BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 6TH, 1918
[p. 160] BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 6TH, 1918
Mr. Potter.
Beloved Brother, — These letters and papers [Received from New Zealand relative to current exercises there — Editor] indicate two lines of thought as to the principles which should govern Christians at the present time, the church having failed. A good spirit is manifest in the papers, and so one is encouraged to believe that God will come in and grant light and blessing through the exercise.
There is, however, a measure of extremeness on both sides, if matters are pushed further on either there will, it seems to me, be danger of damage to the truth, or rather to those who may go to such a length.
On the one hand our collective privileges will be set aside, and on the other, the collective features will be pressed so far that the failure of the church will be ignored. It is to prevent these possible results, and to preserve a balance in the truth involved, that the following remarks are made.
First, it must be said that 2 Timothy is the special word intended to guide and govern the believer now — evil being admitted within the sphere of Christian profession. This has been recognised by those through whom the word of God came and also by those who have received it in these last days. But it is well to remember that this is the very epistle that asserts the inspiration and profitableness of ‘all Scripture’ and that “the word of truth” should be rightly divided. It seems to me that this is to guard against any scripture being overlooked in the circumstances contemplated.
It is clear that while 2 Timothy 2 is specially the believer’s guide as he awakes to evil in the association in which he may be found, it reminds him that he needs Scripture, and this, of course, involves the truth of the assembly. Thus those with whom he is to follow in righteousness, peace, and love are members with him of the same body — the body of Christ. He learns this in 1 Corinthians and other Scriptures. Those walking together may be but a few of the whole, but still they are of the body, and so linked with each other in a vital way by the Holy Spirit. On this account they are dependent on one another and so kept from individual independence. In a word they walk and act in the light or recognition of the truth of the assembly. They are governed by the principles taught by the Lord and the apostles as to fellowship, etc. They partake of the Lord’s supper — they recognise the temple and also the gifts given of Christ that may be available, making room for them according to the order prescribed in 1 Corinthians 14. It is evident, however, that while the instructions are accepted in their full authority as “the commandment of the Lord” (compare 1 Corinthians 14: 37 and John 14: 21), their application is modified and limited on account of the conditions occasioned by the failure of the professing body; that indeed in some instances there can be no application at all, for instance, the appointment of elders and deacons.
In the exercise of discipline too, it is clear that the general conditions must occasion modification, although the holiness due to the house of God must ever be the standard; 1 Corinthians 5 is the law of the house, so to speak, in respect of this, but it is obvious that verses 4 and 5 cannot apply literally now. It may be said, however, that verse 13 applies to any number of Christians under any circumstances; but the chapter is one whole and “yourselves” of verse 13, “ye” (verse 2), those “gathered together” (verse 4) refer to the same company — addressed in the epistle as “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”. To use these expressions now in an absolute way as not including all Christians in a given locality would be dangerously misleading. It is true that the “wicked person” is regarded in 1 Corinthians 5 as distinct from “yourselves”, or the assembly (although really a believer as the sequel showed), but we cannot assume now that all believers not breaking bread are wicked persons. They are brethren, and we claim them as such, as belonging to the circle, and so we must include them, at least in principle, in any terms such as these mentioned which we may use. It seems to me therefore, that an act of discipline carried out formally on 1 Corinthians 5: 13 is not in keeping with the humbling conditions in which we find ourselves today.
2 Timothy is, I believe, the alternative, and it accords with the exercise of one truly humbled by the evil now manifest in the sphere of Christian profession. The principle there, is withdrawal from evil or those who practise it. This, of course, does not mean that each individual in the company would act separately in dealing with evil that might arise amongst them. As following righteousness together, they would necessarily act against evil together. The ground taken by each and all would be that sin must be refused, and so they refuse to walk [p. 162] with any one guilty of it. It may be said that it is only a matter of words; that the end reached is the same. The end reached may indeed be the same, but a right form of words is important, especially when the truth of the assembly and (also) its failure in testimony are involved. Although, with some, no harm may accrue in the use of incorrect form, with others, serious error may be found. I have seen a letter addressed to “the assembly of God” in a locality; and I have seen it stated by a company of Christians who “put away” a brother, that, as put away, he was outside the assembly of God on earth.
