Aberdeen
– A House Divided

The situation at the time of the Aberdeen meetings must be under­stood in order to appreciate the catastrophic impact on the brethren.

"After J.T.'s departure to be with Christ in 1953, there was an unprecedented, relentless and extended struggle for preeminence in leadership and teaching.

6. If there is to be full recovery to God's testimony, it must be based on the practical expression of “one body” and an abandonment of all sectarian practices, besides on withdrawal from iniquity.

7. It therefore seems a matter of great importance that we should humbly and patiently apply ourselves to reconciliation not only with individuals we have wronged or stumbled, but with companies of believers who walk in practical accord with Scripture.

8. In this process of reconciliation we should recognize that the desire of others to walk in accord with Scripture may well exceed our own, that from their point of view we are likely to be more questionable than they are from our point of view.

• Nevertheless, there is the unity of the faith, one body, one Spirit, and “if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship …”

I am sorry to be lengthy, but I feel these things very deeply. Could I just then allude to a few references in 'Life in Manifestation' which somewhat trouble me, especially from the view point of 7 and 8 above:

• Other believers are referred to as “independent” (pages 72, 125), “superior” (72), “not pure” (126), “proud” (132). I realize that you wanted to guard the truth, and that in some cases these adjectives may be justified. Also that on page 72 the words were virtually put into your mouth.
  • But we have been so much more in disgrace than they; is it comely to draw attention to our fears about such – is it not likely to make them feel that we are hypocrites, for the same adjectives may well apply to many of us?

• Then on page 125 you introduced “independency” when W.B.G. spoke of those walking in faithfulness to Christ's Name. Why should we regard faithfulness as independency? I agree both could be found together, but why should we be suspicious?

• And I cannot really understand why you deliberately said in answer to W.G.'s question on that page “No, I do not!”. Surely we are in a transitional time? – and we should be broader than we have been? Have we not made too much of the ‘recovery’ as attaching it to ourselves?

• Then on pages 125-6, you speak of “another element” attached to certain “positions”. I agree we might find something to criticize! What might they find still amongst us?

• On pages 130-1 you say persons should be able to show (it to be iniquity so as to convict others). All Scripture says is to withdraw from iniquity (which we would now I think admit existed amongst us). But like you, I would prefer a clear statement of persons' judgment.

• Lastly, on page 131 you quote J.N.D.'s letter. There is an important difference, is there not, in that systematic evil existed among us although our eyes were blinded so as not to detect it?
  • I would not like to connect “lack of patience” with those who had clearer discernment of iniquity than I had. Many simply acted on Scripture and we cannot fault them on that.

This is far more than I intended to write, and I do not apologize. I very much value your service, beloved brother, and do not want you to think me to be setting up to be wise.

• Maybe you feel ‘guarding the truth’ was more important five months ago than the impression produced about our sectarian outlook, and would not say the same things now. But was it all guarding the truth, really?

• We have been marked for years by insistence on principles, but have largely lost the power of attraction for Christ's scattered sheep.

Again, I see the need for the body of the brethren to be carried if possible and I know this is difficult anyway on many other matters. I quite see patience is needed, but I fear there is much at stake as to the clarity of the testimony of our Lord.

With very much love in our Lord Jesus, Your affectionate brother in Him, Laurence Twinam.

Unfortunately, an answer to the above letter has not come to light.

December 21, 1971
Mr. John Mason,
Beloved brother,
… I expect you will remember me mentioning (in a letter dated 2 June) that I was exercised about our relations with other believers. My exercises in this direction have tended to develop somewhat over the last six months, and I am aware that there are similar feelings with other brethren.

Feeling the need for a greater practical expression of one body, I have established unofficial contact with quite a number of brethren in the so-called Ilford and Croham groups, and with a number of other Christians, some of whom once walked with us.

• I find a large measure of common ground, and this interests me much more than some of the points of divergence. With some persons I am not free to break bread, but am nevertheless free to converse and eat!

• Much of their literature is profitable, and they say much the same about ‘ours’. I have found F.E.R. 18: 87-89 confirmatory in this direction, in using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit.

  The section to which Laurence refers is given below: Ques. The exhortation here; is that put in as preserving against lawlessness and looseness in a day when individual faithfulness is called for, "follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart"? F.E.R. I think that passage is misunderstood. I think it is those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart that have to look for you. J.S.A. That is, you have to follow righteousness. F.E.R. That is in the lead, and those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart are to follow with you, but the great point is that righteousness is to be the leader. If you follow anything what you follow is the leader, and that is righteousness, then faith, love, and peace. You have not to look out for other people, but for yourself, and see that you follow your leader. W.M. You do not follow people, but you follow these principles. F.E.R. Because they are in the van. If other people are coming along too so much the better. Rem. That is the preservative against lawlessness. F.E.R. Quite so. "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart". J.P. I am afraid you are going to do away with our joining the brethren. F.E.R. I am sure I am not going to follow the brethren, but I hope I will follow righteousness. E.W. The company is already formed. F.E.R. I know no company except the church. E.W. The church as a whole? F.E.R. Yes. J.T. You get in Malachi, they that feared the Lord spake often one to another and the Lord took account of them. F.E.R. Yes, but then you must remember this, that those who feared the Lord and spake often one to another were the remnant of Israel, there was not much beside them. Now you find the majority of those in the unity of the Spirit not following the line laid down in Timothy. You cannot run the remnant principle too hard, else you will put out a good many who are in the unity of the Spirit. J.S. Have you any thought of the remnant today? F.E.R. It gives me an unpleasant feeling when I hear any talk about it; we cannot compare ourselves with the remnant of Israel, because they were the only faithful ones. Now in the present day there are a great many people who are not walking according to 2 Timothy, who are nevertheless in the unity of the Spirit. J.T. You mean the analogy between the company in Malachi and our position is not very great. F.E.R. You cannot run it too hard. G.W.H. So you could hardly say we were a remnant company. F.E.R. I do not like it. J.T. What do you make of Philadelphia? F.E.R. Whatever the Lord might see in Philadelphia was morally representative of the whole church; that is the value of it in the eye of the Lord. He says, "I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee". I do not believe the Lord loves the brethren especially, but the whole church. J.T. Do you not think certain conditions gave rise to the Lord speaking in that way? F.E.R. If you answer to Philadelphia, the first thing would be that you would jealously guard the whole church in your mind. Ques. Then you do not know of any company of Christians that represents the assembly as such? F.E.R. No. Ques. Nor any company that represents Philadelphia as such? F.E.R. No. J.T. All that you have been saying involves faith on the part of saints. F.E.R. There are many who are going on outwardly with us, and I do not want to exclude them, who have no faith for the place. We carry them, and they come to the meetings, knowing that a certain kind of meeting will be carried on at a particular time; they may be orderly in walk and character, and yet they have no faith for the place, and it makes a great difficulty in the present time. I feel this, they do not gain much and they contribute nothing. J.S. You mean to have faith for the path like Moses? F.E.R. It is no light thing to take a stand outside of all that has credit as christianity, to go forth outside the camp bearing His reproach is a poor thing if you have not faith for it. If you do it because others do it, you will get unhappy and dissatisfied. J.S. So you think there are a great many among us who have no faith for the path? F.E.R. I am sure there are. In our coming together in assembly there is nothing there but what we bring. You do not find anything there. Whatever comes into the assembly in its normal character has to be brought there. J.T. I am afraid a great many of our brethren come expecting a ready-made service there.

