BROOKLYN, N.Y., APRIL 2ND, 1937
BROOKLYN, N.Y., APRIL 2ND, 1937
Dear Mr. — I send a line, seriatim, in answer to your letter of the 24th ult.
‘The Westfield Case’ did not need my remarks as to ———’s extended course to strengthen it — although the facts stated enter into it morally — the body of the letter you comment on shows guilt attaching to those withdrawn from that imperatively had to be judged to maintain the holiness of God’s house.
You put it to me to say whether ——— is a wicked person. For eighteen months or more he strenuously refused to judge evil done by him and others in the holy things of God and influenced others to follow his course on definitely partisan lines, and finally refused even to see his brethren, who had made it plain to him that unless he judged and renounced the evil they could not walk with him. He and another brother, he especially, had led a good few saints as a band into a self-willed course (see 1 Samuel 15: 22, 23). Scripture specially abhors this, as the passage I have mentioned shows — also Numbers 16. There is no evidence of repentance and hence the name of the whole matter is written on the face of it.
Then you speak of looking at the brothers at Westfield to whom I have given my support. A look from such a distance is very precarious! It is worse by far in your case, for it leads you to misjudge your brethren and say untrue things about them. Of ——— you say, ‘the cause of all the sorrow’ — a positive untruth. How do you know he is the cause of all the sorrow? You do not know it; you just write it, manifestly without any sense of the gravity of making such a charge against a brother without ample proof. You quote from the New York letter to Westfield of June 20th, 1935, as if this were proof. You surely must know that this letter was withdrawn
[p. 81] by its authors with sorrow. Even if it had not been withdrawn, what you quote from the New York letter could not prove your charge as righteous, but to endeavour to prove a serious charge — in this case nothing could be much more serious — from a letter withdrawn with sorrow, is a procedure that needs no comment; it carries its own condemnation. If you say you were unaware of the withdrawal, then you show your incompetency to have to say to the matter at all.
As to the other brothers, your comments are really of no value, for you are not really acquainted with them or their circumstances. Of one you say ‘he has been described to me as uncommonly weak’. This is simply untrue, for he has shown himself a brother of courage and clear-sightedness. He manfully renounced the evil he had been linked with as one of the party and has pursued a steady course in support of what is right and true ever since. The brethren are cheered by him. You enquire, ‘is he not of the same nationality as your son-in-law?’ Why this enquiry if not to insinuate bias? They are of the same nationality for both were born and brought up in the United States.
Then you speak of ‘———’s little boy, your grandson, aged 14, believe’. This ‘little boy’ is, I judge, as tall as you, and is well developed physically, mentally, and spiritually. He is now in his eighteenth year and takes part acceptably in nearly all meetings he attends. There is another ‘little boy’ of ———’s who began to break bread last November, that is, since you were last here, and hence you cannot have him in mind.
Your thought is clearly to discredit the meeting at Westfield, but you omitted to mention two other brothers — Ewing and Edwin Storr, the latter mature — he is married and has a child of five-and very promising. There are 18 in all, including another brother named Mr. Long, and the Lord manifestly helps them. You will see thus that your long-distance look at Westfield deceived you.
As regards ———’s support of ——— , you are basing your remarks on the circular on boundaries, but this was late in the exercise. ——— said he got the substance of it ‘on the Pacific’ — that is, on his way back from Australia. He had changed his mind and his circular cut across the Forest Hill principles. But earlier ——— had been with ——— . I am basing this on what was generally known here, especially by myself, and in South Africa when I was there last year it was stated [p. 82] resentfully that ——— when there had advocated the Forest Hill cause. And this is confirmed by a statement by someone, I forget the name, but I remember well the statement, that ——— noted in his diary while on his southern trip that ——— was right.
Thus you will see that I cannot withdraw what I wrote on this point. But righteousness requires that you should withdraw the letter I am replying to, for it is wrong throughout, both in spirit and contents.
Yours faithfully,
James Taylor.