BROOKLYN, N.Y., JUNE 3RD, 1944
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JUNE 3RD, 1944
Beloved Brother, — Your letter of the 26th of April as conveying information of the exercises of the brethren in Manchester — especially your own — relative to the collections for the Lord’s interests was very welcome. It is cheering, too,
[p. 342] to hear of the work of God among you, especially of the young men who are coming forward and taking part in His service. This seems a feature of the times, and the pressure on our brethren engaged in services for the various governments afford assurance that under the Lord’s hand we may look for a deepening and continuance of it. I am grieved that our dear brother Joseph Boyt is so afflicted and I earnestly trust God will extend mercy to him as well as to his wife and family. The mention of Mr. Shorto and Mr. Betteney draws out the special affection of my wife and myself towards them and their families. We had heard that the Lord took to Himself Mr. Comber and Mr. Swindell.
The matter of means for meeting physical needs among the saints was prominent from the outset and occasioned difficulty even in apostolic times as it does in our own. Evidence of this exists in the printed ministry; and I well remember when it was customary to pass round the receptacle for the collection at the end of the meeting. I recall, too, a public statement that in some meetings the box was not placed on the table at all.
But during the last fifty years — at first through the ministries of Mr. Stoney and Mr. Raven — the Lord gave light as to all the features of the service of God, including the collection. About fifteen years ago the latter obtained particular prominence.
There was no effort to treat the subject in an exhaustive way. The Lord seemed to stress the matter as it bore on persons — meeting the need of those who served as sent by Him, and those regarded as poor. It seemed as if the Lord intended to appeal to love in His own, love for one another, working out towards those who serve Him in a special way and towards those who are poor.
As regards New York, this exercise led to the special collection, for there had been for many years much need in this city. In meeting it, which was difficult, and in furnishing help to the Lord’s servants, which was comparatively small, it was forced upon us that in considering the need we should consider what we possessed rather than the amount of the monthly collections — or rather the surplus of these after the fixed charges were met, for that was all we had to disburse.
Thus we adopted the special collection, as intended, as seen in the letters to Corinth and elsewhere, to stimulate the saints to more giving — in some sense in an equitable way.
[p. 343] This, as already said, directs to what the saints possess rather than the amount of the collections. Of course, if the epistles and scriptures treating of this matter generally do not warrant stimulation, what we at New York have been practising as to the collection should be abandoned as wrong. But they do stress stimulation in this matter, and the Lord has blessed it in this city and, as facts show, generally.
As far as I can remember, the term ‘budgeting’ was not at first used as expressing the procedure as to the collection in New York; it was suggested to me by someone in England, and I accepted it as right or scriptural, but only as covering immediate need — not for a whole month. But the meaning I attached to it particularly was that need should be met not simply according to the amount of the last month’s collections, but, as already said, according to what the saints possessed when the facts were known — that is, at the care meeting. It does not seem to me that budgeting for four weeks is in accord with scriptural principles.
As regards New York, as I said, we were affected by the urgency of meeting the need of persons, and we decided — according to the scriptural principles cited above — to have a collection on one Lord’s Day of the month for this purpose. The other three — or four — collections we leave for known or fixed charges. Adjustments are made at the end of the month. Surpluses are added to the special collection.
You will see that the only substantial change made in New York was the special collection. This, as I have shown, is undeniably warranted in Scripture. Many other gatherings adopted it — some perhaps before us — and, as I said, the Lord has blessed what has been done. That brethren in other quarters should decide to look into the matter further is, of course, unquestionable. It is clear, however, that the New Testament should be the basis of enquiry, especially Paul’s ministry. He was minister of the assembly “according to the dispensation of God” towards the Gentiles. The subject should therefore be taken up from the point of view of his ministry. Scripture generally will, of course, fit and help, the Spirit being the blessed Medium and power of all enquiry and service.
Your letter, however, while evincing much exercise and thought, fails in this: Paul’s epistles are not the basis, indeed, it makes more of the Old Testament than the New.
[p. 344] This is disquieting, as also budgeting for four weeks, for which no scriptural principle is adduced. This, in your letter, is a key point as negating what is special in ‘giving and receiving’ by placing all on the same level. Paul stresses persons and personal affection in connection with giving for levitical needs — especially in Philippians. Epaphroditus shines in this peculiarly. He was much to the apostle, also to the Philippians, and he was their messenger and minister to his need. You mention someone in your meeting saying that the Philippians could not send Paul two collections in three weeks ... with a monthly collection. But the saints are not limited to a monthly collection or any collection. This is, by extension, the gist of the whole matter. The assembly is greater than what it gives, than the collections made by it. But it is capable of being influenced by the ministry of the Spirit and if Scripture shows that this influence was applied effectively in apostolic times to stimulate giving it can surely be applied effectively now. This is evidenced in the special collection for the saints. To discredit what is urged by the apostle Paul to stimulate giving in a collection for the saints because it is applied to a collection for the saints in other circumstances, as is seen in your letter, is manifestly not right.
The prominence given to the assembly in the epistles to Corinth relative to the collection for the saints is striking. The glory of divine love working out in it, especially to those at a distance, is in mind. What the saints are to each other locally is not as much emphasised. The glory of Christ in its universal bearing entered into it. And one of the most remarkable features is the active personal part the apostle took in it. The ministration was intended to strengthen the bonds which national feeling tended to destroy. Surely this has a special voice at the present period in the testimony of God. It stimulates our universal outlook and liberality. The special collections have greatly helped to promote this result.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.