BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 23RD, 1925
BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 23RD, 1925
Mr. A. M. Hayward.
Beloved Brother, — Your letter of January 16th has remained unanswered longer than I intended but I have been greatly pressed for time so I am sure you will pardon.
I kept no copy of my letter relative to ‘District Meetings’, but I did not intend to convey the thought that I objected to them as I have seen them, but rather, as you say, the abuse them. As this is what the letter conveyed to you I do not suppose either alteration or addition is -needed. From your letter I judge that your mind in the matter differs nothing from mine.
But I do not see any scriptural justification for limiting a meeting arranged for ministry except what may be necessary for physical convenience. Anything else, it seems to me, is not a recognition of “the unity of the Spirit”, and the universality of gift. The saints are wisdom’s children, and much is left to our wisdom, the existence of love being assumed, as moving in the recognition of the general principles which are [p. 207] to govern the house of God, but if anything is introduced infringing on any of these principles, it is due to the Lord that attention should be called to it. If, therefore, a meeting for fellowship, ministry, etc., is arranged in a given place, and a brother with ability to help the saints, living nearby and wishing to attend is prevented because of district limitations, then, it appears to me, the principle governing levitical service is interfered with. Further, if saints in general are prevented by district limitations, the truth of the body of Christ is interfered with. Other modifications besides those required by physical convenience may exist, such as the judgment of the saints as to the brother or brothers whose ministry would be most suited on a given occasion, but this comes under the head of wisdom, and does not infringe a levitical principle.
I am doubtful, too, as to the scripturalness of a ‘District Meeting’ that is, a meeting having such a fixed character. I think the idea of a meeting, or coming together in one place should have the assembly in the locality as its basis, not a number of assemblies.
It will be observed that in addressing the Galatians the apostle says, “The assemblies of Galatia”, that is, the exercise or obligation of the error would be on each local company. He does call them “senseless Galatians” later on to bring home the error to every one of them, but the formal address is to the assemblies, whereas, the Colossians are addressed as “faithful brethren”, but when the letter is directed to be passed on to Laodicea it is to “the assembly of Laodiceans”. The responsibility involved in the epistle applied in each locality. There is no hint of a joint meeting. The apostle further says, “And that ye also read that from Laodicea”, and so the seven assemblies in Asia (Revelation 2 and 3), they are addressed severally. In a word, it is clear that the local assembly is the basis for coming together, direct responsibility being connected with it.
In view of all this I have a certain apprehension of danger in the country being divided into districts with corresponding limitations. There is a tendency towards the parochial and even diocesan systems of the State Church. There is no warrant in Scripture for a church in a district as including all the companies in it, or for a National Church. The economy of the assembly is worked out in assemblies and all coming together into one place is in this connection, as far as I see, and not in relation to districts or countries. Jerusalem, as we see [p. 208] in Acts 15 had a unique place (in the all wise ways of God), but this need not be taken into consideration now.
By the way, I have heard that you base the Park Street readings on Acts 15. Is this correct? I hope not, for such a thought would give these meetings a metropolitan importance and I need say nothing of such a danger. God has graciously blessed them as arranged in love and wisdom for conference and general edification, making for unity in the Spirit among the brethren.
My wife and I were thankful when we heard the Lord had taken dear Miss Bridle to Himself. I am sure Mrs. Hayward and you are comforted that she has thus passed out of her sufferings for ever. The Lord has taken to Himself a great many during the past few months.
We hope to leave here on the 28th for Vancouver and New Zealand, etc.
Our united love in Christ to you both,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.
Your brother Jack and his wife passed through lately going to Bermuda. The Lord is blessing them, I believe.