BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 14TH, 1931
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 14TH, 1931
Mr. A———.
My Dear Brother, — A copy of a letter written to Mr. H——— from Chicago dated January 5th was sent to New York. This letter records a procedure in that city which disregarded a feature of the truth governing the assembly, and as the brethren at Cincinnati are, according to the letter, involved in this, I think it right to send a line. I do so especially as the brethren at Cincinnati form the nearest meeting to Columbus and so the immediate responsibility of enquiring as before the Lord into the position or state of the saints residing in this city falls to them.
[p. 298] The truth set aside is that taught in Deuteronomy 21: 1 - 9 and like passages in the Old Testament, such as Exodus 12: 4, bearing on and amplifying the local aspect of the assembly as presented in the two epistles to Corinth. There we have God’s assembly, in a city, and it is said to be His temple and Christ’s body, the Spirit of God being there. Thus it is furnished in every way to meet its obligations, to act for God in its own sphere. Gifts are set in the assembly (chapter 12) in its universal aspect, and of course, these are for all, and so where available may be consulted, especially “governments” in a circumstance such as that at Columbus. But the mind of God as to any matter may be sought in His temple in a local assembly, and power, in the Spirit, is available to carry it out. What is thus set out in the Corinthian letters applies to Cincinnati or any place in which saints are gathered to the Lord’s name.
The Chicago letter states that ‘the brethren from Indianapolis and Cincinnati desired the judgment of their brethren from other parts in regard to what is right in relation to Columbus; consequently 40 brothers from 12 meetings met together’. Thus, we have a meeting called in Chicago to judge of matters relative to saints in Columbus, a city hundreds of miles away, and this meeting composed of brothers from many gatherings, some of which are thousands of miles away from the place concerning which enquiry is to be made and judgment to be passed! The number of meetings is mentioned, as if this added weight, whereas in truth if all the meetings in the world were represented, this would only add to the error. It would be a ‘general council’ such as Rome would convene. This is not warranted by Scripture, on the contrary these councils from an early date obliterated the status of the local assembly as taught in 1 and 2 Corinthians, which I have mentioned. It will be serious indeed if this heritage, which the Lord has restored to His people, should again become lost. His place and authority in the midst of two or three gathered to His name would thus cease.
As I have already said in relation to 1 Corinthians 12, counsel may rightly be sought where needed from any brother or brothers capable by wisdom or experience of giving it, but this is an entirely different matter from a lot of brothers from different localities ‘met together’ to arrive at a ‘judgment’ as to matters local, especially when local to another city. Besides, any counsel obtained from brothers supposed competent [p. 299] to give it should be taken up by those who sought it and weighed before the Lord in their locality so that they should be assured of its being according to His mind.
The meeting at Chicago is said to have reached ‘a judgment’ which according to the information I have in addition to the Chicago letter, is of a piece with the composition and assumed status of the meeting — it has not scriptural support. Mr. D——— who attended the meetings held, writes me as follows ‘The brethren representing several meetings at Chicago 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’. This is in keeping with Mr.———’s judgment conveyed in a letter to Mr. H——— before he went to Chicago. The Chicago letter does not go so far, but nevertheless records the unscriptural feature, that a meeting being near can recommend another meeting to other meetings or ‘brethren generally’ and that having done so it retains a certain sponsorship for it which the latter has to recognise. All this is a human way of viewing and dealing with the things of God, having no scriptural sanction; indeed Scripture is not appealed to in this letter. The idea entering into a company of saints beginning to break bread in a place, answering the Lord’s request, is that brethren in the nearest meeting recognise that the features of the assembly are there (however small and feeble) and so extend fellowship. Normally, all other meetings accept this and so “keep the unity of the Spirit”. One assembly assuming oversight or sponsorship over another, in however little a degree, to this extent disregards the Lord’s place and rights in the latter.
You will understand that I am not entering into the wisdom (according to records Chicago was notified of the intended move to Columbus) or unwisdom of what was done at Michigan City; these are matters which brethren at Cincinnati and Columbus will no doubt enquire into in due course; I am concerned about the divine principles that were disregarded at Chicago and that the brethren at Cincinnati may be helped as waiting on God in the responsibility as to Columbus that under Him has come to them. Our testimony largely lies in adhering to what is ‘written’, in being governed by the light intended by God for our guidance in any position or service to which we may be called.
[p. 300] I enclose copy of a paper written for publication in regard of a current exercise in England; it bears on the present case, as you will see. It may be of help to you and the brethren.
Love in Christ to you all.
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.