I have remarked that in dealing with evil according to 2 Timothy 2 saints do not necessarily act on individual grounds. They follow righteousness together, and in dealing with evil they would have 1 Corinthians 5 in view — both as regards the holiness of the house of God and the power that is available to maintain it. The Lord will be with His people in grappling with evil as they humbly own and accept the changed conditions. I believe Matthew 18 applies.
Turning to the papers received; these by Mr. Budd show much thoughtfulness and they suggest much that is helpful, but I feel assured that the individual line is carried too far. This I believe he will see himself in time, through the Lord’s help. Indeed I judge from his letters that he would admit that two or more Christians as agreed may act together. For he says ‘These may be together in such a way that it is possible to preach and act individually in the light of the assembly and carry out every divine principle’. To be of one mind in the Lord, to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit, to agree as touching any difficulty and pray about it are divine principles, and as Mr. Budd’s statement says, that all may be carried out by the believer, he must surely admit that saints may and do act together in the things of God. But this is not in keeping with his statement: ‘In my judgment one can only act in the light of the assembly for oneself’, and hence the danger, that I have referred to, of pushing the individual line too far. If this statement means that saints cannot in any sense enjoy the things of God or act jointly, it would rob them of much that the relationships in which we are set affords and which, through grace, we cherish as a most precious privilege. It is true indeed that each one has to judge iniquity for himself and forsake it, and as in the great house separate from vessels of dishonour purging himself thus, but as following righteousness [p. 163] with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart, he necessarily acts with them in judging evil if it arises, as already remarked. Then he breaks bread with them. This is necessarily a collective act, for it is “the bread which we break”. The breaking refers to the act of the brother who gives thanks for the bread; and so it is necessarily collective. Besides, the loaf represents our oneness (as Scripture states).
Mr. Budd’s ‘suggestions’ as to the breaking of bread do not seem to arise from Scripture. The paper suggests that the breaking of bread is now connected with the testimony, whereas in the early days it was connected with the local assembly — at Corinth. What may be remarked is, that the Supper is a remembrance of Christ while He is absent. It was instituted by Himself and left with the disciples. It was afterwards received from Him by Paul who delivered it to the saints at Corinth, and of course to other assemblies. That it was connected with the ‘testimony’ and the ‘local assembly’ at the beginning and that it is connected with the testimony now (as the suggestions intimate) is true; but why it should not be connected with the local assembly now it is difficult to see. Is there a local assembly now? The ‘suggestions’ admit there is, but ‘it cannot be convened’. But how are we to regard saints in a locality who do convene ‘in the light of the assembly’? They are not the assembly surely, as already shown, but they are of it, and the ‘local responsibility’ attaching to it has to be accepted by them; the addresses to the “seven assemblies” teach us this in the true sense, not only a testimony in the place.
In principle, therefore, the Lord’s supper is connected with the assembly now as at the beginning. The great sorrow is that all the saints in a given locality do not avail themselves of the privilege of partaking of it. Indeed the truth of the unity of the assembly is ever present in the Supper, for the loaf speaks of the body. The cup too, I believe, speaks of the unity of the Spirit, for there can be no doubt that the word “drink” in 1 Corinthians 12: 13 refers to it.
As regards Mr. Capper’s letter, and others which say that we can now act formally on 1 Corinthians 5: 13, more need not be added to what has been said at the outset. It is said by Mr. Capper. ‘An assembly or company comes into view which can act upon church truth previously given without assuming to be the church of God’. Such a company is, Mr. Capper says, ‘to put away from among themselves a wicked person’. The danger here lies in the fact that you have a company or assembly which is admittedly not the church of God, acting formally as the church of God. Whatever the disclaimers made, this is the fact presented in a case of discipline. This can only lead to the extremes already referred to.
Mr. Capper rightly says that 1 Corinthians is addressed not only to the church of God, but also to those that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. It seems, however, that in the latter designation the whole Christian profession at the time was in view. The epistle was catholic as well as local. To make the address apply to a company such as is indicated in 2 Timothy 2: 22 is hardly correct, for these do not include the whole profession.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.