• Purely social pursuits in such contacts find no place; on the other hand contacts between our own brethren often tend to be social and less profitable.

Predictably, this attitude has aroused some concern with certain brethren some of whom would call it ‘open’. This does not surprise me, for the word ‘open’ seems to have been used for generations rather unfairly to describe any attitude not distinctively ‘exclusive’.

I am very concerned to move on the principle of the “one body” without encroaching on other principles. It seems clear to me that unless we deliberately do this, we shall again be engulfed in practice in holding to an ‘only-right’ position.

As you will know, some O.B.'s have introduced worldly principles and perverted Christian liberty to the complete breakdown of separation from religious systems. Others, apart from O.B.'s, have gone as far as going into churches. Some ex-brethren invite those they could not break bread with to preach, etc.

• All this I believe to be quite wrong, and a travesty of principles, especially what J.N.D. stood for.

A point, however, which concerns me at the moment, is whether it would be right, as a personal exercise, to attend fellowship meetings arranged by ‘other brethren’.

• I do not see that this transgresses principles, and my objective, if I attended, would be to pursue reconciliation with such.

• We rightly invite these ‘other brethren’ to our fellowship meetings and look to the Lord to bless this. Are we justified in taking  higher ground’ than those who profess Scriptural ground practically indistinguishable from our own?

This brings me to refer to matters I raised in my letter of 2 June about 'Life in Manifestation'. I would greatly appreciate hearing from you as to this. It is not so much that the truth is directly involved in the passages I referred to, but our attitude to other believers.

Several statements seem out of keeping with a judgment of recent issues. While the meaning of some statements may be obscure, other seem clear. If the remarks were to be made here, some I would seriously question, others I would withstand. The remarks are:

1. references to “——'s ministry” – pages 5, 6, 124;

2. reference to “the servant” – page 19;

3. “I think that the Lord has bereft us of leadership …” – pages 3, 40;

4. “Things have been pretty much regulated by distinctive universal lead amongst us . . .” – page 50;

5. “I would not eliminate the use of the green books* in looking into a subject …”etc. – pages 20-25;

[* Books with notes of meetings in which —— gave the lead were called the “green books” – from the colour of the covers.]

6. “… the basis of the truth of the Sabbath, as it affected me, was that in the development of the recovery a point has been reached where God could rest” etc. – pages 43-48.

I am sure that you will agree that at the Aberdeen meetings, and in what subsequently took place, the Name of the Lord was publicly dishonoured. This was done by one who claimed to be “Paul”. There is no doubt in my mind that the corruption in public ministry had already been manifested before the Aberdeen meetings.

• It was said in this city, as far back as 1929, that “If we attempt to carry on ministry without fasting we shall corrupt the ministry”, J.T., 90: 27.

I was a full supporter of —— for many years, and have confessed and judged that before the Lord – and not only that, but also the corrupting influence of that ministry upon the soul and the great damage that his judaizing teaching has had upon many persons and upon the testimony.

Having gone through much exercise as to the way in which the Blessed Lord Jesus has been dishonoured, as well as much pressure in order to save my house from division and domination by the wicked system of which —— was the leader, I find such apparently approving remarks, as noted above, offensive in the extreme.

• As far as I have been able to determine, not knowing what went on in his soul in his last moments, he died unrepentant – and the damages for which he was largely responsible in the testimony, and in the lives of many persons, remain.

• In view of all that has happened, I fail to see how it could be entertained that “a point had been reached where God could rest”. To publish such thoughts at this time can only distress and confuse the saints.

It is certainly not my intent to be critical of one like yourself, for whom I have respect and affection, but it is only right that you should know my thoughts. May the Lord help us and preserve us together.

Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

P.S. As David Waterfall is shown as the publisher, I am sending him a copy of this.

November 20, 1971
Staten Island, N.Y.,
Mr. Gordon Rainbow,
Beloved Brother:
Because I have respect for you and the genuineness of your exercises I write at once in reply to your letter received today.

First of all the publishers, to whom you have sent a copy of your letter, have seen fit to withdraw the book. In this relation, please read the enclosed copy of my letter to them, written prior to their action.

Additional to this, I would simply add that the error as to the Lord's soul was discovered by me – not a criticism. I knew better, but was confused over the word Sheol. The matter is quite clear in my research notes. The Lord evidently saw that I needed humbling and I accept it from His all wise hand.

—— manifested two distinct personalities – one, the man we valued; the other, a totally different person (probably becoming manifest and developing through the undue use of alcohol). The latter one caused the trouble – not that it absolves him, but it should be considered.

• It was this side of him that increased in its domination, yet there were times when the former came into evidence, and those local with him were in the best position to know this.

• I seek, before God, to unsparingly judge the political intrigue, the corruption, the lack of self-control and the blasphemy which ensued, the man who did it; myself, too, for not being aware of it sooner, and the extreme system which emulated him.

Bear in mind, also, please, that the ministry occurred last October 1970, the notes were revised shortly thereafter, and I had not seen them for about a year.

• Further, I was under the impression that the book would pass through the hands of the trustees at Stow Hill, whose scanning of the manuscript would be similar to previous publications, and it was not until after the printing was under way that I learned that this precautionary service had not been used.

• Brethren in England have had this book since mid-summer but, at that, the delay in printing and binding was unusually extended.

I trust that this explanation will modify your feelings toward the book and also the author.

Affectionately your brother in Christ, A. B. Parker.

P.S. I notice in re-reading your letter, that I have overlooked some of the questions raised and so resort to adding the following:

• Things have been pretty much regulated by distinctive universal lead amongst us. This is merely a statement of what conditions had been. Your objection, no doubt, is to “distinctive universal lead”, but the view is retrospective, and that is how he had been regarded.

• The Lord has bereft us of leadership. Again, a statement of fact, meaning, not only —— but so many who were universally recognised. This is not a bemoaning, or wishing it were back again, but simply a statement of what has happened.

• The Sabbath … a point had been reached where God could rest. My mind was not limited to what had developed in the last twelve years or so. —— himself insisted that there was nothing new in his ministry (up to a point, he did, and when he passed that point we were concerned).

• I believe that the crown* of Rev. 3: 11 relates to the service of God, which was developed before ——'s time. He brought in some innovations, but they were very minor, and we have the Supper and service of praise unspoiled. This, I believe, is what I had in mind, particularly.
  [* The importance of “the service of God” and the privilege of having part in it are unquestionable; but a crown is a thought usually connected with a reward at the end of a course.]

• I do not think that I gave up what J.T. taught us, nor did I emulate ——, though I was tainted somewhat, but he told me: “You do not get your supplies from the same warehouse that I do”.

• My concept of the recovery relates particularly to what is for God. However, I do not think that the Sabbath is rightly a Christian celebration and I never really held it, but I tried to encourage brethren to come to conclusions about things in the light of the temple and have conviction as to them, instead of following the mandatory line we had been on.

