BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 6TH, 1931
BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 6TH, 1931
Dr. McA———.
My Dear Brother. — I am thankful you were free to answer my letter of the 15th ultimo, yours of the 3rd instant having come last evening. As you have kindly written in numbered sections, I can reply the more easily and I shall do so as nearly as possibly seriatim.
First: You say as to Deuteronomy 21 and Exodus 12 that you believe ‘we’ (the brethren who met at the enquiry meetings at Chicago as I understand) ‘acted upon’ them, in proof of this saying, ‘we believe that we at Chicago were the neighbour to Michigan City’. The occasion of the meetings, as your letter of January 5th states, was a desire for the ‘judgment’ of brethren on the part of some from Indianapolis [p. 309] and Cincinnati regarding Columbus, your being neighbour to Michigan City was therefore irrelevant. That some now in Columbus had resided in Michigan City cannot be made to weaken this, however much may be said as to what these should or should not have done. Brethren are now obliged to judge of all these matters as before God, and must “judge righteous judgment” as the Lord enjoins. To this end what does not directly bear on any point must in faithfulness be ruled out. I am sure you will own this as right and fair. Thus Chicago was not observing the scriptures quoted in coming together to judge of matters belonging to a locality to which four meetings are nearer than it. Nor did my brother recognise the above scriptures when he telephoned to a brother in Columbus that Chicago ‘was not happy’ that the breaking of bread should begin there; that he did this without furnishing reasons was arbitrary and disregardful of local responsibility. If information such as should prevent the breaking of bread was in his possession, this should be placed in proper, that is, local hands, and the Lord trusted to look after His interests. Apparent modifying occurrences cannot be admitted for two wrongs cannot make one right. At the brother’s meeting this with other ‘actions’ of Chicago were viewed approvingly as paragraph 3 of Chicago letter states, the unscripturalness of the one I mention being clearly disregarded. Incidentally this also shows that the principle of judging existed at the said meetings and not merely the furnishing of counsel.
Second: What you remark as to the word ‘judgment’ does not at all show that it was misused in your letter; the whole document is pervaded by the thought of it. You quote 1 Corinthians 7: 40, but Acts 15, which you appeal to in paragraph 3, is more fitting. The proceedings at Jerusalem were of the nature of an apostolic metropolitan council and could be permissible only under the then transitional circumstances; besides doctrine was considered and not local assembly matters. There are, of course, principles in the chapter which we may follow, such as brethren coming together locally to consider a matter and the assembly carrying a decision into effect, but the principle of a general or metropolitan assembly as applied since is false and destructive of 1 and 2 Corinthians as shown in church history.
As to the word ‘judgment’, you will find in Acts 15 what corresponds with the proceedings at Chicago much more [p. 310] accurately than 1 Corinthians 7. James says (verse 19), “I judge”, etc., then what he formulated was embodied in a letter by the apostles and elders with the whole assembly, “having arrived at a common judgment”. Making due allowance for the great differences in persons, etc., this is what happened at Chicago. Mr.——— indicated the judgment, reading his letter to Mr. H——— of December 24th in the final (I understand there were three meetings) meeting and this was embodied in the letter of January 5th and sent to the saints at Columbus. The evidence of all this is Chicago’s letter, Mr. D———’s letters to me, and Mr.———’s personal account to me. As regards 1 Corinthians 7: 40, Paul’s “judgment” was such and would be so regarded by a faithful heart. If applied to such a case as Columbus it would be brethren there or at Cincinnati taking the considered opinion or judgment of a brother or brothers capable of giving it, to the Lord and having it verified locally.
Third: You say, ‘I have been in two such meetings with you’. Pardon me, I must deny this, for I have not attended such meetings as are indicated in the Chicago letter and other testimony. Such occasions have to be regarded in the light of what passes in them, and the full information available shows most plainly that while counsel was sought and given (some of which was good, but the main part withdrawn later by the giver as wrong) the Chicago meetings, composed of ‘forty brothers from twelve different meetings’, entered into conduct and relations of saints in a city far away, sending also a formal judgment directly to these saints. No, dear brother, you did not attend such meetings with me. You enquire if Proverbs 11: 14, 15 does not apply. This scripture cannot be made to overthrow other scriptures, such as those already quoted. It could be conveniently used thus to support a general council, which would set aside 1 and 2 Corinthians and many other scriptures. The scripture in Proverbs 11 is most valuable in local care meetings and often comforts us here.
Fifth: ‘Our letter says nothing about representation as you say’. I do not find that I say it does. I remark, ‘If all the meetings in the world were represented’ — an independent statement. But Mr. D——— says ‘Brethren representing several meetings at Chicago’, etc. And Mr.——— speaks of all the meetings in the belt from Minneapolis to Cincinnati and from the Missouri river to Detroit being of one mind as to [p. 311] Columbus. The number of meetings is also mentioned in the Chicago letter, so that there was clearly some idea of representation; but I did not say there was, nor could I say now that the mind of the twelve meetings was represented.
