BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 10TH, 1928
[p. 240] BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 10TH, 1928
My Dear Mr,———, — I duly received yours of October 26th and enclosures. I value your kind expressions of personal regard, which I fully reciprocate. But in spite of these expressed good feelings it does not seem that any mutual gain is accruing from our correspondence. This I am sure you regret as I do.
As stated, my object in writing you at first — in June — was not to enter into the ‘boundary’ matter but rather to urge the importance of the judgment arrived at by the ‘many’ in London with the hope that you might see your way to fall in with it, especially as the brethren generally accepted (as I then thought and still believe) the principle insisted on by you, and as your attitude tended to cleavage among the saints.
In replying to my two letters you have not dealt with my suggestion as to your moral obligation to your brethren locally and generally. This obligation is found specially in Ephesians 4: 1 - 6. That passage contains a principle of, at least, equal importance with the one you are insisting on — that ‘we accept what exists under the government of God’. Of course Ephesians 4 applies to us all, and it may seem that your brethren in the 23 meetings have not been governed by it in their recent relations with Forest Hill, but it has now a peculiar application to all in Forest Hill and the meetings at Dulwich and Eltham. You all are holding aloof from the mass of your brethren in London in the matter in question on grounds that can be determined only by wise brotherly conference as to existing secular facts, for notwithstanding the quotations you furnish from the brothers mentioned, the brethren do hold the principle you are contending for. Their remarks are due in the main (I may say, entirely) to the extraordinarily complicated laws and customs governing London. As I said, the brethren in London are really with you as to the principle, and I am assured that if they and the brethren in Forest Hill and the other two meetings come together in the fear of the Lord and as seeking in all lowliness and meekness to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace, a way will be made for you all to walk happily together. The above was what was in my mind in writing you and I do urge on you now — using the liberty which your kind words give me — to consider earnestly what I write.
Do so, please, for the Lord’s sake and for the sake of the peace of Jerusalem.
As to the seeming inconsistency in my letter to you as compared with one to ———, I would say that this is accounted for by the London boundary and governmental complications referred to above. When writing to you I was dealing with these latter, but when writing ———, I had the principle you are contending for in mind. In 1 Corinthians 7 the apostle, for a certain reason, directs that each man should have his own wife while throughout the chapter celibacy is encouraged. I need not say there is no inconsistency. When writing ———, I was contending for the general principle that we should accept what ‘the powers that be’ ordain as to city or other boundaries, but when writing you I was seeking to show that this was not the real issue in London but rather the application of it; that the extremely complicated governmental circumstances there made this most difficult — that it was thus a question of what should be regarded as London for the purpose on hand, so that the general principle could be applied. I hope you will see by what I point out that there is no inconsistency in the correspondence. I should gladly be of service to Streatham as you suggest, but I am assured, as I said, that the remarks expressed there were occasioned by conditions in London and not opposition to the principle you maintain. Mr. Dolton’s letter specially commends itself; he says, ‘It is largely a question of’ wisdom ‘as to where we draw the line’.
I must add a word as to your treatment of the cities mentioned in the Old Testament. You write, ‘I submit that none of the great cities of Scripture represent the idea of locality’. This is certainly an extraordinary suggestion. “Go to Nineveh” — locality is implied there unquestionably. That Nineveh represents certain moral features, as you say, is of course true, but it was not to these Jonah was sent but to the place; this is too obvious to require anything more to be said to prove it. Indeed Scripture actually indicates its dimensions. Locality is said by the best authorities to mean, ‘a definite spot, point, neighbourhood, site; especially geographical position’. It cannot be denied that any city answers to this definition. That the great cities of Scripture are regarded as representing more than what was local to them is, of course, true; this is indeed true of all cities ancient and modern, but it also is palpably true that each is and was a locality. The [p. 242] head of Syria was Damascus, but Damascus was nevertheless a place composed of houses, walls, people, etc. — entered by Saul, for instance. You further say, ‘So far as I see a city is not taken account of by God because of its material greatness’. The facts presented as to Nineveh do not bear this out. God says, “That great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons ... and also much cattle” (Jonah 4: 11). Again, “Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey” (Jonah 3: 3). “Three days’ journey” refers to the ground to be covered in going through — this is material; so also are persons and cattle. That in another sense material things are not great to Him is, of course, true, but we must accept what He says; besides much could be said as to His taking account of things on earth in the ordinary way in grace, also of His sympathy, compassion, etc.