• But the recovery is still with us, I trust, and the crown is being held, too, I believe. Otherwise, what have we? And this is what J.N.D., J.B.S., F.E.R., C.A.C., J.T. and others were used of God to develop.

Well, I trust that I have not wearied you. My purpose is not to justify myself, but I sought to minister to the brethren in humility, with a chastened spirit, depending on the Lord's guidance and the Spirit's help, so that the brethren who had gone through so much should enjoy what has been brought from heaven for us.

• In doing so, of course, the frailty and limitation of the servant came into evidence, but I feel the Lord was in the occasion.

Affectionately your brother in Christ, A. B. Parker.

October 30, 1971
Mr. David Waterfall,
Dr. W. E. Pyper
Beloved Brethren:
After reading your correspondence file on questions raised by several brethren about certain statements made by me in the published book, – 'The Ministry of the Heavenly Spies',

• I wish to express my sincere regret that such a burden has fallen upon you when I am responsible, personally, for making these remarks and for the revision of the readings in which they occur.

Although the questions vary, they chiefly relate to comments about —— and the so-called green books. Also, things said about the abandonment have been questioned. Otherwise, the complaints seem to have been raised mainly because they have not been understood or have not previously appeared in printed ministry.

I have already stated in writing, as you know, that when I read the book I was somewhat shocked by some remarks in view of what has come to light since October 1970. I desire to have a judgment according to God of the evil which I supported and went along with for so long.

• At the same time I do not believe I have said anything on this subject which, in my light of my then knowledge of the person, I did not believe to be true. As to much of his history I await clarification at the judgment seat of Christ.*
  [* It is highly questionable – and pure speculation – whether we shall be enlightened at the judgment seat as to the history of anyone else, except as it might relate to our own history.]

The green books have not been read by me in over a year; I removed them from my bookshelves some time ago; I do not recommend their use.

My remarks about the abandonment were based on my understanding of the Scriptures and of J.T.'s ministry. This is a very holy subject.

• I have just discovered my remark on page 129, also 130, “His body and soul were in the grave”, to be incorrect. Footnotes to Psalm 6: 10, Psalm 6: 5, Acts 2: 27 and Matthew 11: 23 clearly show that in this connection, Sheol does not refer to the grave, but to the place of departed spirits.

• I deeply regret this error, remembering the word, “If any one think he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know it”, 1 Cor. 8: 2.

J.T. told us that the work of atonement, what is vicarious, and the judgment of God entered into the period of the grave, though in a more passive way than on the cross. It is difficult to reconcile judgment with communion.

• He also said, in answer to a question about when the abandonment ceased, “There is nothing said as to God's intervention until He raised Him from the dead; that is, the idea of atonement runs through”. This is in New Series 47: 37.

In serving the saints I seek to do so in humility, with the Lord's guidance and help, giving a portion of meat in due season, and to be accurate in doing so, I now count upon the Lord enabling those who read the book to do so in a charitable spirit and with a desire to arrive at the purpose of the ministry.

Affectionately your brother in Christ, A. B. Parker.

MINISTRY OF THE HEAVENLY SPIES 3 day meetings in Birmingham, October 1970, with Mr. A. B. Parker

The publishers have decided to withdraw the above from circulation for the reasons following;—

1. Reading of ——’s ministry was recommended in it even if in a guarded way.

2. Since October 1970 we have been adjusted about the position in divided houses. In the light of Matthew. 19: 6, 1 Cor. 7 and 1 Peter 3: 1, we would be wrong In pressing separation between husband and wife.

3. A clear lead was not given in the book about the so-called ministry which required Christians to keep the sabbath. We judge that the latter was not of God.

4. There is error as [to] what was said about the abandonment; namely, that the Lord's body and soul were in the grave. The footnotes to Psalm 16: 10, Psalm 6: 5, Acts 2: 27 and Matthew 11: 23 clearly show in this connection that Sheol does not refer to the grave, but to the place of departed spirits.

• Scripture does not specify the actual length of time of the forsaking (abandonment) but we doubt the teaching which extends it to the resurrection, although understanding that the burial of the Lord was part of His work. We feel it better to remove such a holy subject from the area where controversy could arise.

With regard to 1., above, A.B.P. says in a letter dated Oct. 30, 1971. “The green books have not been read by me for over a year; I removed them from my bookshelves some time ago. I do not recommend their use”.

In the same letter A.B.P. pointed out the error referred to in 4., above, saying, “I deeply regret this error”. A copy of this letter is enclosed.

We would like to express our sorrow to those who, having purchased the book, found that in it which was error, or that which has in any way disturbed them.

November 20, 1971, Wm. E. Pyper F. D. Waterfall.

November 21, 1971
Birmingham, England,
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Dear Gordon and Beloved Brother,
Thank you for copying yours dated November 17, 1971 to A.B.P. to me. I agree with much of, perhaps all you say. We are to blame for the present position.

• A.B.P. edited the notes in January 1971 or finished editing them, having started in November 1970, but we had great difficulty in getting the book from the printers who undertook the work, so distribution was not until July.

• Meanwhile a great deal has come to light which was not known in October 1970. In fact when the book went out I had forgotten much that was in it.

I would say before proceeding that we are withdrawing the book from circulation and a letter giving our reasons is being sent out shortly. This will cover your points 1, 5 and 6.

On point 2, I understand A.B.P.'s remark as to the servant to be the same as “a servant” or “that servant”, that is he was speaking of the fall of a particular man, not trying to make much of man. But I may be wrong.

3. I know A.B.P. when speaking of our being “bereft of leadership” was referring to the many servants or leaders who went badly astray on this issue as to Aberdeen.

On 4. I took the reference to distinctive universal lead to be J.N.D., F.E.R., and J.T., but it included ——'s part although we now know he was corrupt for a long time. The word “distinctive” had better be replaced by “forceful” in his case.

I am with you fully in your last four paragraphs. We have much to repent about and mourn over. Thank God He is gracious and the Lord's grace suffices.

• What I feel very much is that we provided the soil in which this wicked system headed by —— took root and flourished. Had we not provided the soil, that is had we been with God, the thing would never have prospered. I know I went along with much with a bad conscience, but conformed to stay in fellowship. Where is manhood in that?

Celia joins in much love in the Lord to you both.

Your affectionate brother, F. David Waterfall.

November 29, 1971
Mr. A. B. Parker,
Beloved brother,
Thank you for your prompt and brotherly reply of November 20th to my letter of November 17th regarding certain statements in 'The Ministry of the Heavenly Spies'.

Let me assure you that your letter did not weary me, nor have I now nor had I before any but the best thoughts of and for you.

If I had definitely known that the questionable statements had been the subject of correspondence between the publishers and yourself, and that they had “seen fit to withdraw the book”, I would certainly not have written to you to add any burden.

• It should be a comfort to you that your many years of service, and what you are personally, are appreciated by the saints as well as the Lord.

• I would not wish you to think that I did not find what was edifying in the notes – the heavenly side is greatly needed, and the ignoring of this in ministry, and in that which ministers are to be personally representative of, has made a large contribution to the low state which eventuated in the sorrowful exposure.
  • It reminds me of J.T.'s ministry – 'Divine Trial and Exposure' (New Series 87: 65).

