SEPTEMBER 15TH, 1910

SEPTEMBER 15TH, 1910

A Statement of Facts relating to the recent Case of Discipline in New York

As we have heard that some brethren at a distance have been disturbed by the reports which are being circulated of the case of discipline which we have thought necessary to exercise in this city of late, it seems to us that a brief statement of the facts may be of service.

For nearly two years there has been a disturbed condition in ^[p. 92] the meeting at Brooklyn, which began by a contentious spirit shown in the readings on the part of certain brothers. Early in last year it became so serious that the brethren felt something should be done to modify or stop it entirely. On certain occasions painful scenes occurred. Brethren came together and it was found that three brothers were almost entirely responsible for this, and they were admonished by all to avoid participating in the meetings in a contentious or controversial way. In a short time, however, they reverted to their old ways, and again sorrowful scenes ensued. The brethren again came together, and these brothers were admonished a second time to desist. At the second meeting a question arose as to what could be done further if these brothers persisted in a course which was throwing the saints into confusion, and it was pointed out that in the event of this a severer discipline would have to be inflicted. About this time one of the brothers left the city permanently, and he expressed great regret for the part he had taken in the meetings. One of the other brothers also expressed sorrow for his part, and did not subsequently participate in the meetings in any contentious spirit. The third brother, Mr. F. Murphy, was very refractory and remained away from the meetings for some six weeks; and when the brethren visited him he alleged that they were governed by clerical principles, and that it was wrong to admonish him: that those who did so were governed by a partisan spirit. The brethren however, hoped for the best, so allowed him to come back and break bread; but we feel now that fellowship should have been refused him then until he had judged his ways. The brethren, however, treated him as one under discipline, but this he resented throughout, and took every opportunity to disregard our consciences. He waxed so bold in this that a third meeting had to be called. This meeting resulted in a meagre admission by Mr. Murphy that he had been wrong, and he expressed some sorrow for offending the brethren. We were most grateful for this, as can be understood, as we had hoped that God had been working with him leading to repentance. It soon appeared, however, that this was not so, as he again began to assume a contentious attitude in the meetings, and the brethren generally in the three meetings were forced to the conclusion that if he continued we should have to refuse to walk with him so as to maintain the order and holiness due to God’s house.

^[p. 93] It may be said here that during all these sorrowful experiences Mr. Murphy was directly and indirectly supported by quite a few in the meeting (although there was general agreement to the admonitions); were it not for this, as can be understood he would not have continued such a course.

In the month of July two readings were greatly disturbed, and at the close of the second it was laid upon some of us that the brethren should be asked to meet again to face the difficulty. All agreed to the meeting, which was held at the close of that week. The three meetings were well represented on this occasion, and there was a full discussion of all the facts referring to the matter. It was clear that most present had judged Mr. Murphy’s course to be lawless and so we thought well to ask all the saints (brothers and sisters) to come together and lay the matter before them in an orderly way. The ground of our judgment that Mr. Murphy was a lawless man was, that he had pursued a course in the meetings which caused disorder and threw the saints into confusion, and that he had refused to listen to the admonitions of the brethren to desist from this course. Besides, he had gathered a party around him.

When all the saints were gathered on the appointed evening, the history of the case was related to them, certain brethren stating their individual exercises and giving their reasons for refusing to longer walk with Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy gave a long address in his own defence, and one of his supporters read some papers objecting to what the brethren felt they were forced to resort to. Mr. Murphy also stated he would be present on the following Lord’s day to break bread, those who judged his course to be evil could not go there as this would involve confusion, and God is not the author of confusion but of peace. Consequently we broke bread elsewhere, and Mr. Murphy and his supporters met in the room and continued to meet there for some weeks. The room has since been given up by them, and we meet there at present as usual. It was found that the other two meetings in the city with two-thirds of the meeting of Brooklyn were unanimous in their refusal to walk with Mr. Murphy in Christian fellowship. We might add that the meetings in the district are in sympathy with us in what we have done, and, as far as we know, all the meetings in the States and Canada, who know of the difficulty, accept our action as right.

^[p. 94] We are deeply humbled that such a state of things should have existed among us, but we have had distinct help from the Lord in seeking to meet it.

Charles H. Butler.

Thomas Attridge.

Henry M. Bailey.

W L. Perrin.

James Taylor.