Dear brother
... I regret more than I can tell this trouble that has arisen at M between the brethren there and the two brothers at N and I can only pray that the Lord may come in in restoring grace and heal the breach that has been made.
Not being on the ground I find it difficult to form a clear and definite judgment in my own mind as to the existing state. It would seem that not only is there a breach between those in M and those in N, but there is a division of sentiment between brother A and brothers B and C. And this increases the difficulty. The same mail that brought your letter brought a long letter from A, in which he gives his version of the matter. I had already heard from C and had written to him though I found it difficult to write as freely as I would have done if I had had the statement of others as well. Now that I have your letter and A’s I will try to answer both at once and you can pass the letter on to him and the others who are interested in the matter.
In his letter, A mentions some things antecedent to the D matter, which he thinks have a bearing on it. These relate to the question of dealing with the case of Mrs. E who had long absented herself from the meetings; and also the question of allowing one to break bread who still retained membership in some sect.
It would seem that “something over a year and a half ago,” Mrs. F had the thought of bringing her mother to the meeting (with the thought, I suppose, of breaking bread), and that she was told that they would have to tell her mother beforehand that “in breaking bread with us she would be condemning the system she was in.” And it would seem that Mrs. F and Mrs. E felt hurt, and did not come much to the meeting after this. It would also seem that it was proposed
later to write a letter to Mrs. E, which if she did not heed, she would then (or after due time for consideration), be considered as outside. I do not understand that this letter was sent to her. But a letter, not from the gathering, but from a brother, on his own responsibility, was written her, as, I suppose, seeking to exercise her conscience as to the matter of protracted absence. This letter had the effect of leading Mr. E to write this brother, forbidding the brethren to visit his wife any more, “as she was in a very upset nervous condition.” It is not for me to say whether or not this letter should have been sent to Mrs. E. It may have lacked the power of gracious love which wins the heart and restores the soul, or it may have only served to bring out a state which was not pleasing to the Lord. At any rate it was an act of individual service of one toward another, and not an action of the assembly, and should not have been taken as such by Mrs. K.
As to the assembly sending such a letter as had been proposed, I think it would have been a serious mistake. Is Mrs. E a “wicked person” such as is not to be tolerated? Or has she avowedly given up the assembly? Why then drive her out by writing such a letter? For this would in all probability be the result. How much of prayer and supplication has there been for such, like that of Moses who interceded for a guilty people forty days and forty nights? How much heart yearning for poor weak sheep who may be lagging, or stumbling and falling in a path that is none too smooth?
Oh! that the love of Christ for the whole Church might be developed in all our hearts. Of course the glory of God in the maintenance of truth and righteousness must not be overlooked — nay, it requires the first place — but God’s order is, first to exhaust grace in seeking and restoring, in all such cases; and then to let judgment take its course, when wickedness makes it a necessity. Judgment is God’s strange work. If He judges, it is because of necessity — because His holiness demands it. He loves mercy and His grace, so to speak, exhausts itself in seeking to produce a state such that in connection with it He can consistently show mercy.
The question of allowing one who is still in a sectarian position to break bread with us, was, I suppose, raised in connection with Mrs. F’s proposal to bring her mother to the meeting. Now, I don’t know whether or not Mrs. G was a proper subject to be received at the table. I have supposed that she was a Christian, and do not know anything in her life or ways to disqualify. But all might not be of the same judgment. This is simply an individual case, and would decide nothing as to principle; and the principle is the important thing. It does not seem from A’s statement that objection to her breaking bread was made on the ground of spiritual unfitness, but her being a member of some system was raised as a barrier — not an absolute one, but she must be told “beforehand” that, “in breaking bread with us, she would be condemning the system she was in,” and this would be equivalent to telling her that her participation in the ordinance was not desired by the meeting; and, of course, anyone of a sensitive disposition would, under the circumstances, refrain. Perhaps one in a hundred, or one in a thousand, might be found who would nevertheless avail themselves of what they might consider their right, and so participate, regardless of the feelings of those in the meeting. But such a course of handling would, it seems to me, quite unfit any such one to participate in that joyous and holy feast to the edification of his soul. Instead of having the blessed Lord before his soul, and the memory of His death and measureless love filling his heart, he would have his mind full of thoughts as to the way in which he was being treated, and his breaking bread would be little more than a form.