It is not in my mind to pursue the matter as accepting your explanations and the withdrawal of some statements as set out in your letter to me, and also to the publishers – but I submit the following thoughts as that which I have come to myself through this exercise.

As to being bereft of leadership – When responsible persons failed, the Lord exercised His own prerogative in His personal leadership. Persons whom we may have thought of as leaders were not leading in the way of righteousness; they were following a man, through flattery or fear.

• The Lord has indicated others who were ready to lay down their lives for the truth and the saints; that is the only leadership worth speaking of.

• Brethren have, over the past years, been far too occupied with leadership rather than Christ. Much that passed as leadership has not led to Christ nor protected the saints.

As to distinctive universal leadership – Perhaps I have not looked far enough, but I cannot find such an expression in the Scriptures nor in the ministry of J.N.D., F.E.R. or J.T.

• I do not disregard the peculiar value of the ministry of those named. Leadership and ministry are not synonymous. For whatever reasons, this expression has gained currency among the brethren.

• The Scriptural thought is of gifts as in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. Office is local, gift is universal; all gift is universal. All gifts are given by the ascended Christ and each is distinctive in its own right.

• Distinctive universal leadership, that concept, has been at the root of the one man dogma, and was promoted to that end. J.T. said that we have no apostles now. “J.N.D., F.E.R., J.T.” was made into a sort of apostolic succession leading on to the exaltation of the one recently exposed (See the claim in the address, 'The King and His Men'.),* and has made way for clericalism both universally and locally.
  [* “There is no detour, from J.N.D., around others. It is J.N.D., F.E.R., J.T., down, right here – no detours”. London, July 8, 1960.]

Do not misunderstand me. I greatly value the ministry of J.N.D. – it was through him I learned the truth first, especially as to the present bearing of 2 Timothy 2: 19-22 – as well as that of F.E.R. and J.T. and others whom the Lord used in the recovery of the truth.

• At the same time, I think we need to see how these names have been used for political purposes, and to justify the prominence of one who lacked their moral and spiritual power.

The grand truths to which we have been recovered are – Christ, the Head in heaven and the Spirit here in the assembly. May we be held livingly in the truth of these great facts!

F.E.R. constantly warned against brethrenism. What has taken place in the recent exposure and sorrowful division is, without any doubt in my mind, the fruit of brethrenism taking the place of Christ – just a system of things that suited the legal, religious flesh being promoted for base gain.

• That the names of honoured servants of God have been used as a support for it is to the shame of many of us who either knew what they had ministered and went along with what was subversive of it or were inexcusably ignorant of what the Blessed Spirit had been saying for so many years.

Reviewing the past ten years or so, I have been impressed soberly with the words of the Lord:

• “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets and adorn the tombs of the just, and ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. So that ye bear witness of yourselves that ye are the sons of those who slew the prophets: and ye fill up the measure of your fathers”, Matthew 23: 23-33.

But now, as having a sober and humble judgment before our God, it is time to go on and make up for lost time in positive ministry with the good of all the saints in view and in personal devotion to the Lord Jesus, serving our God for His pleasure, while we await the coming of our Blessed Lord, the Hope of the church.

It is my turn to say that I hope I have not wearied you. Be assured of my continued respect and affection.

Your brother in Christ, Gordon.

P.S. As to the “abandonment” – There appears to be need for us all to proceed cautiously on such holy ground. I have always felt that where the Scriptures are silent, or where there do not appear to be clear doctrinal statements in the epistles, we are wise to avoid anything like dogmatism. It usually leads to error of some kind – not that I think that such an attitude is in your mind; I do not.

November 30, 1971
Mr. F. David Waterfall,
Beloved brother,
Thank you for your letter of November 21 re my letter of November 17 to A.B.P. Enclosed is a copy of a further letter to him, November 29, which is self-explanatory.

I would say to you as I did to him, that I would not have entered into correspondence on the subject if I had known your present thoughts as to the withdrawal of the book from circulation.

You will no doubt recall that you and I spoke of most of the matters in question, in a general way, when you stayed with us at our special meetings with E.C.B. Knowing how you then felt, it was difficult to understand you publishing such expressions. But all is now explained.

I trust that A.B.P. will not be too discouraged and will continue to be serviceable.

You may not agree with all I have expressed in my letter (November 29) but I think it is worth considering. We need to go by Scripture and use Scriptural expressions, and especially to be governed by Paul’s ministry.

• There is much in the Old Testament that helps as to leadership, and it is not to be disregarded, only let us proceed on moral and spiritual lines. There is no room now for what is official.

• Popery and clericalism are never far away. The extreme views on separation, which is really isolation, made way for this to come in.

I am finding the confusion and disorder in Christendom, and the divisions among brethren, an increasing sorrow. Oh to share the feelings of our blessed Head and to comfort Him as He would comfort us.

Locally we are generally encouraged, but the need for all to know and function in their own place in the body is evident.

News from, and of, you will always be welcome.

Betty joins in love to Celia and yourself.

Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

After much exercise, I am assured that there are no satisfactory Scripture based answers.

• “The authority of the hymn-book” is a belief unworthy of “those who have just fled those who walk in error”, 2 Peter 2: 18. It is, in fact, one of those curious thoughts from the discredited green books …

For the Lord's approval to be known there is no doubt that a thorough judgment is required of that false and perverse system of teaching (and practice) which we all went along with and which many, including myself, once fully supported.

As writing to you on a brotherly basis, and in full confidence of a mutual desire to walk pleasing to our Blessed Lord Jesus, I feel free to share some recent thoughts and exercises with you.

• It is becoming clearer that the conditions which allowed such a system to develop, and to finally usurp the place of the Lord and the Spirit, did not commence in 1970, 1965 or even in 1959.

• A sober review of the period from 1953 on, and also of the years prior to 1953, should shed light on the state that led to desiring “a king … like all the nations”, 2 Samuel 8: 5.

• It is a true word: “For they have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind”, Hosea 8: 7.

Watchfulness is needed lest a pride be nurtured for going on until the Lord Himself acted openly* against the evil and dealt decisively with the whole nauseous system by publicly exposing it. Humility rather is becoming.

On page 205 you say, “Can we afford to lose any of the brethren, unless it is for the specific reason and ground of our gathering, and that is according to 2 Timothy 2, that the ground of our gathering is withdrawing from iniquity, and calling on the Lord out of a pure heart. I know of no other. That is where we stand. It is the ground of our gathering.”

• Now I value 2 Timothy 2: 19-22, as indeed “every Scripture”. Before I was 20 years old I had learned the bearing of that Scripture, by the Holy Spirit through Mr. Darby's writings, and acted on it in withdrawing from the open meeting in which I was.

• It is most valuable and needed instruction for the last days but I do not understand “withdrawing from iniquity” to be “the ground of gathering”, though it is a most necessary guiding principle for our pathway.

• Be assured that I do not wish to engage in semantics. I am sure you will agree that divine principles are of the utmost importance.

We are generally encouraged here although there seems to be something atwork in some which tends to divisiveness.

• We are expecting A.J.E.W. for April 7-9. John Hunter was here recently and was a great help.

• Betty is in the hospital for tests and is sorely missed. I am a little pushed for free time at the moment but hope I will be able to write more fully later.

