BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY, 1931
[p. 296] BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY, 1931
Mr. D———.
My Dear Brother, — Answering your letter of the 15th inst. I would say that I am very thankful that you concur in all I said in my previous letter as to local responsibility. This involves the procedure in the two special meetings held in Chicago, for according to the notice of them signed by 4 brothers, they were composed Of ‘40 brothers from 12 different meetings’ to form a ‘judgment’ as to matters local to another city and this judgment was formally signed by 4 brothers, addressed to a brother in that city and sent to him. This brother was mainly the subject of the ‘judgment’. This is directly contrary to the word of God in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, in which the parents of the rebellious son are directed to bring him to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place, etc. Whatever, therefore, the conduct of Mr. H——— or others in Columbus, whether in Michigan City or elsewhere, the enquiry should be at Columbus and not at Chicago, and those who took part in the unscriptural proceedings at Chicago will need to clear themselves before God and their brethren.
As a matter of fact it is doubtful that the conduct of any of us would bear such an unscriptural and consequently unspiritual examination as Mr. H———’s was submitted to. The notice shows that the testimony of one witness was accepted, e.g. that of Mr. J———. If, for instance, your movement from Toronto to London, including your history and relations in the former city, was investigated in this way at that time you would object, I am sure. Suppose the investigation was by ‘40 brothers from 12 different meetings met together’ at Hamilton, the brethren there having been adverse to you. It would be wrong (because of the composition of the enquiry meeting and the locality) even at Toronto. In the present case the error is worse, for Mr. H——— had not left Chicago, not having lived there, but in Michigan City.
You enquire, ‘Does the fact not still exist, that the brethren at Michigan City formally came together and agreed to all moving to Columbus?’ Does it exist? You should know, as having attended the enquiry meetings. Was it proved there? If not it must be ruled out. The discontinuance of a meeting does not in itself involve any principle. I could cite many instances of meetings discontinuing and I never heard complaint [p. 297] of transgression as to them. But even were there this it would need to be dealt with in the local setting of the person or persons involved. I have known meetings discontinued in a town and set up in another, the same persons, and no one questioned this. It was a matter of convenience, which the Lord would own.
As regards the move from Michigan City, I never knew of such pains taken to acquaint brethren generally of such an occurrence, Chicago being included, and yet there was no objection, as far as I know, until the request was made for fellowship in the breaking of bread at Columbus. If any divine principle was being violated this should have been brought to the attention of those who resided at Michigan City, that is, while they remained there. I saw friendly correspondence between my brother at Chicago and Mr. H——— in November relative to the latter’s removal to Columbus and no objection was made.
You ask ‘Is it right that the H——— s should move freely among the saints?’ According to authentic information from your parts you had decided that they should not, basing your decision on what was judged at Chicago, and that it was actually put into effect. This, as I said in my last letter, is unwarranted, as these brethren are not under discipline by any competent authority.
You will be aware that ——— has condemned his part in this whole matter; I hope you will do the same, dear brother.
It is due to the Lord and your brethren that you should.
Affectionately in the Lord,
James Taylor.