It has been the custom of those gathered to the Lord’s name, from the first, to receive at the Lord’s table known godly souls, who were sound in doctrine and upright in walk, even though still connected with some system, and this without raising the question of their breaking bread with such system. Such souls may have but little intelligence as to ecclesiastical principles — possibly none at all — but they love the Lord, are sound in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, are godly in their walk — perhaps more so than many who have correct views of ecclesiastical truths and they recognize that the table at which we break bread is the Lord’s table, though they may think the same of other tables which are sectarian — the Lord has received them and He appreciates (if we do not), their desire to remember Him — why should we raise a barrier to such? Why exclude them, or at least make the conditions so hard they cannot participate, — without being rude and forcing their own wills?
Of course, a loose habit of going back and forth after the truth is in a measure known would call for godly care and admonition and might call for assembly discipline if a perverse will became manifest. But I do not think that much trouble of this kind has been found in our experience.
Nor is this the ground taken by the so-called Open Brethren. Some of their assemblies throw the door open to all Christians, especially to all professedly separate from system, and some are absolutely exclusive, and refuse to receive any one who does not first break with system. They — at least many of them would break bread with us if we would receive them, showing they are ignorant of the principles of the one body and the unity of the Spirit.
Nor is it the same thing to receive a godly soul who has been brought up in system and to receive one who has broken the unity of the Spirit, and gone off into a position of schism. In the one case you have a soul approaching the light — or at least fuller light — and in the way of being brought intelligently upon divine ground, if love and grace are wisely shown him, while in the other case you have one who has turned his back on divine ground and professedly known light, and placed himself in a position hostile to the truth, but who, because of a lax conscience might be willing to break bread with those on divine ground, while repudiating this very ground. The difference morally between the two is very great.
I have said much more on this line of things than I would — indeed I would not have touched it otherwise — because A seems to think there is a link between it and the present trouble with Mr. D. I fear there is at M too hard a front on this line of things, raising barriers which place the meeting almost on sectarian ground; and I can see how this had disturbed the equilibrium of the meeting before D came. And his coming has brought it more fully to the surface.
I hardly know what to call this, unless I would say it is a spirit of legal righteousness not properly mingled with grace.
This spirit, I suspect, D felt from the first, or almost from the first. But there is another thing I may mention in this connection which seems to me to have increased the difficulty. A says he was cautioned as to D (by B) when he came, as “an erratic and unreliable brother.” Of course this would put A in a suspicious, or at least watchful mood. And all who had similar thoughts would be affected in the same way. This I consider unfortunate. No doubt D has his idiosyncracies, and has made failures, as may be said of us all; but it was rather unfortunate that he should come among those who were looking for these things. If the brethren had been in the atmosphere of Philippians 4:8,98Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 9Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. (Philippians 4:8‑9) – “whatsoever things are true,” etc., the effect might have been very different. As it was, D felt, it seems, he was in a hostile atmosphere, which, I suppose, put him in a suspicious mood also, and when such elements exist it does not take long for an occasion of misunderstanding to arise. I do not for a moment wish to condone D’s failures, but I should like to put them in a fair light, and if the others failed also, not to pass them over more than his.
After weighing the statements I have received, I am pretty well satisfied that there has been not a little misunderstanding on both sides, and it would be well if this could be eliminated.