Our love to your wife and yourself and family, Mr. and Mrs. George Brown and all the saints.

Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

May 15, 1972
Dr. W. G. Thomson,
My dear Bill,
Your name having been mentioned in correspondence prompts me to write to you just now, a letter I have seen from a sister in Edinburgh with the 'Renton' party says of Glasgow that

• “they invited Alex Walker’s party to the fellowship meeting with Dr. Thomson” and also (dated Monday, April 17), “Dr. Thomson in Barnet has tried twice to force a division there but they don’t want to rush things as there is so much confusion in Falkirk, etc. But he intends dividing again this week we hear. Mr. Geo. Brown is helping there and asked for patience”.

• A letter from Laurence Twinam (May 8) says that, among other places, there is division in Barnet.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not accepting any discrediting statements as to you or any actions, but simply quoting what has come to my attention, which led me to write.

As a matter of fact, we were on the brink of division last Thursday. A few brothers were evidently trying to get us to commit ourselves to the 'Renton' group. We were at Kingston for fellowship meetings with A.B.P. on the weekend and so do not know what may have transpired here since.

• We would not have gone at all (it hardly seems a time for “fellowship” meetings, but rather for humiliation) except that there were no others going from here. Some went to Windsor (with John Hunter) but I do not know how they got on.

• There is quite a bit of support for the 'Renton; group in this area, and it is certainly showing. A.B.P. is expected here this weekend for meetings.

It hardly seems that we will hold together long in this city. Frankly, I am tired of divisions, playing church and brethrenism.

• But there is One of whom I am certainly not tired, our blessed Lord Jesus. In all the strife and turmoil He becomes more precious to the soul than ever. Thanks be to God that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and to the ages to come.

• Surely the One who will be able to satisfy our souls for all eternity can still our fears, quiet our restless spirits, and speak peace to our troubled hearts. I rest in Him, I learn from Him and He is enough! And soon we shall all see Him and be like Him. How the petty (and not so petty) differences will dissolve before Him.

We both send our fervent love to Jean and yourself and family, and all the saints, and would be glad to hear from you at any time.

Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

October 1972
London, England
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Dear Gordon,
Yes, I have gone through a lot since I last saw you, not least taking the very critical meetings as Glasgow, just before the split.

• G.W.B. [George Brown] played politics after my return, but I would not have it but forced him, reluctantly, into the open. He was hand and glove in league with the leaders (so-called) who wanted a division.

• Now, I gather, they are at sixes and sevens about eating. Many went without conviction, but because of family ties. The —— are typical of an introversionist sect. What sorrow to the Lord it all is.

The news of your —— is saddening, as also that of ——.

• It is so easy to be quick to condemn, but there is a great need at the present time for us all to search out how far and in what way we may have been responsible through lack of shepherd care or through discouraging because of slowness to judge and cast off the remnants of the evil system we profess to have judged.

• In myself it has certainly been a slow process as having been indoctrinated and committed to what the Lord has exposed. May the Lord's own gracious work of adjustment continue!

Your feeling references to “scores cast off by us who had judged the whole doctrinal departure” and to a “growing disposition to make reconciliation” give encouragement.

• It is to be hoped that the courageous and righteous action of the brethren in Havering in repudiating the 1960 Hornchurch excommunication of Mr. Cowell will bear fruit in this regard.

• It is a cause of deep sorrow that so many were treated so shamefully, and have suffered so much through ecclesiastical and clerical assumption and the utter disregard of divinely established natural relationships.

I went to see Mr. R. W. N. Saunders on December 10. To my shame, I had a large part in dealing with him when we wrongfully withdrew from him in 1961 over the eating matter, to which he objected as unscriptural.

• He received me in a very brotherly way and I personally cleared the matter completely with him and his wife. (Of course there are many others who were similarly mistreated!) They seem to be conducting themselves in a godly and commendable way.

While the “We are the church” doctrine has been repudiated in word, there is still evident the spirit of pride in position that underlay it. Claims are made in more guarded terms – but they are still claims.

• “But to this man will I look: to the afflicted and contrite in spirit, and who trembleth at my word”, Isaiah 66: 2.

The publication of ministry seems to lend itself to confusion at the present time, and I have felt obliged to object to certain statements which cannot be supported by Scripture and are a carry over from what we have left.

• The enclosed extracts (to A.B.P. Nov. 29, 1971, to —— and R.S. Jan. 4, 1972) may be of interest to you in this regard and serve more fully to express my thoughts.

Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

February 18, 1972
Dear Gordon,
Many thanks for yours with enclosures. I agree with what you say. The note of the readings (3 day meetings) here are in Britain being revised, but I am waiting for the second reading in which claims are made about the 1960's which are not factual. I hope that nothing will get into print which will represent continued pretension.

We are very exercised (some) as to the so-called Pacific Street brethren. Ben* and I hope to visit some tonight.

[* Benjamin Taylor, grandson of J.T.Sr., and cousin of Bill Petersen, whose mother Stella was J.T.Sr.'s only daughter.]

• Affiliations, involving radio etc., are a problem. But these brethren are happy and apparently going on well. Oh that we could have a hand in mending the nets!

My brother —— continues dark. He doesn't see the unforgiving spirit that marked his actions 17 years ago. The Jimites, the ———* people, and
——'s are hero fellowships. One doesn't need Christ.

[* The name of the beloved brother and servant of the Lord, as to whom W.T.P. made this unsubstantiated allegation, is purposely withheld. How others he was connected with at that time may have regarded him I do not know, but I do know that he has never thought of himself in such a light. As W.T.P. is now with the Lord (d. 1988) we cannot know whether he reconsidered this statement.]

We have some good times here: Don Pfingst, E.E.H. [Elliott Hoyte] and others helping. We expect to be with Harry Knauss [of Indianapolis] in Westfield tomorrow, God willing. (I heard that someone objected to John Hunter's [John G. Hunter of Columbus, Ohio.] serving because he has a dog! Love me, love my dog.)

We have the court case on us. It would be good to avoid trial by a fair negotiation, but the other side has been very unresponsive. A trial would be of some testimony, perhaps, under the Lord.

Alison* heard that Betty is in hospital. We are praying for you in this.

[* Mrs. W. T. Petersen (the former Alison Casays of Toronto) author of No. 412 in the 1973 Hymn Book.]

Affectionately, Bill.

February 9, 1972
Mr. Abe Gosen,
Dear Abe,
Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1972. It is cheering that you agreed with the extracts of letters which I sent. It is manifestly a time when our judgment of the wicked system from which we have separated – and of its works and fruits – need to be crystal clear.

As to your question: I have not read all of 'Miscellaneous Writings of J.N.D.', Volumes 4 and 5.*

[* Published by Bible Truth Publishers, 239 Harrison St., Oak Park, Illinois, U.S.A. These volumes were not part of the original 'Collected Writings'.]

• It is, of course, possible that some articles are not authentic. While the language in some may not seem to be J.N.D.'s, this is only conjectural and problematical.

• The comparison of the notes of his oral ministry as in 'Notes and Jottings', as well as in some pieces in the 'Collected Writings', with his written ministry reveals a marked difference in style. Further comparison with his private notes in Notes and Comments indicates a further difference in style.

