BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 25TH, 1909
BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 25TH, 1909
Mr. P. R. Morford.
My Dear Brother, — Thanks for yours of the 10th inst.
Since your letter arrived Mutual Comfort for September has come, and I have looked at your article ‘In the Midst’ as you requested. Probably you will anticipate that I have difficulty in going with some of the things said. I am unable to see that there is any scripture for saying that the Lord’s presence in the midst of His own refers to them in any way but as convened. Certainly you do not cite any. As far as I know, each passage that contains the thought contemplates the saints as gathered together. According to my understanding, the words “in the midst” do not admit of anything else. Besides, to say that the Lord is in the midst of the saints generally in a continuous way destroys the moral force of Matthew 18: 20, and John 14: 23.
You speak rightly of John 20 being pattern; but what part of the ‘pattern’ contemplates the Lord in the midst of His people not convened? On the first day mentioned they were together, and Jesus came and stood in the midst; then eight days afterwards they were together and Jesus came again and stood in the midst (verse 27). If there is pattern here it is pattern of Jesus in the midst only when the saints were gathered together. Had the Lord been “in the midst” during the six days that intervened how could it be said that He came in on the second first day of the week mentioned? No doubt Thomas may be regarded as representing the Jewish remnant, but the fact remains that the Lord came twice to the same company; and on each time it was when they were gathered together. I fail, therefore, to see how you can say that ‘on His side it is not occasional nor recurrent, but continuous’. As to John 14, the Spirit was to come and abide “forever”, but the Lord did not indicate this of Himself. I take “I am coming to you” to be characteristic rather than as referring [p. 70] exclusively to the now historic fact recorded in chapter 20. We may always speak of the British Parliament, but the members do not really form a parliament unless as convened according to the law of the land. Certain legal requirements must be conformed to before members of parliament can be regarded as a body qualified to enact laws. I refer to this because it seems to me that to make the Lord “in the midst” general and continuous obscures the great truth of the assembly in function. It can only be viewed thus when convened, having the Lord in the midst. But for this there are certain requirements, for it is evident that a given company do not have the Lord in the midst simply because they are believers any more than any number of members of parliament met together (perhaps in rebellion) could secure the King’s favour, or be regarded as parliament, just because they were elected members.
This leads to the question of state, and I am altogether unable to follow you when you separate, as you do on page 226, between ‘divinely formed state in the Spirit and practical state’, making out (as I understand you) that the former by itself secures the Lord in the midst. I quite see that we have to distinguish between the work of God in us and our keeping ourselves from defilement — cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit — but I would not intimate that the Lord could be in the midst where the latter was not maintained (compare 2 Corinthians 6: 14 - 18).
I have written thus freely, as you asked for my opinion as to the article; and I know that you are not averse to frank criticism.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.