Does anyone know anything about the development of the so-called TW brethren who rejected reunion with so-called KLC? How strongly are they represented today in Europe, North America or the rest of the world? Is there more than one closed branch of them? From the little information that can be found online, it seems like they had a loss to the open brethren similar to KLC in the 90s. 

But it seems that there have been divisions later as well, resulting in similar branches today. But it's hard to figure out whether these branches are rather open or rather follow the old paths...

...resulting in similar different branches today... (that´s what I meant)

As of 10 years ago there were 3 different groups in the UK, all with just a handful of meetings at most. One group I think was Bournemouth / Bromley, which I visited once. Another group had a meeting in Sheffield, whom most of those have recently been attending the conference of the KLC Brethren at Yarnfield. I can't remember details of the third group or know whether they continue now. In America they are quite large with 100-200 meetings I think - with BTP being their primary bookseller. I think the first UK group I mentioned would be in fellowship with this main body from the USA, but somebody can correct me if im mistaken there.

In Canada there is at least 3 different TW groups. One group has effectively united with the open assemblies. The second group, which is the largest, is still walking in the old paths and has assemblies in fellowship in the Carribean, I believe. They may have connections with other Spanish speaking countries in South America. The third group followed RA Huebner. I am not sure what the exact reason for the split was but they are a rather small group in the United States and maybe some other assemblies in South America.

To add to Spencer's reply, the TWs (where I grew up) had a major division more than 20 years ago.  The Heubner split was very small, and preceded the major split.  

Heubner was a Diotrephes and cultivated a following.   His assembly silenced a brother (who really should have been silenced long before by his home assembly) and said it was just applicable to their assembly.  This was seen as a rejection of the One Body, and Heubner's assembly was put away without, as far as I know, any real attempt to heal the breach.  It was certainly done quickly.   As one brother put it, "He who shoots first, wins."   (That was not intended as a compliment!)  A handful of nearby assemblies followed Huebner.  I do know that many were already concerned about Huebner, and this may have been seen as an opportunity to get rid of him.  That is speculation on my part.

I recall that a friend of my was, for a while, quite taken with Huebner, who was publishing quite a few papers on various topics.  (This was a few years before the split.)   After some time, he stopped quoting Huebner, and one of our friends asked him about it.  His reply, I think, captured the larger issue.  "I don't read him anymore.  Everything I have read of his has been correct, but it's just not The Shepherd's voice."

This was unrelated to the major division which took place a few years later, but some wrong principles were involved in both.  I can confirm that the larger part of the TWs have many assemblies in South America.

It's not quite correct to say, "One group has effectively united with the open assemblies."    In the first place, on Open principles, there is no such thing as, "uniting".  There is nothing more than acquaintance and limited intereaction.  That is certainly going on, but here's the rub:  How much that is going on varies quite a bit from assembly to assembly in the smaller TW group, ranging from having conferences together to having nothing at all to do with them.

One thing that is consistent with the smaller group is their rejection of the larger group's claim to being the only fellowship in existence which has the Lord's Table and the Lord's presence in their midst.  They believe that they are the ONLY group of Christians who are ''on the ground of The Truth".   That was really one of the underlying issues of the larger division.   This claim scarcely existed, and was often rebuked, as I was growing up, but it grew to have more influence over time, and from what I can tell as now an outsider to the larger group (but having ongoing contact with many individuals there), this has become the dominant, if not the required, view of the larger TW group.   It's really their, "claim to fame", so to speak. 

I can confirm that the TWs are numerous in Brazil, they are very active in social media / youtube and in translating "brethren" writings to portuguese. The Holy Spirit blessed this work with lots of people being reached with the message of the Gospel of Grace, the assurance of salvation, our position and new creation in Christ Jesus, the heavenly calling of the church etc. But with these, as Mark v said, that  "they are the ONLY group of Christians who are ''on the ground of The Truth", especially in the writings of Bruce Anstey. His writings are translated to portuguese and shared by them.

Thanks for that additional info, brother.  The Brazil connection was first made in the 80s, as I recall.  I don't recall the details of how that came about, but I do recall a sudden flurry of visits both ways.  Some came, several times, to southern California.  At least one marriage resulted from that.  

There had long been a vigorous work in several South American countries, and AFAIK, that connection remained intact after the division.

I know that Anstey has been one of the strongest proponents of the "one place" doctrine.  Oddly enough, his insistence on it contributed to my rejection of it.  He was at a conference one time, and in a group of young men, he was earnestly holding forth on why every young man needed to be well versed in the details of the history of the divisions of the Brethren, so he could show others that WE had been on the correct side of each and every one of them, and therefore WE were the only ones on "The Ground of THE Truth".   I wondered why we could not just point people to Scripture.  Why did we need to prove our, "lineage"?  That began my questioning of that doctrine.

Thanks for the information! And by the way, I agree: the principles of gathering must be explainable from the Bible, not from the history of the Brethren. I appreciate some of B. Anstey's writings. But on this subject, I'm afraid he is very much mistaken, in my opinion. 

Mark v's comment is interesting since "brethren" are now broken into a multitude of fragments, all claiming theirs to be the right one. As Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth, 'Are ye not carnal, and walk as men?' (1 Cor. 3.3.) 