• This does not seem unusual to me, as I find when I read my letters over they sound quite different to the manner in which I normally speak.

As to the piece in Miscellaneous 4: 265 and titled 'The Eternal Sonship Of Christ', the following points should be considered:

1. The article, as originally published, (of which I have a copy) did not bear that title but simply the last two sentences of the article, “I hold it vital to hold the Sonship before the worlds. It is the truth”.

2. If it were not authentic, it is hardly conceivable that a Christian would represent it is being so and state that “The original MSS can be seen by appointment by any of the Lord's people …”.

3. Many years ago I wrote to the address given but received no reply. However, a change of residence or a death could account for this in such a long interval after the original publication.

4. The style is very similar to that of the 'Notes and Comments'.

5. To question its authenticity merely because of the “title” and/or certain statements in it would be to ignore the well-known fact that J.N.D., and many other early brethren did apply the term “the Eternal Son” to the Lord Jesus and also asserted that it was the truth. In support of the foregoing an factual see the following:

• J.N.D. Collected Writings, 3: 89; 15: 291; 25: 230 – The last was at a conference in Belfast in 1871. He died in 1882.

• J.N.D. Synopsis 1: 360, footnote; 2: 55; 5: 11: 183 and elsewhere in the Synopsis.

• Hymn Book (1881 Revision by J.N.D.) No. 39, 59, 110, 302, and Appendix 17.

• Hymn Book (1903 Revision by T.H.R.) No. 39, 110, 302. Also note No. 150, 264 (in both editions) for “eternal Word” or variation. In the 1903 Revision, No. 181 ended “This the greatness of Thy glory – Ever blest – Thou art the Son” but note the change in the 1932 Revision and thereafter.

• F.E.R. Ministry 1: 52; 8: 38, 265, 298; 9: 159, 198; 11: 383.

• J. G. Bellett (died c. 1864) The Son of God, Ch. 1 (enclosed) clearly asserts “Eternal Sonship” and refuses anything else.

6. Some remarks in the article in question – as to Lord's part in the creation of the world – should be compared with J.T.'s address The Creator of the Worlds, N.S. 70: 294, Edinburgh, July 4, 1950.

7. Of course, the oft-referred-to passage in J.N.D.'s Notes and Comments, 7: 4-5 should not be forgotten. Also compare page 6, lines 12-14 and page 7, lines 24-29.

I have set out the above in detail only to give a basis for inquiry as to the genuineness of the questioned article. While one could not be – nor wish to be – dogmatic it appears, on the basis of the evidence available, that the article is authentic.

Even granting that the article was actually written by J.N.D., of itself, in no way determines the truth, nor do the other citations.

• What they all do is to plainly show that the term “Eternal Son” was in common use among early brethren, whatever the meaning that may have been attached to it. Some of the citations clearly indicate that it was intelligently held to be the truth. No honest person would deny that this was a just conclusion from the evidence cited.

• But again, of itself, this in no way determines the truth. The divine test is always,
  • “To the law and the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, for them there is no daybreak”, Isaiah 9: 20.

Affectionately yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

P.S. Pray for us. We are being tested as to unity and whether the will of man or the will of God will be dominant. There should be no question in God's assembly. I use that term as we are seeking to walk in the light of all that should govern in the house of God.

February 13, 1972
Dear Gordon,
Your letter of the 9th is before me, many thanks. Very few persons received so immediate response as you are getting. But there are several things that contribute to the urgency for a fast reply

First of all when I raised the question has to the authenticity of the books – Miscellaneous Writings 4 and 5 — it was not a blanket accusation. Some articles are very authentic like the one on Eternal Sonship. So I hasten to clarify that point. When anyone can say ‘we have the original manuscript if you care to come and see it’, that's as genuine as they come. If you read the books I'm sure you'll agree that some of language used is not native to J.N.D.

Second, you'll be interested to know that all of the references you listed in J.N.D.'s Collected Writings were already noted in my books, which indicates that it has been on my heart for a long time. When I would ask a question about it, while still amongst the other brethren, the answer always was that J.N.D. changed his thinking about the Eternal Sonship question later in his life. So needless to say I value immensely the paper by Mr. Bellett you sent along. Many thanks. When the Scripture says that “He emptied Himself taking on a bondman's form” that should not be overlooked.

John Hunter called after he received the paper so he is very much aware of my thinking. So why don't you send him a copy of J.G.B.'s paper? Please let me know what his reaction is.

We find that in the position we are in now, only what can be supported from the Scriptures carries any authority among people we contact. What other men have said matters very little to them, precious as it may be to us.

Phyllis joins me and sending new both are love.

Your brother in Christ, Abe.

February 18, 1972
Mr. A. Gosen,
Dear Abe,
Thank you for your prompt acknowledgement of my letter. Evidently I misunderstood your remarks on the article “The Eternal Sonship Of Christ” in Miscellaneous Writings of J.N.D. Volume 4.

• On reading over your first letter in the light of the second it is now clear that you were not questioning the authenticity of that particular article. In any case, the review of the subject, indeed any teaching, cannot but yield some profit the soul who is before God.

You said: “I made a copy of J.N.D.'s article on Eternal Sonship and sent it to John Hunter” (Jan. 22). “John Hunter called after he received the paper so he is very much aware of my thinking” (Feb. 13). Also: “We find that in the position we are in now, only what can be supported from the Structures carries any authority among people we contact. What other men have said matters very little to them, precious as it may be to us” (Feb. 13).

I have the disadvantage of not being as intelligent as to what your thinking may be on this matter as John undoubtedly is.

• It appears (please correct me if I am wrong) that you may be leaning towards the acceptance of the view of Eternal Sonship expressed in the references in my letter. This is understandable in view of the high spiritual regard that we rightly have for J.N.D., J.G.B. and others.

• But here your argument that “only what can be supported from the Scriptures carries any authority … What other men have said matters very little …” comes in with its full force.

• You will recall that I said as much: “Even granting that the article was actually written by J.N.D., of itself, in no way determines the truths, nor do the other citations given … But again, this is no way determines the truth, of itself. The divine test is always, “To law and the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, for them there is no daybreak”, Isaiah 9: 20.

In any inquiry into the truth however, we are quite justified in taking advantage of what those who have gone before have beaten out in the threshing floor.

• Therefore, to the references in my last letter we should add the following in order to not bypass any help that is available in the exegesis of the Scriptures:

• F.E.R. Letters 146-7, Extract from letter of J.S.A. which should be compared with F.E.R. 212: 119-20.

• C.A.C. Letters regarding “The Sonship of Christ” – see index.

• C.A.C. booklet Personal and Mediatorial Glory of the Son of God – this is very comprehensive.

• J.T. N.S. 29: 361-74 and elsewhere in his ministry.

• J.T. Letters regarding “the Son” etc., and “Sonship, Christ's position of” 1: 260, 266, 388, 389 clearly show J.T.'s awareness of what J.N.D. had said on this holy matter.

There is very little that could be added for either point of view. What is required is a definite submission to, and guidance by, the Blessed Holy Spirit as the Scriptures are searched to see whether these things are so.

