BROOKLYN, N.Y., JUNE 22ND, 1944
[p. 348] BROOKLYN, N.Y., JUNE 22ND, 1944
Mr. W. J. House.
Beloved Brother, — Twice I communicated with you lately, and now I have yours of the 10th ult. and enclosure — letter to Mr. A. G. Lewis. What I sent you may in part answer your enquiry, especially the copy of my letter to ——— .
The remarks in the Edinburgh Readings to which you refer were intended to convey that in my mind, while the Lord would bless money given by the saints for rent, etc., He specially values what is given for the Levites and the poor — on the one Lord’s Day in the month devoted to them. I had in mind without naming it, what was at that time, as now, done in New York. The tenor of what follows on the page shows that I regarded giving for those who serve and to meet need as having special distinction. I should have stated the distinction more definitely, but the whole position is clearer to me now.
Scripture treating of what is given by the assembly says hardly anything of ordinary material requirements, whereas it says much of what is needed by persons — the Levites and the poor — and it is obvious that these facts should not be ignored in the circulation of love and the announcements formally made as to them.
It seems to me, therefore, that the habit in Sydney of budgeting and announcing ordinary fixed charges in each meeting must be unnecessarily cumbersome. The saints from week to week and month to month should be able to gauge them approximately and give accordingly. Assembly time is precious and should not be unduly taxed. At least, the omission of formal budgeting and announcing as to these items causes no disadvantages here.
Your remark on page 2 that the giving to Paul at Philippi is light that brothers do not give to the Levites, but the saints give collectively and intelligently is not clear to me. Paul directs, “Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teaches in all good things” (Galatians 6: 6).
In your last paragraph on page 2 you enquire as to whether the working out of what is done should not be a matter of wisdom in each gathering in the light of local conditions. I would say that each gathering moving independently to any extent in any assembly responsibility is to be deprecated. I know there has been much of this on more counts than one, and perhaps no gathering is blameless, but I am sure the Lord [p. 349] is stressing oneness, and He loves to see it both in principle and practice “in all the assemblies”.
It is only about eight months ago that I learnt that many meetings in England have recently adopted methods that I had not even heard of — certainly different to what brethren generally during fifteen or so years regarded as scriptural. And only within a short time have I heard that the same is true in Australia. Your letter just received is the first word of it as to Sydney I have heard.
You rightly say on page 2 that love’s obligation is to provide for the Levite and the poor — always and not ‘special’. But although it may be called love’s obligation, it is not always met, and hence the need of stimulation. This is largely what the apostle stresses in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. This stimulation we find is needed in furthering our collections for the Levites and the poor. It will not do to say that this stimulation and speciality are needed only in such an emergency as is contemplated in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9; they apply peculiarly when those who should be objects of our affection are involved. It would be a loss indeed if the precious special instruction and stimulation of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians as to giving could be applied only to emergency cases such as the need in Great Britain to which you refer. It is intended to help the whole assembly as to its bounty in all times and circumstances.
Love to you and all the brethren,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.