BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 26TH, 1931
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 26TH, 1931
Mr. A———.
My Dear Brother, — What pressed upon my mind in reading your letter of the 19th inst. was priesthood — how essential it is to a right understanding and treatment of the request of our brethren at Columbus for the fellowship of their brethren in their breaking bread there. It is obviously dependent on the features of the assembly, however small, existing among them. This requires priestly or spiritual discernment, and for this diligent enquiry should be made in the place. See Leviticus 14: 33 - 48 for this principle of careful local enquiry. In Deuteronomy 21, where every controversy and stroke are to be at their word, the priests are said to be chosen of Jehovah to bless in His name. Malachi says, “The law of truth was in his mouth”, and that the priest’s lips should keep knowledge and the law should be sought at his mouth.
Your brethren who are concerned as to Columbus are enquiring whether these priestly features exist at Cincinnati. All are agreed as to proximity, but priesthood there is not clear, and this being lacking there can be no expectation of the mind of God coming through you. The wide detour to Chicago (I do not, of course, refer to the general fellowship meetings there) and the participation in a council of ‘40 brothers from 12 different meetings’ met together there to judge of a matter at your doors was disregard of the law governing the position which true priests would insist on. The ‘judgment’ reached was not even sent to Columbus through you, but direct. You say the word ‘judgment’ should not have been used in the Chicago letter to Columbus, but those not present at the meetings are bound to accept what is formally stated by four [p. 306] brothers, it conveys what they understood and meant. This is perfectly clear in the tenor of the whole letter.
You own that ‘the number as gathered together (at Chicago) was quite large’, but that this was evidently in accord with Proverbs 11: 14, 15, etc. The same could be conveniently said for the different church councils, to which I referred in my previous letter, but it is making use of one scripture to overthrow another. There is indeed safety in a multitude of counsellors as regulated by Scripture, but the very opposite is the case where they are not, which has proved to be so in this instance, as ———’s full acknowledgement with other evidences shows.
It is true that Chicago as the nearest meeting, had a certain responsibility as to Michigan City, while the meeting existed there, as Michigan City had as to Chicago, if anything compromising general fellowship arose; but the discontinuance of a meeting, in itself, is no breach of fellowship. I know of many instances of this, saints moving to other places, and I know of a meeting ceasing in a town, the same persons forming as a meeting in another town, and no one thought of transgression on the part of the persons involved. The information furnished to brethren generally, including Chicago, as to the movement from Michigan City, was fuller and wider than any I have ever seen of such a matter. This was a considerable time, too, before the final move, and yet no complaint (that I know of) was made until a request for fellowship was made at Columbus.
The responsibility of the nearest meeting to Columbus is now to determine whether conditions warranting Christian fellowship exist there, and if so to extend it; there is no option if the conditions exist. Making this recognition depend on Chicago being ‘happy’ will not carry a priestly conscience. Chicago should not take this ground; if brethren there know of conduct of any at Columbus involving fellowship they can prove it in a ‘lawful assembly’, that is, at Columbus (Deuteronomy 21: 18 - 21). Their doing this cannot but be viewed in an unfavourable light by those who soberly weigh the facts of the relations between Chicago and Michigan City for some years past. Certain at Chicago had adverse feelings against certain at Michigan City, and last winter a meeting was held by brothers involved in both meetings, Mr. Gill being present. I saw a letter from him afterwards in which he stated that those from [p. 307] Chicago had no case, or words to this effect. I also saw a letter from my brother to Mr. H——— also written shortly after, in which, in the friendliest terms, he reported that he had said to the brothers who had attended the above meeting, as all were returning to Chicago, that it was time they should stop talking about their brethren at Michigan City and start visiting them. He followed this up by a very friendly visit for a Lord’s Day, a good few others accompanying him. Thus the difficulty seemed settled, and now it has flared up again. I mention all this, not to show that Mr. H——— was entirely justified in regard of this old sore or that the others were wrong, but as necessarily entering into the ‘unhappiness’ of Chicago and of its value as weighed in the balances of the sanctuary.
My letter is longer than intended, but I am very concerned before the Lord that the position of Columbus should be clarified — that those immediately responsible to see to it may “see all things clearly”. Their concern as priests, as I already said, will be not only to abide by the “law” but to make it effective and in this to minister to God and bless in His Name. That He may help you all in this will be my constant prayer.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
James Taylor.