Please let me apply the verse that follows. “For while one saith, I am of Darby; and another. I am of Kelly; are ye not carnal?” To this list can be added umpteen others: Stuart, Grant, Lowe, Raven, Taylor, for a start. Interestingly, Roy Huebner’s name has cropped up. How have we come to this? 

“Christian” I suggest supplies the answer. Take the latest controversy surrounding the Lord’s table that has arisen in one circle of “brethren” for instance. The doctrine is being built upon what “trusted Bible teachers” wrote in days long ago, with deductions drawn from their writings, and wrong deductions at that, by being made to say other than they did say, while citations from otherwise respected teachers that would condemn their doctrine are peremptorily rejected. 

Sadly, the Bible is getting a similar treatment. If this be the case, then such a company has certainly not been on the correct side of each division, nor are they “the only ones on the ground of the truth.” Yes, we could just point people to the Scripture. After all, which “trusted Bible teachers” did the Reformers and the “early brethren” resort to? Not that I would for a moment reject "expository" ministry, but it must be proven to be what the Bible does say without words being added or subtracted from it. 

Mark Best 

Mark, all I can say to your post is a heartfelt, AMEN!   It's a sad mess, but that's what men do with God's truth, isn't it?

And a note to Christian:  I have only read a few of Anstey's early papers.  I was.... not impressed with those (to put it charitiably).    But more importantly, I now know the man, and I have no interest in reading any more of his papers.

By the way, for Christian, it might be of interest to you that, before the Big Division, the TWs were said to number about 7,000 persons worldwide.  AFAIK, almost all outside of North America stayed with the larger group (the Nepean group).  They were very swift and effective at making their version of things known overseas.  The folks who had first made contact with Brazil were with the Nepean group, and the de facto apostle to Spanish speaking countries was also with Nepean, so that's the side that they heard, and that's the way it went.  The same is true for Indian assemblies.   Their primary contact was through a brother who sided with Nepean.   

Mark v,

     Did the assemblies that sided with Perth in the 90's split and the assemblies that supported Falaise Rd. meeting in the later early 2000s split have a reunion or reconciliation?

Does the smaller group have an online presence (Youtube, Websites of ministry) or magazines  or  publishing houses for their ministry (like BTP). ?

Who are some of the leading brethren in the smaller group (like B Anstey )?

Being "swift and effective at making their version of things known" to others is commonplace in 'Brethren' divisions (of all stripes). However, it is hardly a mark of true faith - why would faith need to hurry? Do I really think that if I can 'get there first' then all will be OK? What about the Spirit of God in these matters? What about the discernment (or lack of) in those receiving? Have they arrived at the truth of things? Christians ought not to behave like they were in a political society ... !

"Did the assemblies that sided with Perth in the 90's split and the assemblies that supported Falaise Rd. meeting in the later early 2000s split have a reunion or reconciliation?"

No, there has been none.  There is a varying degree of animosity from individuals on the Nepean (Falaise Rd) side, with many being very cordial when we meet at funerals or other events.  There are a few who will not greet or shake hands with any on the Perth side.  I do know of individuals who have "changed sides", in both directions.  

"Does the smaller group have an online presence (Youtube, Websites of ministry) or magazines  or  publishing houses for their ministry (like BTP). ?"

None that I know of.  Individual assemblies may have a website for their assembly, but that's all I know of.  Really, the numbers just aren't there to support much.

"Who are some of the leading brethren in the smaller group (like B Anstey )?"

Well, there is nobody I know of who has that kind of influence.    I consider that to be a good thing!

Much of the division can be laid at the feet of one brother having far too much influence.   One of their "laboring brothers" said something very telling to me before the split was finalized.   I asked him a simple question:  "If the actions of the brothers at Nepean had been carried out at some small assembly in the South, so obscure that nobody would know who they are without looking them up in the "List of Assemblies", would anyone even think of supporting such actions?"

I think his response told the whole story:   "No, but it wasn't done at some small assembly.  It was done at Nepean, so we HAVE TO support it!"

Might made right.

Or as an older brother in Buena Park put it, referring to Nepean, "Oh, I think it would be a SIN to even QUESTION anything those brothers decide!"   Meaning, of course, one particular brother.  This was years before the division, on an entirely different matter, but it illustrates the influence he had with many.  

Part of the problem was wrong doctrine, of course.  The truth that there is ONE body, not many, was warped into the idea that if an assembly acted on a matter, that action must be accepted No Matter What, and no nearby assemblies had anything to say about it, no matter how egregioius the action.   Or, as mentioned above,  "whoever shoots first, wins".

Contributing to this was the doctrine, held by some, that an assembly acted with the Lord's authority, and was therefore infallible.   I could never understand why people who espoused that view didn't say a Hail Mary, or at least cross themselves, when they spoke it.   ;-)

@Steve Noble

Amen, brother!  "He that believeth shall not make haste."

But haste was necessary to prevent more widespread dissemination of factual information.  It's that "he who shoots first" thing again.

Had the hoi polloi really been made aware of the full truth of the matter, it would not have required deep understanding of arcane Brethren Rule and Regulations to figure out a deeply complex matter that only the Older Brothers could understand.

It would have shocked every honest conscience.   It was nothing but raw, dishonest politics of a powerful few who wanted their own way.

Wondering if anyone has any information regarding the Perth side of the split?  Any meetings or names at all associated with them?  Somebody has to know something!