MAY 31ST, 1935

MAY 31ST, 1935

BELOVED BROTHER, — In answer to your letter of the 29th inst., I may say that I believe the remarks referred to were made in connection with a question which was raised about withdrawing from one who had already withdrawn from us. It seemed to be in the minds of some that if one had withdrawn from fellowship with the saints he could not be the subject of any disciplinary action. If this were so, an unrighteous person could at any time save himself from coming under discipline by withdrawing. But if unrighteousness is definitely ^[p. 240] proved, the saints are under responsibility to express a judgment as to it, and to withdraw from the person guilty of it. They are under obligation to say that they cannot walk with him. Having broken bread with the saints, he remains still entitled to do so until something occurs on his part which renders him a subject of discipline. If one left us and identified himself with that with which we cannot have fellowship it would be right to withdraw from him as having done so. This defines the position, and makes it clear that he cannot again break bread until he has judged the associations with which he has identified himself.

Sometimes persons withdraw through getting cold and losing interest in the Lord and His things, and it is even possible that a working of conscience may lead in such cases to a feeling of being unfit for the position and privilege. These are cases for pastoral care rather than for discipline; they really test the measure of our spirituality.

I hope this will suffice to make clear what was conveyed in the remarks referred to.

It was a great joy to me to be with the dear brethren at Bournemouth last week, but I found it pretty much a tax on my head. The ministry was very precious and timely, and will, I trust, bear much fruit universally.

With love in the Lord,

Yours affectionately in Him,

May 31st, 1935.