JUNE 21ST, 1943
JUNE 21ST, 1943
Mr. H. P. Wells.
Beloved Brother, — I thank you for your letter of May 24th. I read it with the deepest interest as to all that refers to yourself and your house and as to all other matters relative to the work of God.
I shall return to all these, but I wish to just say a word as to what A.E.M. and others of us have done to seek to help brothers in Canada who are inducted into the Forces there.
It is entirely a question of not only showing that truth governs their consciences, but as to whether they really have consciences forbidding them to take up combatant services.
The authorities in Canada are ready to recognise such consciences, but they demand evidence of their genuineness. Why not furnish them with the evidence they consider necessary?
Brethren with whom the young men are in fellowship are not known and, hence, not recognised in Canada, and, hence, the testimony their conscience claims is questioned and denied. Whereas, as the facts are known, it is clear that they hold the truth of Christ’s death and that they are walking with those — their names and associations being attested — who do, and that those who teach them hold the truth, their parents, too, possibly. Why should not all this evidence of the truth and of persons who hold and teach it be furnished to the authorities as they are ready to receive it and to act upon it?
That this may imply collective testimony is quite true, but what can there be in such collective testimony that is wrong? “Two are better than one”, etc. This is never more effective [p. 317] than when a young man is struggling with hostile ‘Boards’ and in these countries witnesses brought by those inducted are not provided for.
Paul appealed to the knowledge the Jews had of him and clearly would have valued their testimony. He avowed that in the way which they called sect he served or worshipped his father’s God. This would be collective, and if a young brother felt he should ask another to witness of this in his case there would be no question of returning to ground abandoned as merely ecclesiastical. It is a question of actual truth — two or three gathered to Christ’s name — the assertion of which is testimony, which all who are at all interested should know, or be furnished with information as to it.
‘Coming into fellowship ... is not accompanied by certain tenets in relation to military service as if they were articles of faith’, etc. What is the point in this? If references are made to certain persons being excluded, the object is to prove to the authorities the character of the fellowship with which the draftees are connected, and that thus they are sincere in the conscientious objections. What is stated is factual, not assumed.
This way is confirmed in Paul’s defensive discourses. He says, “For this cause I also exercise myself to have in everything a conscience without offence towards God and men” (Acts 24: 16). If a young man not as courageous as the apostle has to give an account of his conscience to incredulous men, why should he not furnish all the evidence he may have so as to establish that he is sincere in his effort to maintain a good conscience towards God and towards men?
You refer to a brother who refuses to stand on what exclusive brethren hold, that his conscience was with God alone. This is right so far, but if the military Board denied him exemption on the ground that his religious associations did not confirm his conscientious views, he would rightly show by facts, if they existed, that they did.
You add that the brother who maintained that his conscience was with God alone, to which the judge assented, did not surrender the individual position. But what is the individual position that should not be surrendered? Must we not, with Paul, maintain a good conscience towards men as well as towards God? A conscience towards man — say a brother, or brethren — implies that I have to say to men. Certainly this [p. 318] is true if I am in fellowship. To assume that my conscience protects me from any question by my brethren as to military matters is quite wrong. I may ask for total exemption on the ground of conscience, but this would prove that my conscience is not void of offence towards God and men, for I certainly owe the government to do what I can for them, short of taking life. I am to be subject to the authorities “not only on account of wrath, but also on account of conscience” (Romans 13: 5). To refuse is unrighteous, unless it interferes with the rights of God, and hence my conscience is not with God alone. And so in many other relations, as I have said.
It is true that in 2 Timothy 2: 21 one must act individually in separating himself, but in verse 22 he is enjoined to pursue righteousness, etc. with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. If any question arose at the ‘Board’ discrediting a draftee’s integrity the brother questioned would surely be right in requesting one of those who, with him, followed righteousness to come and bear witness. If both were known in the town as righteous, it would be a testimony to the work of God for one righteous man to support another in what witnesses to Christ’s heavenly kingdom — the latter refusing to use the sword because his Lord directed Peter not to use it.
Acting collectively as in 2 Timothy 2: 22 is not sectarian — it is manifestly right. It is no question of taking public assembly ground, nor is Matthew 18: 20 taking public assembly ground. The assembly is, however, in our hearts as we are gathered together according to that verse. Otherwise how could we partake of the Lord’s supper?
Any individual ground we take that robs us of 1 Corinthians or Scripture generally is not of God. That we should avoid taking a public assembly position, seeing only a fragment of those who are nominal Christians in a given town are available and thus that remnant conditions exist, is surely morally right, facts supporting it; but nevertheless, in our hearts and in actual fact in the observance of assembly order, those following righteousness do humbly take collective ground and God honours it; He is with them. Philadelphia is owned by the Lord, Revelation 3: 7 - 13, in a collective sense. It is a question of what is in our minds and hearts in a humble, unpretentious attitude and what is also in the Lord’s mind according to the written inspired page.
What was presented to the authorities in Ottawa at their
[p. 319] request is a statement of facts governing the work of God in Canada and governing certain persons there who are the subjects of that work, but whose identity is unknown by the authorities — with whom the persons have to do in a very real way, involving suffering. The effort was not to build up ‘the position of the Collective Orthodox Conscience of so-called Exclusive Brethren’ but of furnishing facts on accredited testimony as to the confessions of certain Christians who were required to prove the genuineness of their confessions. In effect the information given was to establish the truth — so far as the facts and persons involved could do so — of the work of God in the persons required to appear before the authorities; to help the young men, too, as those who have the love of God in their hearts ought always to be ready to do. The Lord says, “Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me” (Matthew 25: 40).
The authorities asked for the facts and they were furnished — humbly as I believe — on accredited testimony. The young men have to speak each for himself before God and before the men whom they have to answer.
This letter is already so long that I feel I can hardly add more, but, as I said, I am very interested in yourself and your family — especially in your own physical condition. You may be assured of our prayers. The word of God in these parts, amid much pressure, affords cheer. Four general meetings are to be held, God willing, early next month — Montreal, Minneapolis, Regina and Berkeley.
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.