It seems the first Lord’s day D was at the M meeting, he made a somewhat lengthy address before the breaking of bread; and I suppose, at least, in the minds of the others, exception to this was taken, and perhaps it may have been spoken about also. As a rule, I think, it is happy if there is spiritual power to break the bread early in the meeting, because it is what we come together for. On the other hand we must not lay down a rule, and trench on the liberty of the Spirit, only we may expect the Spirit to lead according to God’s Word. And I believe if the meeting is intelligent and in spiritual power the act of the breaking of bread will not be left till the end of the meeting, or near it. In keeping with this, one would regret anything like a habitual making of addresses before the bread is broken. How far Mr. D had been given to this I am not prepared to say. But since it has already been spoken of at M, I may say I have understood he was given frequently to doing this in P to the extent that some were grieved by it, and one at least, spoke to him about it, and was not very graciously answered. One grieves over a thing like this — both the fact of sermonizing before the bread is broken, and the lack of grace shown in not respecting the conscience of one who was troubled. I believe there are occasions when a fitting word spoken before the breaking of bread brings all hearts into touch with the Lord, and thus adds to the joy of remembering Him; but this is different from a lengthy address habitually given at that time. And if a brother habitually gave such addresses before the bread was broken, especially after his attention had been called to the matter I would be inclined to think he either did not apprehend clearly the character of the meeting, or else was disposed to make more of his ministry than of “This do in remembrance of Me.”
The second Lord’s day D was at the meeting, a brother arose and gave thanks at the table at the close of the singing of the first hymn. This seemed abrupt to some, and D took it that it was meant to shut him off from ministry. Well, it might have the appearance of being “abrupt” but I do not see that it necessarily was so, unless there was haste to do so as soon as the hymn was sung. And why should D judge it was to shut him off from ministry? Would not this indicate that he had the thought of ministry in his mind — instead of remembering the Lord? Besides, was not the way open for ministry after the bread was broken?
It would seem, however, that others shared in D’s thought that the early giving of thanks was to shut him off from ministry before the breaking of bread. A seems to have had the same thought and it would seem B said he supposed that was the intention.
Now the brother who gave thanks that morning disclaimed all such intention in a letter to D and the least that grace could do would be to accept the disclaimer. I remember an instance here where the same brother gave thanks at the table just after the first hymn was sung, and here at least, there was no question of shutting off any one from ministry before the breaking of bread. Nor did it for a moment occur to me to criticize him or think there was anything out of place. And I am quite willing to believe that it was not otherwise in M than here. However, if others had the feeling that it was to shut off D, we need not be surprised if D himself took it in this way, only the brother’s disclaimer ought to have been sufficient.
This brings us to D’s prolonged absence from the meetings — eight Lord’s days I understand. I do not see on what ground this can be justified. If D felt that a personal offense had been committed against him, there was a scriptural way to act in the matter, and that was not to stay away, but go to the brother and tell him his fault according to Matt. 18, with the thought of gaining him. But D did not so act. He felt his presence not desired and so stayed away. On the other hand it was certainly the responsibility of the others to look after him and the more so after they learned that he had been wounded. “If a brother be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore him” (Gal. 6:11Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)). It seems A thought D ought to be looked after, and sought to do so himself, but was blamed for so doing by the others. There seems to be the thought that if A had not gone to D, he would simply have remained away and the fellowship of brethren at M would never have been asked, and so there would have been no trouble. If such was the thought, it strikes me as very unhappy indeed, and betrays a lack of heart for an erring child of God. He has gone off hurt; let him go. Is this the spirit of Christ? But if there is no such thought, why blame A for going to see him and trying to disabuse his mind of the thought that the early breaking of bread that Lord’s day morning was meant to shut him off from ministry? It seems to me that A’s course was quite commendable — quite scriptural. And I do not see why he should be blamed unless the others wished D to stay away. Well, after A’s visit to D he came back to the meeting and A asked him and H to take dinner with them, and for this also he has been blamed. Why? One seems to put D’s course on the same ground as 2 Thessalonians 3:1111For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. (2 Thessalonians 3:11). With the light I have, I am not able to do so. His course in staying away was blameworthy, I fully believe, but so I believe was theirs in not seeking him. And we must remember it was a wounded soul staying away because he felt his presence was not wanted. The day of grace for D had not closed, and A, considering his age and the distance he had to go home, and desiring as far as he could to undo the feeling in D’s mind as to not being desired, asked him to take dinner with him. I do not blame him but commend him. The grace manifested in A may not have been sufficiently seasoned with salt — I am not able to judge as to this — but I believe it was still the time for grace.
