BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 28TH, 1932
BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 28TH, 1932
Mr. Alfred J. Gardiner.
Beloved Brother, — Your letter was much valued. I regret the delay in replying, but I was in the West when it arrived — attending the special meetings at Council Bluffs.
I am thankful for the interest in the ‘Open meetings’, for much more enters into this means of edification than is generally understood. It involves subjection, not only to the Lord, but also to each other; and those who serve in such meetings will seek to acquire the confidence of those they serve and not abuse it. Indeed mutual confidence must be promoted if ‘open meetings’ are to prosper.
As to 1 Corinthians 14: 23, it seems to me that, comparing this passage with chapter 11: 18 - 20, we may gather that the former is to show that in meetings for ministry numbers are not restricted, whereas the latter, contemplating saints together “in assembly”, and omitting the word “whole”, makes room for the thought of sub-divisions.
Ministry of the word in meetings for the breaking of bread would, of course, be subject to the Lord and He would surely take account of the state of the saints as gathered. A comparison [p. 378] of Luke 24 and John 20 would help, I think. In the former adjustment was needed as the Lord stood in the midst, and it was applied; but in John 20 this is left out, the disciples being viewed in the light of the message sent by Mary. For myself, I am increasingly encouraged in conveying anything I may have early in the meeting after the breaking of bread.
We have been thinking of our beloved brethren (yourself and many others) in Great Britain who minister the word, in view of holiday meetings, assured the Lord would hear and bless all. News of the different convocations will, no doubt, come later.
We have been much cheered in these parts so far, and we look for help next week-end. Excellent news from the West came lately. ——— and ——— in Chicago who have been justifying the wrong actions there as to Columbus two years ago, have capitulated, joining with the rest of the brethren there in condemning those actions. And Mr. H——— of Columbus has written the Chicago brethren owning his wrong, and that of the others there, in refusing to accept fully the letter of acknowledgement written by the former (Chicago) in July last. Thus this long-drawn-out sorrow seems to be at an end, causing much thanksgiving. The case of Mr.——— at Westfield is nearing a somewhat satisfactory close. He seems ready to meet his brethren in every way. Surely we may say, ‘The Lord has triumphed gloriously’.
Newcastle is a great sorrow, but God is working there. If the nearby meetings see where He is and what He has brought to light and move with Him there will be deliverance with the least loss.
My wife joins in love in Christ to Mrs. Gardiner and all yours,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.
PS — If you see Mr. Lyon kindly tell him of what I write here.