I am sure we shall show wisdom and humility if when treating of material or earthly matters with which we have to do under the government of God, we speak of them as they are known by man in a general way. Thus while much may be said of the origin and technical meaning of the word ‘city’ its common or general signification should suffice for those who seek to recognise what exists under the government of God. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, ‘In common usage, however, the word implies no more than a somewhat vague idea of size and dignity, and is loosely applied to any large centre of population’. Thus while, technically, the City of London is quite small, London is yet properly described as the largest city in the world. I quote this only for the general idea, holding that boundaries should be determined, etc. It is in this sense unquestionably that God takes account of it and so has witnessed to it in grace during these many centuries. Brethren have sought to recognise this throughout and I believe they are doing so now, notwithstanding apparent incongruity on account of the conditions I have mentioned.
It seems that ‘polis’ conveyed primarily the state or area which it governed, but this was not the sense evidently in which it was used in the New Testament; it was employed as the word city or town is employed now generally in English. Thus ‘in’ Corinth, Rome, etc., meant just the ‘places’ in which the saints were. The ecclesiastical meaning attached to the word ‘city’ in France and England in early days is really of no consequence now. In translating the word ‘polis’ as used in the New Testament, what is needed is the current equivalent in either language. There can be no question that the English translators have used the right word. ‘Borough’, which you suggest as better than city, would hardly do as it is not in general current use.
I am sorry you think me ‘unwise’ in continuing to say that the London County Council is an overruling body. As I frequently said, the facts known to me prove that it is. I have not the Local Government Act, which you sent me, to quote from, but I give what I am sure is authoritative in this respect — the Encyclopaedia Britannica. ‘In 1888 the Local Government Act, dealing with the area of the metropolis as a separate County, created the London County Council as the central administrative body, possessing not only the powers of an ordinary County Council, but also extensive powers of town management’. Under ‘Sanitation’ it further says, ‘The County Council deals directly with matters where uniformity of administration is essential ... it has certain powers of supervision and control over local authorities ... outside the jurisdiction of local authorities’. As London (the great city) is the subject of the law thus dealt with and as its subdivisions are called ‘Metropolitan Boroughs’ it is perfectly evident that a County in the ordinary sense is not in view, but, as I said, a great city — ‘the metropolis of the Empire’. The word ‘County’ seems to be employed arbitrarily as applied to London, and so the word ‘borough’ — they are out of proper setting; all was for convenience and obviously in nowise intended to render the metropolis of the empire as non-existent. I note that the inner city is said to be a County of a City (Britannica), so also the Corporation of Glasgow.
As regards the word ‘metropolis’ it matters little who drew attention to ‘Lord Halsbury’s judgment;’ a definition thus given cannot alter its primary and general meaning. Its generally accepted meaning is that which God would recognise, I am sure. The most elaborate dictionary I know of makes no allusion to the legal definition you mention. Of course, as other words, it may be used arbitrarily, as applies to the policy, for I understand the ‘City’ has its own police, and of course they too belong really to the metropolis — the word used in its ordinary sense. As to Auckland in the quotation you give — the words ‘the same city’ should be left out. What I stressed at the Conference of brothers there was that if there was any [p. 244] municipal governmental element or elements extending to the whole area, Mt. Eden and the other places in question should be considered in Auckland; but it was shown that there was nothing in regard of Mt. Eden.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.