Thanks Christine, that's really interesting! I've heard stories from some in my 'slightly more exclusive' branch of meetings who attended BG's rallies in London. They all only had positive things to say about it. That might not be a surprise of course, but to me it was slightly surprising to hear they'd even gone, given the historical reluctance of Brethren to engage or associate themselves with other Christian endeveours, especially 'popularism'. I remember reading an article in an old periodical (talking around 1870s now) where one young man chided another for going to hear a well known American preacher who was visiting - I guess probably D.L. Moody - because it was taught that those who God had shown 'the light' shouldn't go along with those who hadn't been. This is still taught in some places today.

Yes essentially they believed they had been shown more light so were then responsible to live in the good of what they knew. Along the whole spectrum of different strands of 'Brethren' though, how this might work out in practice is quite varied. King George Street Hall was part of what we call the 'Open' section, which in general is far more comfortable with associating with other believers, though in some places (e.g. Northern Ireland) less so, and I believe the stricter Gospel Halls today would still discourage their members from visiting other churches etc. In my own fellowship a few have been part of The Gideons for example, though many still would be not supportive of that. Well I think the 'head-covering', and distinctive roles for men and women, is one of those things that defines what makes a place 'Brethren' or not :) So we still practice it of course but hopefully the sisters don't consider themselves anyless equal because of it!