BRIEF REVISED NOTES OF A CARE MEETING
[p. 277] BRIEF REVISED NOTES OF A CARE MEETING
Notes of a Care Meeting with Mr. James Taylor arising out of a matter in which a sister living in ‘A’ married one not walking with us, although known to be a believer, and absented herself from the meeting at ‘A’ for a period of some twelve months.
Enquiries were made as to her whereabouts and she was subsequently found to be living in ‘B’. Individual brethren at ‘A’ endeavoured to get into touch with the sister but their letters were ignored.
The brothers in care at ‘A’ decided to announce to the saints that having absented herself from the breaking of bread before leaving ‘A’ and being apparently unapproachable by any of the brethren, she could no longer be considered in fellowship. It was considered unnecessary to have an assembly meeting, as this was regarded, not as the case of a “wicked person”, but rather that of a weak soul, not having faith to go on in a path in which she was never established.
The brothers at ‘B’ felt that the Lord would lay on them the responsibility of dealing with the case in accord with the principle laid down in 2 Samuel 20. Having finally left ‘A’ and settled in ‘B’, the sister was now within their gates, like Sheba the son of Bichri in going to Abel, where the people of that city dealt with him effectively. This was duly communicated to the brothers at ‘A’.
At the meeting at ‘B’ with our beloved brother he pointed out that the matter resolved itself into a question of remissness on the part of the brothers at ‘A’ and at ‘B’.
The brothers at ‘A’ failed in allowing the sister to slip away lawlessly, and also in the brothers taking it upon themselves to settle the matter, whilst the brothers at ‘B’ failed in their inability to see the sister. No judgment had been arrived at in either meeting, hence it cannot be said, “God has judged your judgment upon her”, Revelation 18:20. Heaven’s judgment ought to be reflected here. No judgment had been effected in either meeting for heaven to record. There ought to be a definite judgment which heaven can record.
Ques Do you mean every such matter needs an assembly meeting to settle it?
JT It would seem so. Saul and the Amalekites is a test case. To the natural mind Saul did very well, but to the divine mind he did ill (1 Samuel 15). Self-will is as iniquity and idolatry.
Rem We think the Lord has brought this matter to our door, and that it is therefore our responsibility.
JT The conscience of the assembly should correspond with the mind Of heaven. Records should be kept. It seems to be an indictment against ‘A’ and ‘B’. A great length Of time elapsed between the marriage and the time the assembly was aware Of the fact. The responsibility is in ‘B’ to deal with the matter. The first step would be for ‘B’ to communicate with ‘A’ confessing their remissness in the matter, and to see the sister, unless she refuses to be seen, which so far she has not done. Someone should be able to have access to her.
Ques Should the sister be approached personally, or through her husband?
JT If you know the husband, approach her through him. He, being a christian, you might say that there is a matter of discipline in the house of God. Something might come out of it for him. The sister might be more ready to receive help now than at the time.
These cases are permeating the meetings; some are designated as ‘wicked persons’, and others are not. The more these matters are looked into, the more likely it is that things will come to light, and we shall probably find that they are all wicked persons.
[p. 279] Ques How would Jude 22, 23 fit in, “Of some ... making a difference ...”?
JT There are grades of evil the same as there are grades of good. The Lord speaks Of few stripes Or many. This passage (Jude) contemplates a person already dealt with. That is not the case here; you have not got in touch with her. If a person is allowed to slip away without investigation, their real state may never be disclosed. According to Leviticus 4, if the matter is brought to the sister’s notice, she is expected to own it. As proceedings are instituted, more may be discovered than is known at the time. The lesson we all ought to see is that this sister is guilty of turning away from the truth and marrying not in the Lord.
‘A’ should have transferred the whole Of the facts to ‘B’. ‘A’s’ attitude is the first point to be dealt with. Nothing has been done by them which deserves any recognition at all. They are not with heaven in the matter; the assembly’s conscience is not in it. No judgment has been placed On the consciences of the saints at ‘A’ Or ‘B’.
