BROOKLYN, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 16TH, 1932
BROOKLYN, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 16TH, 1932
Mr. T———l.
Dear Brother, — Your letter of the 3rd inst. came today and its contents are so diverse from the spirit and letter of the truth that enters into the government and order of the assembly, I am compelled to send you a further line.
In my last I reminded you of your statement to me last year, that the matter of the charges against Mr. M——— was settled by a formal pronouncement that he was unrighteous and that God would not be with him, etc., etc.; and that I pointed out to you at the brothers’ meeting I attended at Newcastle that in formally pronouncing a man unrighteous and continuing in fellowship with him, you and those with you who did this constituted yourselves unrighteous (2 Timothy 2: 20, 21). You had also introduced a false principle among the saints; viz. that sin can be dealt with in the assembly by formally stating that it exists in a certain person.
You confirm all this in detail in your letter just received, and add that in the minds of the brethren the matter is thus ‘closed’. That is, a man is formally and solemnly charged with unrighteousness (included in the list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6: 9, 10) and nothing more done, the persons who so charged him continuing in fellowship with him, and thus the matter is regarded as closed! This is a temerity I have rarely met with in those having to do with holy things.
In the above remarks the unrighteousness alleged as to Mr.
[p. 369] M——— is assumed, but the report of Messrs. Davidson, Malpas and Biggs, and the facts appearing at the meeting I attended, show conclusively that it did not exist. Mr. M——— did acknowledge the debt to Mrs. D——— and paid the major part of it, and the report also says that under the circumstances the withholding of the balance sheet ‘was not unreasonable’.
Thus the position is reversed: those who charged Mr. M——— with unrighteousness on the two counts mentioned (the non-acknowledgement of the debt and the withholding of the balance sheet) are themselves constituted unrighteous, if they refuse to own their wrong (Deuteronomy 19: 16 - 19). Added to this was the false charge, as the report shows, that there had been improper dealings by Mr. M——— with the partnership funds and that there had been deliberate conspiracy by Mr. T———. All this places those who made these charges in a most serious position, out of which there is no escape save by unequivocal confession.
Besides all this, in your own case, the statement that the matter is regarded as closed — underscoring yours — after all these facts have been laid on your conscience, is a bit of effrontery to the Lord and the upright intelligence of those who know the facts of the case, to be matched only where the Lord’s authority and the holy Scriptures are not regarded.
Your effort to place the case of Mr. M——— in 1 Corinthians 6 and not chapter 5 fails of value, for the part of the former you refer to is to direct that adjudication between Christians is to be by the saints and not unbelievers, whereas the case at Newcastle is the pronouncement of unrighteousness in a brother, which according to verse 9, i.e., would place the case in chapter 5.
As regards my suggestion that some qualified brothers might be asked to investigate the purely ‘business side’, this was not carried out over the heads of the brethren, as I also said in my last letter. It was put into effect at Mr. W———’s initiative some two months after I left Newcastle. If Mr. W——— did not acquaint the brethren with his purpose to act on the suggestion, the omission would be his; but I believe he did tell them of it.
You say the body of the brethren here ‘... are going on in peace:’ if they are going on thus with the sin of false accusation unjudged among them, it is a false peace and so will not stand. But the remark sounds sinister to ears like mine, that have heard the sorrowful mutual recriminations that were [p. 370] current in Newcastle in May both inside and outside the meeting-room, and there is no evidence that a real change has come about.
Your statement that the examination by the three brothers ‘completely set aside the nearest adjacent meeting, Wallsend’, is extraordinary. Messrs. W——— and M——— requested the brothers to look into a cause of dispute between them, with the knowledge and consent, as I understand, of the Newcastle brethren, and which was carried out and a report rendered to the Newcastle brethren — how does this completely set aside the Wallsend brethren? I feel morally certain that they do not think it does. I spoke to Messrs. Peart and Knight of Wallsend as to the brothers’ meeting held at which I was present, suggesting that they might attend, but in the most sympathetic way they said they thought it wise not to.
I have written in plainness, dear brother, but you may be certain with nothing but kindness for you in my heart. Do not turn a deaf ear, I entreat you.
Affectionately and faithfully your brother in the Lord,
James Taylor.