The next Lord’s day D was absent again and H present. D’s absence I do not think was a happy sign, unless there was some good reason for it. It was on this Lord’s day, I believe, that H stated it was the desire of D and himself to spread the table in N, and that they desired the fellowship of those in M. Here also, there seems to have been some misunderstanding. The spreading of the table in N did not strike the brethren in M favorably, and it was proposed to wait and look to the Lord during the week, and perhaps decide the next Lord’s day. H does not seem to have understood this, and he and D called on A at the store the next Thursday and told A that they purposed breaking bread in N the next Lord’s day. This was after saying that they wished all to be done in the unity of the Spirit, etc. The distance between N and M was given as the reason for having the table in N. A did not think the distance sufficient reason, but after the question was talked over, he said he could raise no serious objection but spoke only for himself, and said they should see the others also; but he did not understand (on account of another man speaking at the same time) D’s statement that they intended to break bread in N the next Lord’s day. He reported to the other brethren, this interview, but not understanding, did not speak of the purpose to break bread the next Lord’s day. Here again there was misunderstanding, and again A was blamed as to his attitude at that interview, it being characterized as “wishy-washy.” Now I think A might have been more pronounced in urging the need of patience till all were satisfied, but to speak of his position as “wishy-washy” was to use language that could only tend to alienate a brother’s affections, and rouse the flesh to opposition, instead of helping them to reach oneness of mind. Such expressions do not savor of the meekness and gentleness of Christ, and have not their spring in the Spirit. I deeply regret the existence of a spirit indicated by such expressions.
But this, on the other hand, does not excuse the course taken by D and H. The hasty spreading of the table at N seems to me distinctly to savor of the spirit of independency, notwithstanding that independency is disclaimed. When it was known that the brethren in M had objections or difficulties, why not wait for these to be cleared away. D’s statement later that they “did not have to have” the fellowship of M though they had asked it, savors distinctly of independency, or a determination to go on with the matter whether their brethren approved or not. To have their expressed fellowship he felt to be desirable, but the purpose to spread the table was already there, and this seems to be independency. I am not saying whether M was justified or not in withholding fellowship, but asking it and then going against it, was to break the unity of the Spirit, if indeed it had not already been broken before. If D had patiently waited and sought to clear away his brethren’s objections it would have been a very different thing.
Then it needs to be considered that those in N hitherto broke bread habitually in M. They were a part of that meeting. Had it been the case of some Christians living further away, and never having been considered as belonging to the meeting in M, it would have been different. But in this case, those in N formed a part of the meeting in M and could not consistently begin a new meeting without the expressed fellowship of the others. Or were they considered only visitors in M? If the latter, it would put the case on a little different ground. But I do not think they considered themselves, or were considered by others, as only visitors. And if, being a part of the gathering there, they could separate and begin a new meeting at will, why could not any two or three in a gathering, if they thought it more convenient for them, separate and begin a new meeting?
D’s contention that the N meeting is older than the M meeting, because it is a meeting moved out from P seems to me sad. Which P meeting would it be? D was from Oand and H from R and each had a meeting in his house in P. Surely D knows better than to hold out for any such untenable ground. When he left Othe meeting there became dissolved. Individuals move to distant places but not assemblies. When D and H attended the M meeting, was this a P meeting paying M a visit? But surely such things are not soberly contended for.
Now if these difficulties had not arisen at M, and D and wife, on account of age, and the distance between the two places, and H with them, desired to have the table spread at N, I do not see why any serious objection should be raised. I can quite appreciate the feelings of Mr. and Mrs. Din this matter, perhaps in a way that some who are younger could not. And I do not think that I for one would feel disposed to put any barrier in the way, and think it would be a mistake to do so. But I think D and H should wait on the consciences of their brethren.
