BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 9TH, 1931
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 9TH, 1931
Mr. D———.
My Dear Brother, — Your letter of the 7th inst. has just come and I thank you for it.
The first and chief fact to be noted in this Columbus matter is that it is occasioned by a request for fellowship in their breaking bread there, addressed to the nearest meetings, by a few saints resident in that city. Should this be granted or not? Who should immediately say? It is a matter which in principle concerns all, but Deuteronomy 21 plainly indicates that it lies with the nearest meeting (or meetings, so as to assure confidence, if it does not appear there is sufficient priestly discernment and intelligence in the one), and this way has been universally recognised among the saints, and the Lord has very definitely owned it. Why should it be disregarded in the present case? The brethren who met at Chicago, as your letter states, ‘Attached first importance to the Chicago meeting being free to commend the movement to the meetings nearest to Columbus — they being responsible in the first part for the commendation of the brethren at Michigan City to the brethren generally’. There is no scriptural principle or precedent for a meeting or assembly commending another meeting to other meetings. The Lord’s rights in the midst of “two or three” would be disregarded in such an action. To say that the few at Columbus cannot be regarded in this light would be very wrong. Severally they have been in happy fellowship with saints generally, and as loving the Lord He would own and help them in seeking to remember Him as He requested and to maintain His interests where they [p. 294] reside. Fellowship formally extended to them only recognises what is there.
But if it be said that Chicago should commend them as individuals (your letters says, ‘the movement’, which would be collective) this also would be unscriptural, for there was a recognised meeting at Michigan City before most of those who had resided there moved to Columbus, and any commendation should be by it. Besides, some of the few at Columbus never lived at Michigan City or near Chicago, and thus why should Chicago commend them? The company at Columbus is composed of some who resided there for years, as I said, others who had lived at Indianapolis, but more recently at Michigan City, and who moved to Columbus some time ago, others who lived regularly at Michigan City, but moved to Columbus also some time ago, and others who moved quite recently from Michigan City. That it should be made of first importance that a meeting much further away than three or four others should commend this company to the ‘meeting nearest’ is certainly a novelty. But it is far worse, it would involve the overthrow of the economy of the assembly, this being connected with companies in localities, each (while in one fellowship) being responsible to the Lord; the local principle widening out as necessity requires, as in the present case, but never leaping over those who should, as near, take up responsibility as neighbours.
The idea of a meeting moving from one city to another is inadmissible — it would be a meeting on wheels for a time, which would negate the local feature which Scripture requires; besides, it could not be said of the company at Columbus, for, as I said, some of them never lived at Michigan City.
The brethren meeting at Chicago to consider this matter have no status warranting them to pronounce on conditions existing at Columbus. They could, of course, take counsel as to the truth or principles governing such a position, but judgment as to conduct of any at Columbus should be left with the company at Columbus. Or if it were evident that it could not be dealt with there it should lie with the nearest meeting, according to the principle of “his neighbour next unto his house” (Exodus 12: 4), or the “city that is nearest”, (Deuteronomy 21: 3). To attach any disciplinary authority to such a meeting as was held at Chicago would soon destroy the local principle established in Scripture and land the saints into metropolitanism [p. 295] or the principle of a general assembly. What you say happened at Chicago is of this kind; ‘It was quite understood that the brethren at Chicago had expressed themselves that no encouragement should be given to them (the H——— s) to move about’, etc. That brethren (who in this case hitherto enjoyed the fellowship in confidence of saints generally) should be thus disciplined by brethren representing several meetings and resident for the most part far away from their own locality, is a wrong done to them, and highly objectionable to any sensitive mind having a knowledge of the economy of the assembly. It is, as I said, metropolitanism.
The meeting which existed at Michigan City had an assembly status equal to that at Chicago or any other, and so while it continued, any leaving Michigan City for another place would of course be commended by it. For a brother or sister in these circumstances to ask for a letter of commendation from Chicago would be out of order; and then having moved to another place his or her local responsibility would be there, and not in the place vacated. Thus the local responsibility of all those now residing in Columbus is in Columbus. The Lord will support and bless them there as they are subject to Him, and He will order the extension of fellowship to them (through the neighbouring meeting, as it is subject to His will) in due course.
Some have alleged that I am supporting Mr. H———, but this is not the point at all; it is a question of the truth or principles that govern the situation which has arisen in a most extraordinary way. A difficulty that should have been regarded as local to Columbus and the adjacent meeting (persons further away possessing needed information furnishing it, of course) has become very widespread through the attitude and actions of those at Chicago, and confirmed by those gathered at the special meetings mentioned.
My wife and I are glad to hear of you all; especially that Mrs D———’s health is improving and that the elder children are interested in the truth. May God lead them on!
Our united love in Christ to you all and to the saints.
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.