BROOKLYN, N.Y., NOVEMBER 21ST, 1930
BROOKLYN, N.Y., NOVEMBER 21ST, 1930
Mr. A. J. H. Brown.
Beloved Brother, — I am very glad of a line from you and what you write as to the ‘box’ rather commends itself to me; it certainly should not be made to appear as part of the Lord’s supper. Thus if, as you suggest, it is placed by itself on the table — that is, at a distance considerably greater than that separating the bread and cup — the Supper would retain its own distinctness and the box would be in seemly evidence, denoting our practical response to what is divinely presented in the ‘emblems’.
As regards 172:3, verse 3, I quite follow your objection, but the lines you note are clearly based on Philippians 3, and while the apostle mentions certain things which, on account of Christ, he counted loss, in verse 8 he says, “Surely I count also all things to be loss”. Of course “things” cannot be said to include ‘persons’ and therefore not one’s wife and children. ‘The dearest object of our love’ would include persons and so is not literally right; that is, if we view the matter purely from the standpoint of the wilderness.
But there is another viewpoint — that of new creation. “In Christ Jesus” there is no male or female. And has not Luke 14: 26 to be read in the light of this? Philippians 3 would be on the same line, the apostle having the full thought of God for him in view; and so elsewhere he says, “we henceforth know no one according to flesh”.
What has to be owned therefore is that Philippians 3 implies a spiritual stature and energy far beyond most, if not all, today, and so we are shut up to the necessity of taking it up in an abstract way. This is warranted; indeed otherwise there is much which we should be obliged to avoid either singing or saying. While we cannot regard persons — believing wives, etc. — as loss or dross, natural relationships, in the sense of what they afford, may be so regarded as compared with Christ. It is a question of appraisement, Christ in glory being the standard.
No doubt the writer of the hymn did not include persons (Christians) in ‘dross’, but literally they cannot be excluded as ‘objects’ of love, and so the line should be altered, as you say. As applying to things attaching to us in the flesh, in which we would live naturally, the line could be sung, however. Please God, I shall mention your remarks as the hymn is considered.
I am very thankful to hear of your visit to the north. The recovery at Cullen is a great mercy.
I have recently attended special meetings at Toronto where the Lord graciously helped His people as together. Next week meetings will, please God, be held at Council Bluffs and Plainfield.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.