Seventh: You say, ‘We never had such an absurd idea as that one meeting could commend another meeting to another meeting or brethren generally’. You ask, ‘Where did you get that idea?’ I saw it first in Mr.———’s letter of December 24th to Mr. H——— (now withdrawn).——— writes (referring to the company at Columbus), ‘It appears to me that the first and vital link is that you should be commended in the love and fellowship of those nearest you from where you move, that is Chicago’. Chicago’s commendation of the saints at Columbus would obviously not be to themselves, but to nearby meetings, as ——— says earlier in his letter ‘Chicago ... commanded Michigan City to your brethren elsewhere’. Then in your letter of January 5th, I read, ‘Chicago ... having been mainly responsible for recommending to brethren generally ... the breaking of bread at Michigan City’. Mr. D——— cites substantially what ——— wrote as of ‘first importance’ in the mind of ‘brethren representing several meetings in Chicago’. His words are ‘to commend the movement to the nearest meeting to Columbus’.——— had read his letter at the Chicago meetings. You embody part of it in your letter of January 5th, as the ‘judgment’, while Mr. D——— gives it all. There is no suggestion from any source that ———’s thought of commendation by Chicago was to be replaced by the idea of Michigan City consulting Chicago. The above will show you how I obtained ‘that idea’. It is indeed ‘absurd’, as you say.
Eighth: The records I referred to as to Chicago’s knowledge of the movement from Michigan City are correspondence in November between Mr H——— and ——— that Mr H———’s letter was private, as you say, does not rob it of a prime importance as to the matter before us. It contained information as to the Lord’s people in a town in which the brethren at Chicago profess to have had the greatest interest and this information indicated plainly the possible ‘sorrow’ of the discontinuance of the meeting there, nearly all of the saints having moved or were about to move away. It was addressed to the corresponding brother and most active one in Chicago, and so it could be rightly expected that through him it would [p. 312] reach all. If not the said brother would have been neglectful in a most serious matter — I am speaking from the point of view of the letter of January 5th. But you do not say that my brother failed to make the information known. Mr. H——— states in his letter to Chicago that my brother conveyed it in a letter to Columbus on November 24th. As a matter of fact the purposed movement from Michigan City was advertised more widely than I have known of any occurrence of the kind, and so the question may well be asked: Had Chicago not heard? The word had certainly “gone out” (Romans 10). Admitting that it was not addressed directly to you there, even a report should lead to inquiry, seeing you were so responsible, as the letter of January 5th states. A report reaching the ears of the assembly at Jerusalem led to earnest action (Acts 11), and Paul was moved to act seriously by a report (1 Corinthians 5).
From the facts available it is clear that if the movement of the saints from Michigan City was fraught with such consequences as your letter of January 5th states, the brethren in Chicago (at least the one who received Mr. H———’s letter) were very remiss in not seeking to save their brethren. Neither the assembly at Jerusalem nor Paul (in the passages quoted) waited to be ‘consulted’ before acting. But on the other hand, if the brethren late of Michigan City moved to Columbus believing they were subject to the will of God in doing so, the meeting at Michigan City thus necessarily discontinuing, they having made known their purpose to their brethren, including Chicago, as said above, having thus violated no scriptural principle, the brethren in Chicago, by telephoning to Columbus to prevent the breaking of bread there and in the course that followed, have disregarded Scripture, having interfered with matters beyond their local responsibility. The remaining matters under section 8 I do not touch, having reference to local conduct and relations. These must be settled in a ‘lawful assembly’, that is Columbus.
Ninth and Tenth: The same may be said of these sections, as we who have not been among the saints at Columbus cannot rightly judge of the state and spiritual ability among them. There seems to have been hesitancy in the nearby meetings as to the J——— brothers, but as I said, it is a local matter. I cannot see the force of the brothers asking for fellowship by themselves. There is no suggestion of special importance [p. 313] attached to long residence in a place in the Acts. Aquila and Priscilla had “just come” to Corinth and would have assembly status there. Later they had a status at Ephesus. That some in Columbus resided there only a week and others years, they all have to be regarded as calling on the Lord there out of a pure heart, and so of His assembly. Any brother or brothers interfering in any way with His rights among them will meet with His stern disapproval, although it may take time for this to work out.
Eleventh: You enquire, ‘To whom did those remaining at Michigan City commend those who moved to Columbus?’ To the saints in Columbus, of course. Paul says, “To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints”, and he commended Phoebe to them. This would hold, however few or many, it is quite in order to commend a saint to another, the latter being alone in a place. There would then be “two of you”. The divine nature operating in us makes us very simple and practical. In Columbus there are several ostensibly holding together in the light of the assembly.
