BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 13TH, 1933
BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 13TH, 1933
Mr. W. J. Bishop.
My Dear Brother, — Pardon delay in replying to your letter — I have had more on my hands than I could cope with.
I think I can enter into the ‘boundary’ difficulty in your [p. 415] district, especially as I have already had part in a consideration of the matter. It is indeed complicated and requires wisdom from above in those who are affected by it, so that love and peace may prevail. In Joshua the boundaries of the tribes were irregular and this, no doubt, was with divine intent — love would be tested and increased as exercised by the difficulties involved. But we are children of wisdom and should know when there should be mercy and not sacrifice. On the other hand, we are priests — those who are, so to speak, to know and enforce ‘the law’. If sacrifice is required from you it is not for you to demand mercy, but if mercy (as seen in God) makes the sacrifice unnecessary, then the demand for it (the sacrifice) should cease. The fact that your house is actually within the boundary line of Auckland cannot, as far as I see, justify your being required to walk two and a half miles past the nearest meeting-room to get to another.
As regards administration, this hinges on your being of the assembly in the place — Mount Eden. You are one of the assembly in a general sense, a member of Christ’s body, and if (according to what I wrote above) you should be free to break bread at Woodside Road room you are eligible to have part in all assembly matters in Mount Eden. Added to the other facts, your business interests being in Mount Eden is of importance. Besides, the idea of the neighbour (other facts being as mentioned) confirms that Mount Eden is the place of your local responsibility. Thus the procedure you mention (as to the case of discipline) which assumed that the service of the four brothers who visited the brother in question was invalid can hardly be justified. On the ground of general fellowship (to which I alluded above) and on the ground that the four brothers broke bread in Mount Eden (as I understand) they were (being personally suitable) eligible for the service. To exclude a visiting brother (unless for some personal disqualification) from part in local assembly matters is not scriptural as far as I understand, on the other hand, a wise visiting brother would not interfere in local affairs save as his brethren made way for him. The procedure you mention which required the sisters (all being gathered for administrative action) to leave because you assumed technical discrepancy so that the brothers should depute two of their number to see the brother under discipline, seems to me unwarranted. The point the apostle makes in 1 Corinthians 5 in this respect is [p. 416] that the person to be disciplined is what he is alleged to be — a wicked person. “Being such”, he says, without saying how this was determined. Scripturally, facts are established by two or three witnesses not necessarily local witnesses. I say this to show how unnecessary the procedure you mention was. Indeed it indicates that the brother who required it had a poor sense of the dignity of the assembly. The expectation should be that the Lord would be there and this makes the disbanding of the assembly obviously more serious.
As regards the two meetings in Mount Eden holding joint care meetings there is nothing wrong in this. As in the same place, they should do so. As of the one assembly in the city, they should act together.
I trust what I have written may be of service to you.
With love in Christ to you and the brethren, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.