JUNE 1936
JUNE 1936
Dr. R. W. Stollery.
Beloved Brother, — Your allusions to Westfield cause me the deepest concern. It is now the outstanding difficulty, Judaism is there again — the endeavour to justify partisan and personal feeling under the guise of local privilege. When the restrictions attempted on ———’s service to the Lord came up, I was told by brothers at Westfield that there was no charge pending against him, and that his status in the ‘assembly’ was the same as all others. I then pointed out that if ——— had ability from the Lord to serve the saints this was not merely local but of a universal bearing, and any effort to restrict it would interfere with the Lord’s rights. This was not denied and hence I thought the difficulty would ease off. I also pointed out strongly that any attempt to discipline or restrict a brother by a group of brothers — however many — was contrary to assembly order. This also was assented to, as I remember Mr. ——— saying ——— should be free to carry on his service, and that he had good hope matters would be adjusted on this basis. But the Montreal correspondence which I have seen shows that the truth governing the matter is being disregarded by the group of brothers I spoke to — then they numbered about five, now ‘nine’ I see. They may say they only answered an enquiry, but they did this with a manifest intent to restrict. Under such circumstances wisdom would answer Montreal by saying that ——— was in fellowship at Westfield taking part freely in assembly services and hence there could be no question as to his taking part similarly at Montreal. This is quite obvious. Personal feelings, seeing the brother’s general assembly status was owned, should not be mentioned.
[p. 35] Such feelings should not be put forward as of more importance than those of the assembly or as affecting the general status of a servant. Their mention by ——— to the brethren at Detroit so affected the brethren that a reading was spoiled. Wise handling of matters would avoid such results. If a brother’s local setting is owned as right generally, wisdom would leave him with the Lord in the exercise of his service to Him. To his own master he stands or falls. A group of brothers interfering with him is manifestly wrong.
As to the attitude of these brothers at Westfield towards ——— , brethren in other meetings are bound to be fair; he has rights equal to the other brothers. They say ‘he should be acceptable to us’ but each of them should be acceptable to him. To my knowledge they have acted most unfairly to him at times ——— tells me that in a care meeting lately he has pointed out to them the unfair things that I refer to, but could get no acknowledgement of them. Whatever may be said to the contrary, I am not considering for ——— because is my relative. I am concerned entirely that right principle should prevail amongst us. That there may be ways in ——— that irritate his brethren I do not deny, but having followed the whole matter closely I know of nothing in him so provocative as certain attitudes and procedures that I have seen in the other brothers at Westfield. If the brothers at Westfield wish to promote local and general peace and confidence they must in seeking to have matters with ——— adjusted own all they can to him, leaving with the Lord what they object to in him, unless they can prove some evil. In dealing with our brothers in this sense we are enjoined to consider ourselves.
The quotation from a paper of mine in the Westfield letter to Montreal involves a moral defect, for 1 had strongly urged on the writer the unscripturalness of his attitude towards ——— . That he had certain exercises as to ——— (as ——— has of him, I and others have too) I can understand, but circulating such personal exercises or feelings among gatherings outside so as to restrict ———’s service is manifestly wrong. The quotation from ‘The Assembly’ contemplates normal conditions, such as at Antioch — not a group of brothers acting on their own account.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.