BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 18TH, 1935
BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 18TH, 1935
Mr. P——— ,
Jamaica, B.W.I.
Dear Brother, — Thanks for yours of the 4th inst. with copy of my letter enclosed. I also received by the same mail certain information from other sources that I wrote for. Having weighed all, as I trust before the Lord, my judgment as to the position of Mr. K——— and those with him is that it is untenable and should be abandoned at once by all in it as unsupported by scriptural principles.
Besides your letter, I earlier received a letter from Mr. K——— , and the burden of his letter is that there was a bad state at Halfway-Tree when the discipline against W——— was exercised and that this practically disqualified them to take such a course. This is the ground you take, and no doubt it is shared in by all those who are with Mr. K——— , and I believe is the explanation of the great sorrow that has transpired at Kingston.
To assume that a meeting is not in a state to exercise discipline, is to assume that there are no assembly conditions there and the meeting is undeserving of being recognised as in fellowship. Neither Mr. K———’s letter to me, nor yours, furnish any evidence that Halfway-Tree should be regarded in this way. Mr. K———’s judgment and what Mr. Besley and Mr. Ralph are reported to have said (the reports given of [p. 8] Messrs. Besley and Ralph are strongly contested by competent witnesses in Kingston) cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence of the bad state at Halfway-Tree. The judgment of brothers rendered in this way is too vague, save as substantiated by actual facts.
But assuming that Halfway-Tree was in a bad state, this, as I have already said to you, cannot be adduced as a reason why discipline against a specific sin should not be administered. The epistles to Corinth show unmistakably that not only was the assembly at Corinth in a bad state in the sense in which Mr K——— regards Halfway-Tree, but there were actually other wicked persons in the meeting as the twelfth chapter of the second Epistle shows. As to this, Mr. K——— says, ‘I cannot conceive the Corinthians reading an inspired epistle from the pen of the apostle Paul and not being reduced to mourning’. This remark is quite irrelevant. If the apostle had said in directing them to exercise discipline against the wicked person named, that they should not do so until they were humbled by his letter, then Mr. K———’s remark would be in order, but the apostle says nothing of the kind. It is true that the apostle in his spirit had part in the discipline, as he says, “Ye and my spirit being gathered together”, but he makes no provision that they should be humbled by his letter before they should do this. It is true that the Corinthians were affected by the apostle’s first letter, but we cannot say much as to what spirit they were in when they executed the discipline on the wicked person. The point is that the apostle insisted on their doing it without stipulating that they must first be in a certain state. In chapter 5 he mentions his own spirit and the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, but in verse 13 he says, “remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”. This was their obligation whatever their state. The action would tend to remove the bad state; they were so far acting in obedience, and would be challenged as to themselves by what they were doing.
It may be remarked further that 2 Corinthians 12, shows that even after the first letter was received the general state of the assembly could not be said to be good; far otherwise, for the apostle mournfully contemplates that there were still there persons who had committed fornication and licentiousness and had not repented. I regard, therefore, the attitude of Mr. K——— and those who are with him in regard to the [p. 9] discipline against Mr. W——— as tending to set aside the truth of assembly discipline, for it requires that the greatest evil must be left unjudged because of an alleged bad state in a given assembly. Your view is contrary to the plainest facts presented in first and second Corinthians as to discipline.
I earnestly hope that Mr. K——— and all of you who are with him will see this before the Lord and judge it as false. If you do this there will be good hope of the recovery of you all, as the other matters in question could be, I believe, easily adjusted. As regards what Mr. Besley and Mr. Ralph are supposed to have said, as I remarked above, this is strongly contested in sober evidence, and I cannot accept on general grounds that Mr. Besley would charge Halfway-Tree with ‘pride, arrogance and self-will or lawlessness as appear in W———’. If this state existed in Halfway-Tree, then Mr. Besley was morally wrong in breaking bread there.
