BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 19TH, 1931

BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 19TH, 1931

Mr. McL———.

My Dear Brother, — What I have seen in answer to the request for fellowship by the saints at Columbus fixes attention almost entirely on Mr. H——— and the evident idea of a company of saints seeking to walk together in Christian fellowship is overlooked. Even though the proposed time set for the breaking of bread did not afford as much time for consideration as some thought necessary, a brotherly word of counsel to wait with the assurance that inquiry would be at once made by those immediately responsible (those in the nearest meeting) would have shown a shepherd spirit. It may be said that this was done, but was it? I believe I have accurate information, and from it I learn that there has been no inquiry made yet at Columbus, where it should be made according to Scripture (see the emphasis on “his city” in Deuteronomy 21: 18 - 21). The matter was surely important, involving something for Christ, and if it was inconvenient for brothers near to go to Columbus immediately, they could at least make clear that they would go.

Instead of this, inquiry was made in Chicago, where it should not be made, that city being farther away than four others where meetings are. This led to meetings being held in Chicago composed of ‘40 brothers from 12 different meetings’ to form a judgment as to Columbus. The inquiry involved accusations made against a brother in Columbus and a ‘judgment’ reached, this ‘judgment’, being signed by four brothers as addressed to the brother in question (Mr. H——— ) and sent to him at Columbus. In this there was disregard of the principle clearly set out in the passage quoted; the “rebellious son” (which expression is somewhat in keeping with what some in Chicago said of Mr. H——— !) is brought “unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place”. Note, it is not their — the parents’ — city. Those responsible for those ^[p. 301] inquiry meetings at Chicago therefore acted in an unscriptural way.

You will see that I am not, in what I am saying, seeking to justify Mr. H———, but rather to call attention to the serious way in which Scripture has been disregarded in the way the request of the saints at Columbus has been dealt with, particularly in those meetings at Chicago. But then all should seek to justify Mr. H——— if possible. I mean, “I desire to justify thee”, as Elihu said. I have not seen this in any of the things said or written by those who had part in the Chicago meetings. Notwithstanding this, nothing has been proved against him involving fellowship. He had been in happy fellowship generally and received in ministry, taking the lead in Detroit at the end of November, and it was well known a considerable time before that he was moving to Columbus, and I saw happy correspondence between himself and my brother George in connection with his (H———’s) move to Columbus, and then because of a proposal to break bread at Columbus (some irregularities being alleged, which even if true, were minor) this widespread storm arises! I understand that some in Cincinnati and Indianapolis said that those in Columbus should not be allowed to break bread if they came to either place. I understand also that much was made at Chicago of the movement from Michigan City, it being said in the letter to Mr. H——— that this was ‘a breach of fellowship’. Why was this not taken up while Mr. H — - was in Michigan City; it was known he was leaving? But in truth there was nothing to take up in this respect. The explanation of Mr. H———’s removal from Michigan City was very full and made widely known, including Chicago. There was no injury done to anyone by it that I know of. To say that an ‘injury’ was done to the Lord is going beyond the facts; He will have a company in Columbus, and in all likelihood better results from a testimony there. This movement is spoken of as a ‘great sorrow’, ‘breach of fellowship’, etc., but these are mere words.

But I have by no means stated the whole case of the Chicago proceedings and so I send you copy of a letter I wrote to Mr. A.

With love in Christ to Mrs. McL——— and yourself.

Affectionately in Him,

James Taylor.