Twelfth: ‘Where did you get the idea of disciplinary authority you speak of?’ I got it from Mr. D———. He says, ‘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’. Mr. D——— was instrumental in putting this into effect as to ——— and ——— at Hamilton on New Year’s Day, causing much feeling and resentment among the saints.
Thirteenth: I cannot enter on Mr. H———’s reasons for leaving Michigan City. What you say of Michigan City reminds me of a remark made lately that the Chicago brethren seemed to be more concerned about the town than about the saints who had resided there. These, however, are loved by Christ and are like the apple of His eye at Columbus. There are hundreds of towns in this country much less cared for in testimony than Michigan City — Chicago perhaps relatively. In judging our brethren’s legitimate movements we are disregarding that in this respect they stand to their own Master.
‘Suppose’, you enquire, ‘that Staten Island had acted as Michigan City has acted ... would you consider it an act of a neighbour if they sought the fellowship of brothers, not meetings, at a distance and never asked for the fellowship of Brooklyn?’ You apparently overlook that Staten Island is [p. 314] part of the City of New York, so that the analogy does not hold, as Michigan City is not part of Chicago. But let take the meeting at Clifton, New Jersey, to which, I understand New York is the nearest city with a meeting. The brethren meeting there used to meet at Passaic, but there was no question of making the matter known formally or of fellowship being involved when they moved, and yet Passaic, where a meeting had existed for many years was now without one. The same is true of the meeting at Chatham; it used to be at Summit; and some years ago the bulk of the meeting at Waterbury, Connecticut, for some reason moved to Stamford, Connecticut, a long way off, and started a meeting, leaving brother and sister in Waterbury, without a meeting. These have now moved to Plainfield and the others continue happily at Stamford. I never heard of any claim by other meeting that they should be ‘consulted’ in such cases. As far as I remember, these occurrences were simple and I never heard it hinted that the discontinuance of a meeting because of brethren moving away legitimately was ‘a breach of fellowship’ or ‘a great sorrow’. There was no loss, for in each case, as a Columbus, a meeting was started elsewhere. I could also cite many instances of meetings discontinuing, saints moving away and none formed elsewhere and no question of fellowship was raised — as Dover, N.J. (where ——— used to live a good part of each year), Newark, and Seabright, N.J. I am speaking only of this neighbourhood.
The L——— s’ case is to be regretted as was the case of those left at Waterbury. Of course, they live at South Bend. I think Mr. H———’s letter to Chicago covers this matter. They are now your care.
The fact that Chicago did not know of the proposal to break bread at Columbus until the news was ‘phoned from Indianapolis is not of special consequence. New York did not know till several days later, but no one here thought of complaining. The same may be said of Rochester and Detroit, I believe. What Chicago has to do in this respect is to bow to the facts of the case, that Michigan City was not under consideration, but Columbus, and so the matter was scripturally in the hands of others.
In what I have written, dear brother, I wish to say in the most positive way that I am not taking up any personal cause, I am considering entirely for the truth of God affected by all [p. 315] that has happened. I should not have acted as Mr. H——— did in the circumstances, but Mr. H——— is Mr. H——— and not I, and has his own way of action, which we must leave between him and the Lord; there was unquestionably want of wisdom in some of the things done, but nothing that I know of that could not be met in grace and adjusted almost instantly. I find him constantly ready to take advice and submit to correction.
Please pardon me, dear brother, for the length of this epistle and bear with me in what I am about to add: I am assured it is according to the mind of God. Having weighed the facts of this whole matter before Him, I believe it is the outcome of strained unbrotherly feelings long existing between some in Chicago and some who resided in Michigan City. I am not justifying or condemning either side as to this, I am stating the fact having seen the correspondence and having seen a letter of Mr. Gill’s commenting on a meeting of brothers from Chicago and Michigan City which he attended about a year ago. These strained relations prevented the practical fellowship and brotherly counsel that are needed among saints for mutual growth and blessing, and so Mr. H——— was not as communicative as the nearness of Michigan City to Chicago required, the latter brethren not provoking him in this direction. All the claims by Chicago as to what they considered due, and of those elsewhere who supported their contention, ignored this strained feeling and sought to compel those at Michigan City to comply with their claims, which even if scriptural, could hardly be expected if active mutual love did not exist.
Under the circumstances those at Chicago entered on the line of innovation, interfering beyond their appointed range and advocating the unscriptural principles and methods which have been pointed out in this and other letters.
I am grieved, I assure you, that I should be at such variance with you and the saints at Chicago, from whom in earlier days I received such kindness, but you and Mrs. McA——— may be assured that there is nothing whatever personal as to you both, nor indeed in regard of any of the saints there.
As I said in my previous letter, I have always found you ready to bow to Scripture and so I am the more distressed that you do not “see all things clearly” in this serious matter.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
James Taylor.