FEBRUARY 14TH, 1934
[p. 438] FEBRUARY 14TH, 1934
Mr. A. M. Hayward.
Beloved Brother, — I omitted to allude to the report of what I said as to no sweet savour for God in a public announcement of judgment reached as to one convicted of sin; I hardly remember saying this, but no doubt I did and would have referred to Numbers 5: 15; for 1 Corinthians 5 should not be brought into chapter 11: 18; a special meeting should be called for this.
Since writing I thought it well to read your letter on discipline. It seems to me somewhat misleading. Certainly the following is: ‘I believe mere separating from wicked persons is unrighteousness, for it is not maintaining in integrity the commandment laid down for us’. As it stands, that statement is a contradiction of 2 Timothy 2 and Numbers 16: 26, 27. You may say vessels to dishonour are not wicked persons; but they may hold and teach the worst kind of error and hence they (or at least some of them) are wicked. Certainly Korah and his band were wicked. Moses enjoins the assembly to depart from the tents of “these wicked men”.
On a later page (pages are not numbered) you say: ‘So that in the execution of the judgment arrived at we can only decide for ourselves that we separate from such, as departing from one identified with iniquity’. This and the other statement are opposed to each other. To your mind it may be the reference to an ‘execution of a judgment arrived at’ cancels the inconsistency but ‘separating from wicked persons’ (first statement) must be ‘the execution of a judgment arrived at’.
Before and after the first statement you elaborate the view that one must ‘carry out’ every commandment of Scripture — that if we cannot carry out the commandment to put away a wicked person how can we carry out the other commandments of 1 Corinthians including the Lord’s supper? Thus clearly in the first statement I quoted, you condemn separating from wicked persons as unrighteousness, being substituted for putting away, the latter being the commandment. Whereas later, as I pointed out, you say separation from wicked persons is the right ground to take.
It seems to me that generally, the second part of the letter cancels the first part, leaving your readers (if they can forget the early section) with what is in the main what brethren generally understand as the truth governing the matter considered.
[p. 439] But I do not think this is how the letter will be regarded by all who read it.
The letter fails to make due allowance for the great difference between original and remnant conditions. This is not only in ‘modifications of language and of the scope of operations’ but in direct divine disallowance to the remnant of normal assembly status — Revelation 2: 24 to end and chapter 3. Philadelphia has a little power and is generally owned because of an approved state (which could only be in comparatively a few) but the general position, beginning with the remnant in Thyatira, remains unchanged. The instructed can discern that the church is in the Lord’s mind, but He is not holding the seven stars. Matthew 18: 19, 20, is not on the same plane as verses 17, 18.
I gather that you are seeking to correct slackness in New Zealand. It would be distressing to find that any of the gatherings there in dealing with sinful persons fail to get together, and bring the facts to bear on those persons and on the consciences of all, so that the guilt is established before refusal to walk with the guilty is expressed. As far as I know, this is done generally.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.