BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 19TH, 1944
BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 19TH, 1944
Mr. W. J. House.
Beloved Brother, — I must apologise for slowness in acknowledging your letters, especially as mine to you are a long time in reaching you.
I have been hindered, too, by illness caused by nose-bleedings. These caused some concern, but they were found by the specialist to be superficially caused. They have not returned, thank God.
Your two letters — one, through you from the brethren, and the other your own — I thank you for particularly. I am glad to have the details of your exercises and decisions as to the matter of the collection. I quite agree that differences as to methods — times allocated for certain meetings, etc., have to be left with the local brethren and that local conditions often affect these.
The current exercise, however, took on a peculiar and challenging character. I saw one circular from England sent out as representing decisions reached as to procedure for four meetings, with no reference to any others, or suggestion that the decisions should be followed. And from others I saw, it [p. 359] would seem as if an epidemic of desire for change had started. In general there seemed no co-ordination, according to all facts I have seen; the Sydney alteration was the first, and apparently the brethren there did not follow any example. But from your letters and others from Australasia, and letters from this side of the world, I gather there is a general desire to be of one mind. This surely is a result for which we can give thanks to God, for it shows that His hand is at work for practical unity.
Next to London, I believe, Sydney has the greatest amount of ‘care’ as to physical matters, and we think of you all in this connection. I have no doubt you find, as we in New York do, that simplicity is one of the greatest helpers. I am sure you need a care meeting every week, and the same is true of Melbourne. We get along with one a month! Of course, we have a much smaller number — now nine meetings instead of ten. But we find much can be left with each sub-division. All financial matters except the special collections are thus treated. Also all details as to persons seeking fellowship, including formal visitations, remain with the brothers in the respective meetings; also ‘discipline’ cases. But each case either for fellowship or discipline is placed under review at the general care meeting. We find confidence works well in all this and the Lord blesses it.
As regards the present result reached in the minds of brethren generally, shorn of details, it seems to be just the special collection for the labourers and the needy, and that this special collection has stimulation in mind; otherwise it is one of the rest, occurring every four or five weeks. It is thus on the principle — and hence scripturally warranted — of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9.
Referring to city readings, these are based on 1 Corinthians 14: 23 - 32. What helped several years ago as to them is the reference to facts as to the “hill of God” in 1 Samuel 10. The term indicates the power of God. Such meetings, I understand, are intended to augment the weekly course of meetings and the greatest need for help is in the middle of the week.
What you allude to as a ‘delicate’ matter — marriages between persons in fellowship and those who are usually regarded as Christians in independent bodies, such as Open Brethren: this plague has to be faced wherever the fellowship of Christ’s death is maintained. I note the number of unmarried [p. 360] sisters breaking bread in Sydney. In view of the large number of gatherings there, this number is possibly not more than the average elsewhere. But at any rate, the disadvantages of unmarried life — if there be any — must be included in the terms of the covenant which fellowship involves. Some of these terms are at least implied in 1 Corinthians 7: 32 - 40. One item is that “he that marries does well; and he that marries not does better”. This, I need not say, applies both to a brother or sister. The whole passage quoted should be read carefully. It places with divine wisdom and authority the unmarried sister in the advantage. No godly sister will make little of this, and if, in the ordering of the Lord, she has not obtained a husband, she will seek to find out how she can be ‘better’ single; or He may give her a husband if she sincerely waits on Him. But she will not compromise the fellowship in taking a husband who is not in it.
I know how much can be said as to this, but the Lord is looking to those who have the light He has caused to shine upon us, to maintain it by walking in it and contending for it in detail. In the revival in which we have part, men of God suffered in contending for the truth of separation from evil, and if sisters (or brothers) disregard this in marrying persons not in separation they are sinning and must accept the consequences. As to what judgment their brethren may form, this should be governed by all the facts — their respective histories, etc. — but the general principles governing fellowship must be maintained — maintained as a standard. Of course, grace will be active, but to lower the divine standard, whatever it may be in any matter, is a crime against the truth. The priest’s eyes, normally, will not fail to discriminate in each case. There will be a right and holy appraisement. The assembly, as formed according to God in truthful righteousness and holiness, can be trusted as to this. To depart from this and commit ourselves to written or unwritten forms of procedure will surely lead us to human levels as to doctrine and practice.
The above remarks cover also what you say as to burials, whether of relatives or employers. There is something probably to be learned from the burials of Abraham and Isaac, and of the natural feelings or sentiments legitimately entering into the death of relatives, or other causes of sorrow experienced by them, and brethren divinely instructed ought, by the Lord’s help, to be able to meet them. In truth, every case has its [p. 361] own features and, hence, divine help is needed in each, and instruction develops out of it as we are with the Lord about it. As I said, the brethren in Sydney — with London and Melbourne — have more to do with these matters than others, and I am sure that those elsewhere are sympathetic with this; but I am certain that adherence to the sound teaching of Scripture in dependence on the Holy Spirit is the only safe course for the saints today as it has always been.
In saying this I am far from ignoring spiritual gifts, especially those of wisdom and government, also the precious fact that the assembly is the temple of God, in which enquiries can be made.
As to the holy subject you mention — that of the Lord worshipping — I cannot say that my thought as to it has changed since the time of the meeting at Barnet, which you refer to. I have no hesitation in saying that Scripture shows that He worshipped God. It belonged to the position in manhood that He had entered into. Worship is somewhat wide in its meaning, including singing in the midst of the assembly. But we should touch it, as it were, lightly, the same qualification applying to other things.
My wife unites in love in Christ to Mrs. House and you and your family, and to all the brethren.
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.