The way the meeting has been begun in N, I do not see how its standing can be supported. If not begun in positive self-will, it was, to say the least, begun in great haste, and as making a breach between two parts of the meeting at M. I do not speak of what was intentional, but simply the fact — the meeting at M is divided, part of it now meeting at N, without the fellowship of the others.
When visited by the three brothers, D’s losing his temper, and speaking “unadvisably with his lips” like Moses at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, would all seem to indicate an unhappy and unbroken state. I see in it nothing of the meekness and lowliness and longsuffering and forbearance in love in which we are enjoined to walk, giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There may have been something to irritate and there may have been misunderstanding, but these cannot excuse such an outburst of temper with its accompanying utterances. It is right to respect gray hairs according to Scripture, but I see no humility in one who has them using them as a plea for young men to give him honor. It thus becomes self and not Christ. Nor do I see that there is any difference in principle, where it is a question of young men, or older, beginning to break bread in a new place. It should be done in the unity of the Spirit, and old men as well as young are liable to go wrong. I admit, however, that more care might be needed where all were young. But the principle is the same.
D “claims they have no ground for withholding their fellowship and that it was sufficient that they were notified of the fact that a meeting at N was contemplated.” Under ordinary circumstances this would be true, but those in N being a part of the M meeting puts the matter on a different footing, and the fact of existing friction and misunderstanding makes it needful that there should have been patient waiting, and a clearing up of misunderstandings.
After saying so much, little need be said in direct reply to your questions.
I do not see how they can receive N in the present condition of things, without slipping over questions that affect the Lord’s honor.
I could hardly say the brethren at N have placed themselves outside in independency in acting as they have done. There is irregularity in their course and the spirit of independency seems manifest; but the intention to act independently is disclaimed. Any thought of taking ground independent of those divinely gathered is refused by them. It is not an ordinary case of independency. They have not avowedly separated from M but have begun to break bread in N avowedly in fellowship with the ground of the M meeting. But the way they have done this is irregular and apparently willful, or else in ignorance of what is becoming.
The third question seems more complicated. To receive them without owning their wrong would not, it seems to me, be maintaining truth and righteousness and would be smoothing over a breach of the unity of the Spirit, while perhaps both sides might contend doctrinally for the truth of the one body. It is the practical side of this truth that is in question, and it seems to me D and H are not the only ones that have failed in it. Before D came there was already a lack of spiritual unity in the meeting and his coming has been the occasion of bringing this unhappy state more to the surface. Yes, I think to receive them without further question would be to yield D’s contention that he did not need the fellowship of the nearest gathering before setting up a table. It seems to me in this case he should have the expressed fellowship of M in his purpose to spread the table, and without it, his ground is not tenable.
Well, it may be asked, What is to be done? It would be going outside my province to say such or such must be done. The assembly must act as before the Lord. But perhaps I may be permitted to say what I think is needful. What I feel persuaded of is that there has been somewhat of general failure, and that not D and H merely, but others as well, have acknowledgments to make before the Lord. I believe that D and H ought for the present to cease breaking bread in N, and that all ought to get together for prayer, confession and humiliation before God. When all get their right place before Him in brokenness and lowliness, and confession is made where there has been failure, the difficulties will melt away. Love one to another will then have full play and hearts will then be drawn together instead of alienated.
If such a course is pursued I see no reason why then full fellowship might not be accorded D and H in their desire to break bread in N.
I might have written more in connection with some details, but I have already written a long letter and I have but little strength for such work just now. I feel how imperfectly I have written also, but it is far from easy to judge rightly of a case when not on the ground. I have simply accepted the statements of the different ones as true, and formed my judgment accordingly.
Hoping and praying that all may be adjusted according to truth and righteousness and that the dear brethren may be drawn together in the power of God’s grace and by His Spirit, instead of being further alienated, I am, dear brother, Yours affectionately in the Lord,