BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 29TH, 1944
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 29TH, 1944
Mr. A. Geo. Lewis.
Beloved Brother, — I regret delay in replying to your letter. But I was about to leave for Montreal when I sent you a copy of my letter to Manchester and I hoped to write when I returned, but many things came in to hinder.
Mr. House had sent me a copy of his letter to you. I replied, but was unable to make a copy of what I wrote him. It is quite legitimate for Mr. House to quote from the Reading at Edinburgh, but the context shows that I stressed the special collection, and of course the matter has become clearer in my mind since that time.
The collection for the saints rightly fell into a place in the general adjustment in which the Lord has been helping His people for many years past. It came up particularly about the time of the revision of the hymnbook. Brethren from the Dominions, including Mr. House, Dr. Elliott and many others, were in England then. As far as I remember the idea of ‘budgeting’ came into the conversations allied with the special collection. And in looking back now these, I think,
[p. 352] are the only features that were adopted, especially by the New York brethren.
What brethren generally had been accustomed to do in giving to the saints was left as it was. Budgeting was regarded as only meaning that brethren should be governed in giving to the saints according to what they had and not by the amount of the collection at any given time. This is, I believe, now generally accepted. But it was intended to have special emphasis when collections for the saints — those who serve and the needy — were in view. Thus in what has come up lately, as far as I see, the only issue is the special collection — I mean issue as regards the change made fifteen years ago, which, as I said, is chiefly the special collection. What has been added in many places lately as to budgeting for a month and other items do not commend themselves to me.
What has exercised me as much as anything else that has arisen in connection with the collection is the importance of unity, or I might say catholicity among the saints. I believe the Lord will call attention to it. Although what was done to implement the giving of the saints at the time mentioned was done openly, I may say universally, yet many brethren in Australia and England have negated it considerably and added other methods without consulting their brethren. As far as I know the brethren in America knew nothing of it until last autumn. I heard of it then, but I had no idea that it had extended so far until early this year. I can well understand that some would from habit consider such a matter very secondary or optional, but no one who valued the idea of divine directions in 1 Corinthians, especially chapter 11, would regard it in this way. This will particularly be understood as it is borne in mind that many brethren, especially in large cities, have attached considerable importance to the special collection. In their minds Paul’s letters on the subject are outstanding features of his ministry. The fact that Paul says so much about special giving for persons and hardly anything about local expenses is significant and should have correspondence in our care for obvious obligations. The procedure at Sydney seems very cumbersome. It seems right that what enters into ordinary assembly customs should be uniform, carrying an intelligible reason — that there should be no local customs. Hence the apostle says, “We have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”. All this would work out in mutual confidence and [p. 353] should add to ministry as any brother had light as to such matters.
With love in Christ in which my wife joins to you and your house.
I am, affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.