OCTOBER 16TH, 1931
OCTOBER 16TH, 1931
MY DEAR BROTHER, — The consideration of the correspondence which you have kindly permitted me to read, and which I return herewith, has confirmed in my mind the conviction that in such cases as the one referred to it is most important to take serious account of the exercises of brethren who know their history, and the details connected with them. Those at a distance obviously do not know, and I think it is according to divine principles that they should identify themselves with the exercises and spiritual judgment of those who do know, and with whom they are one body. A case which has occasioned serious exercise where it was local is one to be handled with priestly care and a considerable measure of holy reserve.
[p. 203] You have referred to the law of leprosy (Leviticus 13 and 14), and it is instructive to see that in a case of suspected leprosy it is necessary for the priest to make sure that the person is clean before he is given the liberty of the camp. He is to be “shut up” until there is clear evidence of this. During the period of being “shut up” the priest is under no obligation to prove that he is unclean; it is sufficient that there are suspicious features present which have to be considered, and it has to be manifest to the priest that he is “clean” before he can be pronounced to be so. Your letters seem rather to go on the line that the priest can be called upon to furnish legal proof that he is unclean, but what is requisite is that the priest whose attention has been called to the case should be satisfied that he is clean.
When it is a question of priestly discernment it is hardly wise to assume that an individual, or even a company of brethren, at a distance have more ability for this than those who have had it before them as a godly concern in their own locality. Would it not be right to assume that those whom we recognise as moving in accord with the Lord’s mind in A are as well acquainted with divine principles, and are as spiritual in their regard for the true good of a soul, and for what is due to the Lord, as the brethren at B?
The fact that in the judgment of godly brethren there is even a shade of misgiving about a case should make us very careful. A person “shut up” would clearly not be a subject of friendly or social intercourse, but of holy and priestly care.
I may add that in my judgment it is a mistake to suppose that the reception of a person to fellowship, or the subsequent giving letters of commendation, renders it out of order to raise any questions as to events in the past history of that person. If it was clear that certain facts were known, and the person had been received as having judged himself relative to them, it would be contrary to grace and righteousness to raise them again, but if things unknown to the brethren subsequently come to light they are by no means covered by the fact that such a person had been received or commended.
With love in the Lord to you and yours,
Yours affectionately in Him,
October 16th, 1931.