BROOKLYN, N.Y., MAY 23RD, 1945
[p. 375] BROOKLYN, N.Y., MAY 23RD, 1945
Mr. W. J. House.
Beloved Brother, — I have received your letters of February 24th, April 6th and April 13th. These are all most interesting and I thank you for them.
First, I must allude to the following in your letter of February 24th: ‘I am at a loss to understand your reference to a circular from England sent out as representing decisions reached as to procedure for our meetings here, for I have never heard or seen such a circular’.
As to above quotation it seems a verbal error was made either in my letter or by you in copying it. In the typed copy I made of my letter the sentence from which you quote reads, ‘I saw one circular from England sent out as representing decisions reached as to procedure for four (four underlined) meetings, with no reference to any others, or suggestion that the decisions should be followed’. You evidently read ‘four meetings’ as ‘our meetings’, as I said. This may be due to faulty handwriting on my part, but I certainly had no thought in my mind of connecting the circular mentioned with Australia. It was linked only with four meetings in England, and I mentioned it to show the extraordinary trend of the time.
That you were free to cause my letter to be read among the saints caused thankfulness, for I believe the error of the tendency of view as to mixed marriages which it deplored should be pressed upon all.
Now, as to the chief subject of your letter, the case of ——— I have read carefully your letter and I thank you for it, especially because of the evident care expended on it; including the further letter written on the 13th inst. With what you wrote I also read carefully considerable information sent by Mr. Alfred House during the recent winter. Mr. F. Willy also wrote quite recently. Thus, I believe, I am fairly well acquainted with the facts entering into the course of the enquiry.
I have particularly noted letters written by ——— to Mr. John McAlpin in September 1943, and to Mr. Alfred House in December 1943. In these ——— professedly goes to the bottom of his history in relation to his part in the failure of ——— and other unrighteousnesses extending back to 1930.
Much of this unrighteousness was not disclosed at the time of the first assembly meeting, that of 1937; but it attached to ——— as before God and was not included in the judgment [p. 376] reached at that time by the brethren who met in assembly. Nor was it disclosed at the second assembly meeting, and hence the release and forgiveness extended by the brethren at that meeting cannot, in the light of the true facts be regarded as wholly valid. As there was a lack of transparency in ——— in the whole proceeding, although attended with great outward care and anxiety involving assembly authority and solemnity, the concealment of the financial matter of 1930 and other wrong conduct finally admitted, affected adversely the judgments rendered in both meetings. ———’s confessions in 1943, already referred to, confirm all this.
As to the responsibility of the brethren in Sydney there can be no doubt, in the light of the facts given above, that a grave failure of judgment in the assembly has occurred and that this should be owned before God. Leviticus 4: 13 - 21 is, I feel sure, applicable. The omission of use of New Testament available Scripture in the judgments rendered in the case increase the responsibility of the brethren in this. The disregard of the judgment of godly brethren such as Mr. F. Willy — who from the outset was grieved by what had been done in the matter — should have place in the consciences of the brethren. Our brother’s absence could not invalidate this judgment, especially as he was “one of you”. I have a copy of Mr. Willy’s letter to you of May 1st 1937, expressing this judgment.
As regards Mr. Willy’s disagreement with the first assembly judgment, I believe it is quite justified. ———’s admitted part in the business failure bears on this very strongly. His subsequent confession, to which I have referred and other facts, show that he was a shareholder in the business in which unrighteous transactions had taken place causing the exclusion from fellowship of the other partners. There was no evidence shown in the first assembly meeting that ——— was less guilty than the other partners: ——— and ——— . The conscience of the assembly could not forgive him; he was an active partner, buying and selling, and having full access to the books of the firm, and his subsequent confessions show that he was guilty with the other members, indeed consciously so. How then can it be shown that ——— should, as unforgiven, be allowed to remain in fellowship? The answer is obvious.
I may mention here that in a recent letter to Mr. Willy I pointed out that the scriptures of the New Testament, especially [p. 377] in judicial matters, should have precedence as compared with those of the Old Testament, although all are inspired of God. It is clear that the authority of Christ and of His apostles should (according to the order indicated in the scriptures themselves) have the first place. Thus it is said the converts at Pentecost continued in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, and Peter and James in their ministry at Jerusalem, Acts 15, show the same order. I also called the attention of Mr. Willy to certain features of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings tending to confirm what he said in letters to you regarding the first assembly judgment.
With love in Christ to you and the brethren, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.