and reshapes the discussion on the relationship between the US church and the India Brethren. Specifically, there is a vision for a global Church of the Brethren composed of autonomous national churches that relate to each other and see their primary identity in the Church of the Brethren with roots in the early Schwarzenau Brethren.

For many years after the 1955 mission direction emphasizing “indigenization,” the Church of the Brethren had seen its central role in international mission as supporting existing churches in other nations, or else evangelizing a corner of a nation where the resulting congregations might join with others to form a united national church. The 1989 mission statement continued to support indigenous mission, but also affirmed planting churches outside the United States in the name of the denomination. This has resulted in new mission efforts in the Dominican Republic and Brazil, as well as openness to explore new mission opportunities in other nations.

Gradually, the Conference also saw the need to define the structure of the anticipated global Church of the Brethren and assign functions, resulting in statements passed by the Annual Conference in 1993 and revised in 1998. To encourage and assess new mission proposals from our members, a new entity, the Mission and Ministries Planning Council, was added to denominational structure. In summary, the denomination set a vision for reaching out to the world with new church planting ventures and took steps to form the necessary structures and system to facilitate and guide this outcome.

Where before the 1989 mission statement “mission” meant supporting existing churches, after this shift in mission understanding “mission” also meant establishing the Church of the Brethren in other lands. The committee views this fundamental shift in the understanding of the US church in its role as participants in God’s mission as setting the stage for, and perhaps even encouraging, a broader approach to relationships in India.

Some Historical and Missiological Reflections
Seeking to find footing in the murky waters of this complex history and conflicted present, the committee looked to foundational understandings of Church of the Brethren mission practice. Rooted in New Testament example and building upon mission experience, Brethren mission style has encouraged and honored indigenous voices and local decision making. The humility and self-awareness of US Brethren missionaries about carrying their own cultural “baggage” and, for the most part, seeking not to impose that onto other cultures along with the Gospel message, has been an important value that has defined Brethren mission and often prompted the emergence of strong leaders among our mission churches. Thus decisions to join uniting movements in India and Ecuador were supported, as was a choice for independence taken by the church in Nigeria. As a result of living out these values, the US church was not, and is not, in control of relationships with international partners. Instead, mutual accountabilities in the relationship have been defined thru discussion together.

The desire to live out these faith-centered values in international church relationships has implications for next steps in India. The committee concludes that a process that requires autonomous churches in other nations to petition the US church for “recognition” creates unhealthy and unbiblical power dynamics in the relationship. The US church is one of several autonomous national bodies who are becoming the global Church of the Brethren. Procedures that require an autonomous body to gain “approval” from the US church would undermine healthy mutual relationships among these sister churches on the same branch of Christ’s church. While the US church may have been the “mother church” for these Brethren bodies, as they develop their own leadership, legal incorporation, and church system, maturing toward autonomy one might say, they must be viewed as adult children and related to in more equal terms.

These understandings of historic and effective Brethren mission style, culturally-sensitive sharing of the Gospel, and the dynamics of healthy church structure prompted the committee to re-frame the question from the India Brethren. Instead of answering a request for “recognition” from the US church, the committee encourages inviting both churches to move toward “mutual acknowledgment.” This approach invites both parties to acknowledge each other and to enter into a relationship that will be defined together, preferably in conversation with existing Brethren bodies in other nations. This approach is consistent with relationships being established with other autonomous Brethren churches in Nigeria, Dominican Republic, and eventually the new church in Brazil.

Former India missionaries and Board staff report that during the pre-union period it was believed that a small group of Christians in southern Gujarat State could not survive and sustain themselves without becoming part of a larger Christian body. This perception was identified as an important reason for encouraging the Indian Brethren toward the union, especially after the experience of abrupt, forced evacuation of Brethren missionaries from China in the late 1940s that was very isolating and detrimental for the Chinese churches. Yet the committee found a small group of worshiping Brethren, about half the size of the body that joined the union in 1970, continuing to exist and grow over more than two decades in spite of isolation and religious and societal pressures.

It may be asserted that the direction being proposed by the committee is contrary to some past actions of Annual Conference and General Board. This is a fair critique. Instead of reaffirming past actions that appear to keep the two parties mired in conflict and also oppresses a small band of believers much like the early Brethren, the committee believes another path must be taken. Numerous times in our history the Annual Conference has changed direction as the community of faith sought God’s will. The preceding section noting the shift in mission approach from 1955 to 1989 is an example of the Annual Conference sensing a new leading from God’s Spirit and striking out in a new direction in perceived obedience. The committee views its recommendations as consistent with the current Brethren mission polity and resting upon core Christian teachings: loving one’s neighbor, uplifting the oppressed, encouraging faithful discipleship, peacemaking and reconciliation, servanthood, assistance to those in need, and reaching out to the world with God’s message of love.