• As honoured servants and teachers, whose spirituality certainly exceeds mine at least, have expressed themselves differently on what requires holy and worship full consideration, it behoves us to be in the presence of God as we look at the Scriptures.

A particular danger to be aware of and avoid in your peculiar circumstances is that of watering down the truth or accommodating your faith and conscience to a lower standard in order to be able to have a wider circle of companionship.

• I say this not a making a charge against you – far be the thought – but as feeling the danger for myself as always present, even though my circumstances are not nearly so straitened as yours.

At the same time we need to have our hearts enlarged towards all the saints and go as far as we can righteously and Scripturally with any soul the Lord puts in our way. The narrowness that has marked us has got to go if we are to prosper spiritually and be of use to the Lord.

• What is desperately needed at the present moment is love towards all the saints, the whole assembly of God, not only the few who we are privileged to be able to walk with, however highly we may regard them.

• The extent of our prayers in the prayer meeting is the measure of how far we have progressed on this line – “all men”, “all the saints” are not to be mere words in a book but a living reality with us, if we are to be sharers of divine thoughts and feelings. Who knows what God might bring to light if we had the earnest desire and fervent faith for it?

One thing, among others, that I dread is the tendency to be dogmatic and rigid in matters where Scripture is not dogmatic and rigid. I think Christianity is a good deal more flexible than we have been used to thinking.

• The constant tendency that there has been over the years to make certain matters tests of fellowship has resulted in sectarianism – it is an ever present danger. I do not mean that anything should be given up but that nothing should be added.

• We ought to meet in such a way, and on such ground, and hold the truth in such a way, that any consistent Christian would be attracted rather than repelled by a system of human ordinances.

I will be thinking of and praying for you – as I trust you will for me – as you consider … Do not say more than Scripture does and do not say less is a good motto.

• Is it not marvellous that God did not put the Scriptures into the form of a creed or a text book, or give us an index to look up all the difficult questions?

• It is written in such a manner as to attract the heart to God and Christ, to cause us to search out hidden treasures, to fill us with constant delight as the Spirit freshly opens some precious truth which is woven into the very fabric of the Scriptures.

• What glories of the Lord Jesus shine out in the types and the histories, and find their perfect answer in that life of perfection portrayed so skilfully in the gospels and now secured eternally in Christ in glory, where we soon shall be with and like Him!

• Once we see this we will never again be satisfied with truth (if it may be called that) which has been cast in a mould by men. Nothing but living words spoken by the living Spirit of the living Christ who leads to the living Father can satisfy one who has once tasted of the living water.

Betty joins in sending love in Christ to you both.

Your brother in Him, Gordon.

Edinburgh,
Mr. A. J. E. Welch,
My dear John,
I promised on the telephone to let you have a short account of what has happened in Edinburgh culminating in a considerable number of brethren withdrawing and walking out on Friday night.

This sad matter has its roots in difficulties over the past year or so during which conditions and relationships have become unhappy arising out of the exercises of sorting out what has happened among us since 1959. It is said that those who gave us a lead have refused to judge the system of these years and make confession of their part in it but brethren feel that this is not justified.

Matters came to a head at the end of December when it became known that a brother had rejoined the Law Society of Scotland by taking out a Solicitor’s Practising Certificate and the question of diverse yoke was raised.

• This particular matter, which can only apply to Scotland, had been the subject of conflict in 1961 when it was resolved in an assembly meeting at which the same brother came into line with his brethren’s exercises and took steps to with from the Society.

• This being accepted he was not withdrawn from on this account, but later on he got out of fellowship but returned a few years ago and having cleared himself of his link with the Law Society he was received on this basis. Now at the end of 1971 without consulting his brethren he rejoined the Society.

There was no question of a charge being raised against the brother or action proposed. The question raised among us when it was first brought up was whether we would have the same judgment now of this association as in 1961,

• but it was also made clear that we were forced to face the matter by the action of the brother as his participation in the Law Society might involve everyone one of us.

The matter has been gone into in care in a very full way on at least seven occasions excluding Friday night and real efforts made to alert the conscience of the brethren. The facts have been fully stated and witnessed to, namely:

– That the Law Society of Scotland is a body corporate and that membership of it involves responsibility in all the actions of that body and in this our brother is yoked with unbelievers. J.T. points out “he cannot escape the consequences of being defiled by it” (N.S. 16: 70).

– That while the Law Society was formed by Act of Parliament no person can be compelled to become a member.

– That according to the Act itself while the Society has responsibilities to the public, it is clearly stated that its object is “to promote the interests of Solicitors in Scotland” and that it is as actively engaged in this as any other professional association.

– That although it is claimed that our brother’s only reason for joining is to obtain a Practising certificate, his application for this makes him a member of the body and the payment he makes with his application is an annual subscription to the Society.

– That while our brother had written to the Society abrogating, from his side, his voting rights, his participation in the Society did not depend on this fact but on membership.

Appeals to the brethren based on these facts and the Scriptures 2 Tim. 2, 2 Cor. 6 and Rev. 22: 14, were strongly resisted and it was contended:

– That the matter should not have been raised in assembly. A very serious effort was made at the start to try to hinder the facts from being stated to the brethren.

– That membership of the Law Society was entirely a matter for the individual conscience of the one concerned and that if his conscience was clear we must accept it and we should have confidence that he was acting rightly in his own affairs.

– That membership was only a matter of name.

– That the Law Society was a part of Government and that Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2: 14 applied.

– That we judge on moral matters not on legal questions of what membership involves.

– That J.T. went on with professional associations and did not make these a test of fellowship.

All this and much more has been the subject of detailed discussion over these weeks and the spirits of the brethren have been greatly tested but it has been maintained that the main issue was that the Law Society of Scotland is a corporate body, apart from Government altogether and acting by itself and for itself and for the benefit of its members, that to persist in it would eventually raise the question of fellowship.

As things proceeded it became evident that we were divided, in fact this was repeatedly stated, but we were reluctant to separate and brethren were very slow to take any action which would precipitate it.

• We came together on Friday night with heavy hearts. The Scriptures 2 Cor. 6, 2 Tim. 2, 1 Peter 2: 13-14, Rom. 16: 17-18 were read and spoken about, G.R.C.’s address in 1958 (not part of the system) was quoted, “Any corporate association of men that has not God as its centre is a dead body … is unclean”, the yoke (ox and ass, clean and unclean) and the dead body, Numbers 19, were considered,

• fresh appeals were made to P. Thomson as to his link with the Law Society, it was asked if there was no word of wisdom to save the brethren, the question was asked several times if the matter could not be righteously carried in care, but all without result.

After further discussion it was stated that we must regard ourselves as in assembly and A. H. Dickson stated that we are not going back on professional associations but we are making a difference as this Society was set up by the Government and we are not making this matter a test of fellowship. This was immediately stated by some to be an assembly judgment but refused by others.

• One brother stated that in the divided condition in which we were it was impossible to speak of an assembly judgment. It was stated too, at this point, that the matter of membership of the Law Society had been brought to bear on the consciences of the saints in this city and there had been evidence of the working of a collective conscience as to it in the body of the saints and this must be recognised.

• More discussion followed and there was no further evidence that we were in a meeting of assembly character.

