JEDBURGH, SCOTLAND, JULY 16TH, 1928

JEDBURGH, SCOTLAND, JULY 16TH, 1928

My Dear Brother, — I received yours of the 10th inst. and enclosure. The painstaking which you show impresses me. I wish it were employed in a better cause. I wrote briefly in reference to a statement of mine which you quoted approvingly, suggesting that the ‘principle’, as you regarded it, was generally accepted by brethren and that what was in question as to London was the application of it, not the thing itself. As to this the ‘many’ in the area involved had agreed — could the others not fall in with them? You give me nine typewritten pages, largely seeking to show my incompetency to judge of London boundary matters; but this was not the point, but rather whether the principle mentioned was involved, or the application of it.

That it is not for a resident so far away (as I said in a letter to you) to determine matters local to London, is obvious; but your implication that I am not now in a position to form a judgment as to what should be regarded as London, for the ^[p. 234] purpose in question is another matter. If I am incompetent to do so, you are certainly not to blame! You furnished me with enough data two years ago, and I have heard you dilate more than once since on the subject. Besides, I have heard from others, as you can understand; indeed the relation of the meetings in London to the metropolis as a whole has been a concern to me for several years back, and I had been making no little enquiry as to facts even before you kindly sent me such copious information.

My letters from which you quote were based on facts submitted at the time; they were tentative professedly and not final, and the fuller information I have now shows no real discrepancy in them. What I said was London is London in an attenuated sense, but still London. Centrifugally London has worked out to limits that brethren have wisely decided should not be reckoned for the purpose on hand; but nevertheless the area is London in a sense. The extraordinary incongruity of the facts governing the London area precludes definiteness, and this consideration by itself should induce great forbearance in all concerned.

I quite accept that the direct responsibility of this boundary matter lies with those who reside in London, but responsibility as to change that may go wider because of it, belongs to all. It was on this ground I ventured to write you, for the extension of the boundary, which occasioned the discussion, was not an infringement of the principle you insist on, but a more consistent application of it in view of the changed conditions through recent growth and governmental enactments. I am most thankful for your assurance that Forest Hill brethren will not press their view, but the divergence, like the letting out of waters, may go far beyond your control or that of others. Hence the great urgency of brethren patiently seeking to see eye to eye so as not to give place to the devil. The possibility that saints may need to pore over parliamentary Acts and municipal laws and statistics to determine whether Forest Hill or the rest of London is right is distressing in the extreme. May the good Lord save us from such a disaster! I believe it is in your hands to avert the danger, and I beg of you, dear brother, to consider as before the Lord whether this is the case and seek to help your brethren in this crisis. I believe you would please the Lord by giving up digging into these worldly things; the occupation must be defiling and deadening. A large ^[p. 235] proportion of your time is necessarily consumed in ferreting out and arranging this information which might command attention, and perhaps admiration, in a worldly assembly, but is unsuitable in the house of God. The volume of this that has been brought forward necessitated Mr. Carruthers’ production (on the writing of which I believe he had divine help) but all such research should be abandoned. In your own case it must have interfered with the service which the Lord has given you, and which has been greatly valued by the saints. By waiting on God the saints in London will be enabled to determine the area in which they are responsible to Him (1 Corinthians 1) without the devious definitions of lawyers, e.g., the ordinary meaning of the word metropolis will be enough for them. The limited nature of the general over-rule of the London County Council interferes not for them with the fact that it is an over-rule; the likewise limited over-rule of the King does not deny that he is King. Normally the saints will begin with God in this enquiry and see what it is that He has been witnessing to (as He witnessed to Nineveh) and whether the boundary as decided is a little more extended or a little less does not affect, as a principle, this great matter.

Affectionately yours in Christ,

James Taylor.

PS — I much regret your reference to Nineveh in yours to me — I am sure you are mistaken. The book of Jonah helps much in the matter on hand.