The language of “branches” comes directly from the lips of Jesus:
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit” (John 15:5).
When the early Christian and Missionary Alliance gatherings were first formed, they were not called churches. They were called branches. That distinction, subtle on the surface, is deeply theological — and perhaps the key to recovering the Alliance’s original calling as a movement rather than a denomination.
This is not the language of institution. It is the language of abiding, of dependence, of life flowing directly from the Source. In calling themselves branches, the early Alliance believers were emphasizing something profound: they were not planting monuments or organizing hierarchies — they were growing from Christ Himself. Their identity was not bound to buildings, programs, or denominations. It was rooted in a living relationship with the Vine.
Over time, as movements age, they tend to drift toward self-preservation. The radical dependence of the branch can harden into the bureaucracy of the board. The spontaneous fruitfulness of the vine gets replaced by the administrative pruning of the organization. The “movement” slows, consolidates, and becomes, ironically, the very thing it once existed to reform. The Alliance is not exempt from this temptation.
But there is still time to return.
A branch implies movement. It grows outward. It follows the light. It bears fruit not for its own survival, but for the sake of others. The early Alliance understood this. That’s why their vision was global, their message urgent, and their gatherings intimate yet catalytic. A.B. Simpson’s Fourfold Gospel — Jesus as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King — pulsed through the branches like lifeblood, not as abstract doctrine but as living reality.
Moreover, the term branch carries messianic weight. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of a coming “Branch” (Hebrew: Tzemach) who will bring justice and restore David’s throne (Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 6:12). The early believers in the Alliance knew that their gatherings were not just expressions of faith — they were extensions of the Messiah Himself. Their mission was to be the hands and feet of the Righteous Branch, bearing His character and authority into every nation.
Paul speaks in Romans 11 of wild olive branches being grafted into the cultivated tree. This is not just about Gentile inclusion. It’s about God’s intention to grow a diverse, fruitful people who remain humble, dependent, and aware that the life comes from the Root — not from their own designs. In this light, the Alliance’s missionary impulse is not merely pragmatic. It is theological. It reflects the heartbeat of a people who know they’ve been grafted in and long to see others joined to the same life-giving Source.
So what does it mean today to go “Back to the Branches”?
It means recovering the spiritual posture of abiding rather than building.
It means resisting the pull of institutionalism and returning to the simplicity of dependence.
It means measuring fruitfulness not in numbers or budgets, but in transformed lives and Spirit-led obedience.
It means allowing God to prune us — not to destroy, but to renew.
Perhaps the Alliance is being called back to its roots — not to nostalgia, but to vitality. Not to an old model, but to the living Vine. This is not a call to dismantle structure for its own sake, but to realign it with purpose. It’s a call to reform, not to retreat. A call to movement, not monument.
In the end, branches don’t strive. They rest. They receive. And they bear fruit naturally, because they are joined to something greater. That’s the vision we need again.
Back to the branches — back to the Vine — back to the movement that bears fruit.
Missional Structure
In early C&MA missions literature, the term branch was also used practically:
In early C&MA missions literature, the term branch was also used practically:
- To refer to outposts, field stations, or emerging churches that were connected to the central mission effort.
- A branch was not yet a fully autonomous church, but part of a growing movement—this fits Simpson’s vision of flexibility and expansion.
Avoidance of Denominational Language
Simpson often resisted calling the C&MA a denomination—he preferred the language of a movement. So instead of “church plant” or “local church,” the word “branch” felt more fluid, missional, and non-institutional—fitting his focus on “bringing back the King” through Spirit-empowered mission.
