BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 29TH, 1903

BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 29TH, 1903

Beloved Brother, — Your letter of the 9th inst. reached me in due course. I was very pleased to hear from you. I should have replied sooner, but I was about to visit Chicago and I knew I would be in a better position to comply with your request after returning, so I waited.

The history of the Minneapolis affair is but the recurrence of what has happened before, not only on this, but on your own side of the Atlantic. It is the case of a company of Christians not being able to hold together as the outcome of a low carnal state among them. The crisis was forced through the introduction of a man named McL———. Mr. McL——— had been a long time with those called independents in this country and had acquired a reputation for his ability to break up meetings even among them. He was received into fellowship in Chicago some 2 and a half years ago, and after some time went to Minneapolis. During May of last year a meeting was arranged there to consider the advisability of moving into a new room. As the meeting proceeded McL——— attacked a brother named ^[p. 11] Gotberg, charging him (without previous notice) with being under the influence of Satan, and that he was a liar, party-maker, railer, etc., etc., and further that he could not break bread with him. Mr. A——— and one or two others endorsed Mr. McL———. As might be expected, an uproar ensued. Gotberg assumed that McL——— and his party were seceding and so announced that he would be at the room on the coming Lord’s day to go on as usual. About 12 (out of a meeting of about 30) met with Gotberg; when they arrived at the room however they found the furniture gone, McL——— and those with him had taken it to another place. The division was thus complete. Gotberg and those with him however did not break bread and have not done so to this day. They issued an appeal to their brethren in this country and also in Great Britain, they sent copies, however, only to a few leading brethren. McL——— and those with him went on with the routine of meetings in the new quarters laying claim, of course, to recognition by their brethren outside. They summoned Gotberg to an investigation meeting, stating that there were grave charges against him, and that if he could prove they were untrue the matter would be dropped. Gotberg, refusing to own them in any sense, disobeyed the summons and never afterwards attended their meetings. The trial, however, proceeded and Gotberg was found guilty. I saw one of the brothers present at this meeting two days ago at Chicago and he solemnly declares that not one of the charges was established. I may insert here as corroborative of this brother’s testimony that McL——— and those with him revoked all the doings of this meeting later in the year, in November. But to proceed with the course of events: Gotberg was formally declared a wicked person and excommunicated. He was accordingly notified that he was now outside the assembly of God on earth; printed notices of this action were sent to the different meetings in the country. Gotberg disregarded all this and remained apart with the others awaiting the verdict of the saints outside. This was how matters stood for several months. The saints generally knew little or nothing of the facts, and as Mr. A——— was well known all were disposed to regard the matter settled by acknowledging those with him. Mr. Mace was then passing through Chicago and some of those with Mr. A——— came to see him, and from what he heard he judged A———’s (and those with him) position could be maintained.

^[p. 12] This is what he told me in N.Y. when he arrived and I accepted it. I went to Chicago, however, the next month and during a conversation with Mr. Sinclair and Mr. O’B——— about the matter, the situation became much clearer to me, and I then became convinced that the consciences of Gotberg and those with him could not be ignored. This conviction became pretty general amongst those who were exercised about the Lord’s things, as the facts became more widely known. Brethren however, did not know what to do, and Mr. McL——— and Mr. A———, etc., were in the meantime regarded as in fellowship. When Mr. Raven was here last year Mr. A——— and Mr. McL——— were present at the Conference at Indianapolis. At their request a special meeting was held to look into matters with the view to having them elucidated and to give counsel accordingly to A——— and McL———. Some of the other party were also at the Conference, but were excluded from the meeting. It was then shown that Minneapolis was in a state of division, and further that there was no evidence that Gotberg was a wicked person. A——— and McL ——— and Co. acted on these findings and withdrew their action against Gotberg. This, however, did not satisfy Gotberg and those with him; they felt that the others had departed from the truth of the assembly, and they could not recognise these in any collective sense. This is how matters stood up until April last. At that date A——— and those with him wrote to Chicago meeting, asking for counsel, as to what they should do. Simultaneously with this letter McL——— came to reside in Chicago. Thus the matter was brought squarely to them. The brethren in Chicago allowed McL——— to break bread but under conditions that this in no way committed them to those breaking bread at Minneapolis. At the same time they replied to the latter’s letter, saying that in their judgment they should cease to break bread and further that they were not free to commend to nor receive from them. The Minneapolis people on receipt of this letter wrote to different ones throughout the country and finding all agreed with Chicago, they acted on the advice of the latter. In this way they accepted common ground (as they put it themselves) with the other party. Overtures were then made to the others, and these latter, believing that the others were not broken at all and that they gave up breaking bread simply as the result of pressure, found themselves still unable to meet with them or go on with them. From this, bitterness ^[p. 13] arose and Mr. A——— and others with him sent out a circular to discredit the others as much as possible, especially charging that one of their number was dishonest, and had been so for 10 years. All this tended to confirm the conviction that Mr. A——— and those with him were not truly broken and humbled, and hence brethren shrank from pressing the others to join with them. It was felt that if they did, it could be but an agreement-to-differ-arrangement; an arrangement without any moral basis. This was the view taken at Chicago, and hence fellowship was still held back from both parties. At first the brethren in Chicago were unanimous. During the summer, however, letters began to arrive from some well-known brethren in England charging that the brethren in Chicago had cut off a meeting presumptuously, and that in doing this they were governed by a party spirit. These letters, of course, suited Mr. A——— and Mr. McL——— entirely, and as the latter was in Chicago, he was not slow to take advantage of them. There had been a disgruntled party in Chicago and these now began to stir themselves. They claimed that Mr. A——— and those with him should be recognised, while the bulk of the brethren could not see this. Several protracted meetings ensued, during which, some unseemly things occurred. A——— again wrote to Chicago, and an answer was again drafted and sent by the brethren that they were still unable to recognise them. Before this letter reached them, however, A——— and those with him issued a circular to the effect that they had decided to take the matter into their own hands and resume breaking bread. They began to break bread without the fellowship of a meeting: several brethren on the North side meeting in Chicago resolved to acknowledge those, which they did. This led to a rupture then, as the other brethren could not go with them in this, regarding it as independency. Thus the matter stands. The three largest meetings in the vicinity of Minneapolis, Chicago, Indianapolis and Vesta, have written within the last two months, to A——— and those with him, that they cannot recognise them, and the meetings generally throughout the continent are in accord with these. This is not saying, however, that there are not individuals who are in sympathy with Mr. A———. There are such, and possibly there are meetings too, who would take sides with him, and those with him, if tested; but it is folly to make this matter a test of fellowship. If the brethren in England cease to interfere it is possible that further division ^[p. 14] may be averted. If you are at all in touch with Mr. Reynolds, I shall be thankful if you will let him see this letter. I should like Mr. Henderson to see it also.

Affectionately yours in Christ,

James Taylor.