Having shown from first and second Corinthians that a low or bad state in a meeting should not disallow an act of discipline against known evil there, I need not comment on what Mr. K——— , as followed by you, has said as to Judges. Of course, brethren who execute discipline should recognise that they themselves should be self-judged, but this is another matter, and a most important one too; but to discredit an act of discipline against known evil because those who exercised it are assumed not to be in a good state is pernicious. Mr. K———’s letter and yours, as disregarding scriptural principles and facts as shown above, prove that you are not in a state to pronounce on the state of Halfway-Tree. Please do not consider that I am arbitrary or severe in saying this. It is proved by what I have said above, and if you accept it as before the Lord and judge yourselves, there will be deliverance for you from your present false position. As regards Judges 20, Judges 21, while Israel being in a bad state suffered under the government of God, yet the judgment they attempted was not condemned by God. It was eventually effected by His help.
I refer now to some further statements in your letter of August 19th.
In regard to your charge that some ‘chuckers-out’ were employed, what I wrote to you from England is sustained by reliable information from Kingston. As regards your report of what Mr. Ralph said as to this, a letter from Halfway-Tree reads as follows: — ‘[p. 10] Mr. Ralph emphatically denies having said to P——— what he states. What he did say was to this effect — It was regretful that such means had to be used, but under the circumstances the brethren were right in keeping the intruders out in this way’.
This agrees with my own judgment of the matter, and I cannot, therefore, share in your attitude, especially as it seems that you have exaggerated the facts.
As regards the matter of sin which had been hidden for so long, information that I have received from Kingston confirms what I wrote to you from England including Mr. K———’s part in it. It would appear that the other two brothers in question were disciplined for concealing the matter, and hence the case should have been considered as closed, and should not be brought up now. It is most difficult for brethren at a distance to form a judgment of a case of this kind seeing so much detail enters into it. Brethren at a distance, therefore, rightly accept what the local meeting may do in such a case. To bring it up, after it is ostensibly settled, to cause it to bear on other things is manifestly not of God.
You pretend to judge the state of a meeting as bad which is accredited as in fellowship with saints generally, and yet your own state is shown to be bad by the way you write about your brethren. You must pardon me, my dear brother, for writing you in this way, but I do so to save you from a false position. Your letters to me prove that your state is not such as to qualify you to take the part you are taking as to the holy things of God.
Having carefully looked into your letters and that of Mr. K——— and others with you, I cannot but accept the signed testimony issued by the brethren in Kingston with whom I am breaking bread. The fact that a good number sided with Mr. K——— at the time of the discipline meeting did not prove that he was right or unworthy of the discipline proposed to be executed against him. His views as to discipline, and his opposition to what was done at Halfway-Tree resulting in a wide cleavage in the meetings constituted him as a causer of division with heretical characteristics, and hence he and those who acted with him could not be regarded as fit for fellowship. The action of the brothers at the time of the discipline meeting was one of withdrawal from evil, and no number, however large, on the side of the evil can invalidate this. The number [p. 11] supporting the withdrawal is, I understand, much larger than that of those refusing it.
As regards your statement ‘that the necessity for exercising discipline on Mr. W——— has never been called in question by Mr. K——— or any of his’, I quote from a letter just received from Halfway-Tree: — ‘It is not correct, for to my personal knowledge K——— , B——— , H——— , and P——— maintained for quite a while that they did not see any necessity for W——— to be disciplined. It was only when W——— started to show such open lawlessness that they had to come to it ... . P——— himself wrote a letter in 1930 to our brother D——— , now gone to be with the Lord, demanding that W——— should be received again without any questioning, and K——— told a brother that W——— was in a better state than anyone at Halfway-Tree and should be received when we resumed the breaking of bread’.
As this flat denial of your statement corresponds with the general principle Mr. K——— and you all hold as to the action at Halfway-Tree, it is difficult not to accept it as generally true.
I need not add more to this already long letter, but I assure you I am genuinely anxious to help you all, and I feel obliged from the general facts to speak plainly and strongly with a hope that the Lord may use what I write for the deliverance of you all from the false position you are in and restore you to your brethren.
I may add that I am sorry to learn that Mr. K——— is quite poorly, and I hope the Lord will restore him in his body as well as in his soul, so that he may be with his brethren and resume the same kind of profitable service he once rendered. He will forgive me for embodying my answer to his letter in my letter to you. This is so as to avoid unnecessary writing. You will, I am sure, show my letter to Mr. K——— if he is equal to reading it, and assure him of my love.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
James Taylor.