BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 20TH, 1945
BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 20TH, 1945
Beloved Brother, — I have your letter of the 15th inst. and note your remark that Mr. Howell’s letter and my telegram did not arrive until the special meetings at Kalispell had been held and that thus you could not have said anything as to the charges you had made against the two brothers — Messrs. Geiken and Ivan Johnson. The fact you refer to does not alter the seriousness of the unproved charges you made against the two brothers. Whether before or after the meetings, the allegations were in your mind and made, and they remain unjudged and unwithdrawn — at least as far as I know. You said they were ‘two self-constituted priests ... continually imposing threats’ — words that describe one of the worst sins in Christendom. I am not inferring that you mean to blacken your brothers in this way, but Scripture says, “by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned”.
[p. 380] Besides the quotation I have made from your letter, there are others of a similar class also unproved.
Another matter of grave importance is: whether the procedure at Kalispell as reported in letters, more especially by your own and the telegram signed by Messrs. Geiken and Hadley, is based on facts and assembly principles, as to whether these have not been seriously disregarded; and whether the unity professedly experienced in the local brethren was not the effect of conscience, but rather the outcome of external influence, so many from other parts being present; for instance, Mr. Ivan Johnson, said to be in agreement with the reinstatement in fellowship of ——— , and yet writing to me that he was unhappy about it, and Mr. Samuels, while writing a general letter in praise of the meetings, wrote me privately to express thankfulness for the telegram Mr. Howell and I sent you, saying that when he and others arrived the local brethren ‘were in distress and in fear as to their losing all assembly status, or being disbanded and had thought that ——— had come there for that purpose’.
I now proceed to enlarge on above remarks, hoping to clarify and confirm what they are intended to convey. First, I cannot see how the local brethren (especially Messrs. Johnson and Geiken) could rightly attend the meetings at all if they were aware of your letter of July 16th to Mr. Howell — that in which you made the charges against them — unless indeed that you judged and withdrew them.
Second. The statement in the telegram sent to me last Tuesday that the action of the so-called assembly meeting for repentance rendered invalid the previous withdrawal from Mr. Johnson is not established by fact nor by assembly principle. Mr. Robert Smith who has had the status of a local brother at Kalispell for a long time does not agree with reinstatement of ——— , and he says that Ivan Johnson and Mylo Geiken were surprised that it took place. He also says their weakness and lack of intelligence caused them to give way to your exercises in which you were helped by Mr. R——— . As I already mentioned, Ivan Johnson wrote to me that he did not agree with ———’s reinstatement. Mr. Smith says ——— was withdrawn from because of his sympathy with his daughters who were rightly withdrawn from as worldly, and even now they are worse and speak against the brethren and call them names; and that their father blames the brethren for their [p. 381] worldliness! Thus the testimony is that the three leading brothers in Kalispell are at heart and really openly out of agreement with the readmission to fellowship of ——— , and the consequent invalidity of the previous action of withdrawal.
Third. The attitude taken that assembly disciplinary actions involving the same person can be invalidated and validated almost at the same time without careful enquiry is humbling. It is a travesty of assembly order, dignity and authority. This is especially so when accompanied by false statements as to some who are involved, and when those discredited by the invalidation have testimony rendered by competent persons that they are godly and have sought in their measure to serve the Lord in what is now impugned. The fact that they through weakness and want of understanding have unwillingly given assent to what they had thought wrong does not alter this. As already said, Ivan Johnson did not really give assent, as his letter to me proves. And Robert Smith did not and does not now give assent to what was done.
Fourth. I know it is assumed that ‘our general assembly meeting for repentance’ adjusted what was needed in this respect. But is such an assembly meeting prescribed for Christians? I certainly do not know of it. What corresponds is in the Old Testament but not in the New. Repentance and confession of sins involve the individual side of the truth. The general principle would be in Peter’s word in Acts 2, “Repent and be baptised each one of you”. I know of no example in the New Testament of an assembly convened for collective confession.
I believe the Lord is stressing the assembly, both in its composition and function, and I am sure He resents anything that discredits it. When the Corinthians were misbehaving in relation to the Supper he says, “When ye come therefore together into one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper”, and “do ye despise the assembly of God?” (1 Corinthians 11: 20, 22).
As regards the situation at Kalispell, evidence is well confirmed that for some years active assembly material was there. L.E.S. says that the brothers who were leading were ‘basically right’. From my own observation I conclude that this is true and it is confirmed by reliable brethren, especially by Mr. Howell and several others. Mr. Howell furnished me with correspondence to this effect covering a considerable period. Mr. R. Smith who has been in and out among them for a [p. 382] good while affords the same testimony. It seems to me, therefore, that there should not have been any suggestion or show of starting on a clean sheet, but rather of making the most of what was there, confirming where possible what had been done, according to what the apostle said to the Corinthians, “even as ye are unleavened”. Abstract facts and statements of this kind are always needed in a condition such as Kalispell presented. There is no thought in the Corinthian epistles of cancelling what was there, but of utilising all that was of God, although very grievous conditions existed. There is evidence, as I said, that assembly conditions existed at Kalispell and the Lord is jealous of these and resents disregard of them.
With love in the Lord, I am,
Yours affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.