Rem We cannot admit that she is other than a lawless person, not just weak.
JT She can never be in heaven’s eyes what she was before she broke bread, never! She has now had soul history. Our consciences are low in such matters. Heaven has had a judgment about the sister, but the assembly is not in it.
Rem Ezra says that all came up from Babylon unto Jerusalem. There is no mention of weak persons.
JT There is no case Of withdrawal that does not necessitate an assembly meeting.
Rem There has recently been a case Of withdrawal where the person concerned wrote a letter Of withdrawal, so-called, and no assembly meeting was thought necessary.
JT It is making too light of a person turning their back on the assembly. There is will at work.
[p. 280] In the case of Saul there is an increase in the magnitude of the sin.
Ques Would I as an individual be adequate to judge whether I could continue walking with the company? Is it not a question of what the assembly does?
JT A person who neglects to hear the assembly is guilty. A person may not think much of the assembly beyond an ordinary sect, though seeking the truth; but to such a one, as Nathanael, Philip would say, “Come and see”. Is Nathanael now in a position to judge Christ, or Christ to judge him? Jesus was taking account of Nathanael as he came, and said, “Behold one truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile”. It is a question of the state of the soul. Had Nathanael turned away after months, or even years, as if to say, I see nothing in it, it would be profanity. The Lord is bringing this matter up so that we might have the thought of the assembly in our minds, an anointed thought. Persons writing so-called letters of withdrawal have no idea what they are doing. It is a serious matter in heaven.
Rem One knows of a case in which a sister absented herself from the meeting for about three years. The brethren are now concerned as to the matter.
JT Numbers 9:13: “A man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to hold the passover, that soul shall be cut off from among his peoples”, and that after two months. The Lord would have the assembly respected; what is anointed must not be treated profanely.
Ques Are not telephone conversations between brothers a snare? Is it dignified?
JT It is helpful if we set on the principle that the assembly is a dignified anointed vessel. Ignorance on the part of the one who withdraws is not to be regarded.
[p. 281] Ques Would the Lord use every assembly meeting to cause the others to fear?
JT Quite so.
There are three scriptures suggesting withdrawal. In 2 Thessalonians, in the sense of shrinking, which must be borne in mind; also in 2 Timothy and Romans 16: 17. In 2 Thessalonians the person is walking disorderly. Proceedings are immediately instituted, and this may reveal something more. The Lord would help us to see that the assembly is never forced to the wall.
Rem It is often made an excuse that the person has married a believer.
JT That the man is a christian in the ordinary sense has nothing to do with the matter. He may be in an evil association. “In the Lord” means more than this.
Ques Would it be wise for brethren from ‘B’ to meet the brothers from ‘A’ and discuss the matter?
JT Yes; better than writing. It may look like a hopeless case, but no assembly judgment has yet been arrived at. Experience has shown that after an assembly meeting the Lord is pleased with us, and we often have better meetings. Ananias and Sapphira is a case in point: there were immediate results. Peter, as having to deal with the matter, comes in for special honour (Acts 5: 15), the shadow of Peter healed the people. ‘B’ should make a claim that they are taking the matter up as being responsible, but should endeavour to get ‘A’ to be with them in it.
Rem The question is often raised as to how we should treat those who have been withdrawn from when meeting them in the street, for instance.
JT If a person has been withdrawn from, John says, “Neither bid him God speed”. It is a very grave case, but there would be the principle of respect to him as God’s creature. It says of Ananias and Sapphira that the young men carried them out and [p. 282] buried them. It is a question of respect to God’s creatures. Formally acknowledging a person in the street does not bring in a matter of fellowship. Priestly intelligence is needed. The priest knows what to do, and would never be baffled. There is the case of a man and his wife; the husband cannot ignore other engagements he is committed to. In the case of a son, too, you would not turn him out of the house, but would have priestly discernment and see that the son did not defile the household. Some cases would require exclusion from the family.