BROOKLYN, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 19TH, 1933

BROOKLYN, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 19TH, 1933

Mr. H. Gill.

Beloved Brother, — I appreciate much the information you sent as to the special meetings at Vancouver.

First, I wish to explain that your last telegram reached me in Detroit, as I had left for the meetings there before it arrived here — my wife telephoned it to me on the Saturday evening, and I sent my answer at once.

I am thankful you regard it as confirmatory of the decision you and others had reached before it arrived.

Your experience with Mr. Nee corresponds with ours and generally with what I saw and heard in Great Britain. It seems to me that the attitude brethren here and in Vancouver have taken is generally the only one the circumstances admitted of, and there can be no doubt that our brethren in Great Britain, Australia, and elsewhere will agree. Technically, so to speak, it should have been different, for no brother would ordinarily be allowed to break bread and minister among us who behaved himself as Nee did. But the large number of saints in China who as to fellowship do not know their right hand from their left, who hang on Nee’s words, required that he should be handled tenderly — that is, on the principle of Romans 14 and Acts 11 and Exodus 1: 19. A formal refusal of Nee would probably end in a breach with all now nominally in fellowship with us there.

But the situation is serious in the extreme, for it is the case of a brother in fellowship — nominally — with us and hailed with delight because, no doubt, of his personality, ability and nationality — by the many among us, and yet holding principles which are subversive of the ground we, through grace, occupy, and for which our late leaders suffered so as to recover and maintain them. The attitude therefore taken by yourselves ^[p. 412] and those in New York can only be regarded as of a tentative nature, for Mr. Nee’s doing and principles, if endorsed by those in Shanghai and elsewhere in China, will render fellowship with them impossible. How great is the need of being cast on the Lord as to this unprecedented I may say, situation!

I am most thankful that you, Dr. P. and others were enabled to speak so faithfully to our brother. You covered the same ground with him largely that we covered, and it is disappointing to note that his answers or comments are the same as he made here, especially as to 2 John — showing that he is not accepting the plainest teaching as to fellowship. But the word of God is like a fire, like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces, and so during the long voyage our brother may think over with a conscience what has been presented to him by many witnesses with the greatly-wished-for result. He told us he would not say anything as to his judgment of what was urged on him here until he took counsel with his brethren in China.

We are in touch with the S——— s, indeed they have come to live fairly near us. She is very nice and speaks of Mr. Nee’s and her husband’s loose principles — she evidently leaning to what is right. We have invited them to have a meal with us tomorrow. Dr. S——— phoned me last Lord’s Day week morning, enquiring for the address of the meeting, etc., and I thought he was coming, but instead he went to the Christian alliance meeting and broke bread there! May God help us all in relation to our brethren in China, giving those who have especially to do with them grace and wisdom! And may He help our Chinese brethren, especially their leaders, to see the way and walk in it.

My wife unites in warm love in Christ to Mrs. Gill, yourself, Geof. and all.

Affectionately yours in Him,

James Taylor.

PS — It is most remarkable that the church, involving fellowship, continues the test for our brethren, and there is no hope of any one being of service in the testimony unless he bows to the truth as to it. I think I told you that when speaking to Philip Mauro I pressed it (fellowship), and he said he knew it existed, but he would not touch it. He did attempt to deal with it, however, and made shipwreck — he went to O.B., etc.

While Mr. Nee refuses Open Brethren — largely, I believe,

^[p. 413] because of the missionary side of them, which he has seen — yet he has their leaven and this is the serious matter. Matthew 16 shows that we may leave or refuse people and retain their leaven. The Lord says, Beware!

Detroit was very cheering. In spite of the general stringency, the numbers were larger than usual and the expenses met — thank God! At the readings we had ‘the household of faith’.

I hope to be at Toronto on October 7th.

In view of the presence of the S——— s with us here and Mr. Nee’s participation with them in the breaking of bread, it may be wise for the brethren in New York to communicate with Shanghai, laying the whole matter before them there — also the London action. The S——— s broke bread in China also. There is a Dr. J——— in Vancouver whom Mr. Nee much wished to see. He (J——— ) also broke bread with them in China. Nee impressed on me that he returned by America so as to see these people, especially the S——— s. He was undecided for some time whether he should go to Florida to see a Miss L——— or attend the meetings in Vancouver. — J.T.