Eventually Alex Walker stated that he was not going on with this iniquity (without specifying anything) and that he was adjourning to the Morningside meeting room. About twenty brothers, their wives, etc. followed him out.

• There was further discussion, following which Mr. Alex Dickson said that he would break bread in the Musselburgh room on Lord's Day with those who agreed with the judgment he had pronounced earlier.

• Brethren maintained then that it was not right to attach a special condition to the breaking of bread and that we broke bread on the basis of 2 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 11: 28.

• The meeting was eventually closed after we had arranged to meet again on Saturday in view of having things sorted out before the Supper. We found then that our numbers were still further reduced, in all about 130 were absent but some of these may be undecided.

The facts in this letter have been checked by J. Renton, T. D. Brown, W. Dickson and J. D. Gray.

Warm love in our Lord Jesus, Your affection brother in Him, Leslie Stewart.

Extracts from Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1948

Section 18
(1) There shall be established a Society to be called “The Law Society of Scotland” which Society shall be a body corporate … shall have a common seal and may sue and be sued under that name.

(2) Every Solicitor who has in force a practising certificate … shall by virtue thereof and without election be a member of the Society.

4th Schedule
1. In addition to the other powers and duties vested in the Society by this Act, the objects of the Society shall include the promotion of the interests of the profession of Solicitors in Scotland and the interests of the public in relation to that profession.

2. There shall be paid to the Society by every member of the Society with his application for a practising certificate an annual subscription of …

Beloved Brother Gordon,
[The balance of this letter appears earlier.]
…. You will have heard of the Edinburgh impasse that came about last Friday. Rather more than half the number of the brethren in the City refrained from breaking bread on Lord's Day; these include George Strang, Alex Walker and others. The remainder, including Jim Renton, Jim Gray and others did break bread on Lord's Day.

I phoned Jim Renton on Monday this week to enquire as to their position. The matter relates to Phil Thomson who has had his name re-instated on the Solicitor's roll. J.R. said that in Scottish law such persons are regarded as ‘members of a corporate body’.

• I pointed out to J.R. that this does not apply in English law as there are brothers here who have become re-instated on the roll with no involvement, this being regarded as registration for the protection of the public so that persons so practising have the suitable qualifications.

I then spoke to George Strang who, with a sorrowful spirit, related how, after ten long and unprofitable meetings over the past eight weeks, the position had reached one of impasse.

• He stated that, in his opinion, the above issue was microscopic compared with the carry forward of the tyranny of the —— system which he (G.M.S.) declared was very largely still unjudged by those from whom they had to separate.

• This is where the matter stands at the moment. A letter in specified terms is being sent by the majority (that is, those with George Strang and others) to the nearest meeting which is Lochgelly, and the consideration of this is awaited.

Whilst anything that relates to division is to be deplored, many of us feel that it is high time the issue was faced squarely, and that no item of the iniquitous and false system should be allowed to raise its head again in any shape or form.

• The thing is more widespread than we think, and I am sure the Lord will now make the issue crystal clear. Meanwhile, unsparing self-judgment and our faces in the dust is what becomes us at this time.

Our warmest love in the Lord Jesus to Betty and yourself,

Your affectionate brother in the Lord Jesus, Robert Stott.

“Belmont”, Edinburgh, Cockenzie, Scotland
Mr. John Jones,
Newcastle-on-Tyne, England
Beloved Brother,
You will probably have heard of the sorrowful matter that has arisen in this city (Edinburgh). Wild rumours are already current and there is little doubt that the enemy is specially active in trying to distort the facts and spread confusion as to the real issue that is at stake by inferring if not directly asserting that the issue is not membership of the Law Society of Scotland but failure on the part of the brethren who have sought to be faithful to the truth to judge the so-called Taylor system.

It cannot be overstressed that the issue in the present conflict is essentially membership of the Law Society of Scotland and whether such membership constitutes a breach of fellowship. The letter sent by our brother Mr. D. L. Stewart to Mr. John Welch sets out soberly the facts relating to that matter and the immediate events that led up to the open division among the saints.

That the brethren have had difficulties and indeed that there was a divided state among the saints in trying to sort out the various problems that arose as a result of the erroneous teachings and practices that were introduced during the Taylor system cannot be denied.

• The fact remains, nevertheless, that until the Law Society matter emerged, the brethren were being kept together and indeed progress was being made in getting matters resolved. Had this not come forward we would still have been together.

• I have no doubt before the Lord that there is not one brother or sister who has remained in fellowship that has not a definite judgment about the system in question and a sense of shame for any part they may had in supporting it.

• There has been public testimony borne to this in our gatherings and confession has been made of many things that have been shown from the Scriptures to be wrong, e.g., the admission to the breaking of bread of very young children; the interference with husband and wife relationships, the base suggestion that ‘we are the assembly’, and keeping of the sabbath, etc. (There are rumours abroad now that some of these have been gone back on during the last two weeks and this is quite untrue.)

• In point of fact, while the question of the Law Society of Scotland was bearing heavily on some of the brethren, we agreed to turn aside and devoted the best part of two or three meetings going over matters that had been causing difficulty. Help seemed to be experienced in this and a number of confessions were made.

• I only mention that to show that there was no desire on the part of any of the brethren to refrain from judging matters that were clearly wrong. Any apparent slowness in taking up matters connected with the Taylor system was simply because of a godly concern that the saints would not go to the other extreme by reverting to worldly or open principles or throwing over board anything that has come down to us in the three great ministries of the revival.

• Indeed it was repeatedly said by some of us that the two main dangers facing the brethren were the tendency to undermine J.T.’s ministry and the base principle of Bethesdaism which, alas, as the final issue of the sorrowful episode of the Law Society has shown, have proved to be only too true. This which is but the thin edge of the enemy’s wedge was admitted by some who left to be an involvement but only a microscopic matter compare to the —— tyranny.

My concern in writing thus is not to try to justify the stand that has been taken by certain of the brethren in trying to maintain a pure state of things for the Lord. He will show in His own time where He is in the matter. I am concerned only that the brethren generally should know the true facts and not be confused by side issues or rumours which have no foundation.

Your affection brother in the Lord, T. D. Brown.

Edinburgh,
Mr. R. W. Drummond,
Beloved Brother,
In answer to your request for written confirmation of what was communicated to you and the two brothers from Lochgelly on the evening of February 27th, it is with deep sorrow and shame that I have to report that since February 25th there is actual division in this city.

• This could have happened at almost any time in the last year, for there has been marked cleavage among us since August 1970, but all efforts to heal the breach have failed.

You have had experience of the evils and excesses of the unprincipled cunning and systematised error that the Lord exposed at Aberdeen. Then by ministry given at Belfast in December of that year, He called our attention to the necessity of purifying ourselves of every pollution of that wickedness. This ministry proved to be a test.

• There have been those who have consistently refused to adjust themselves or to make any attempt to put right what was proved to be wrong. On the other side, there have been those who fully acknowledged before the Lord and their brethren their guilt in supporting such wickedness.

It can be stated specifically that we have under review the following matters and in every case there was determined and prolonged resistance.

1. the so-called ministry of J.T. Jnr. in its totality (Only a few weeks ago, a prominent brother maintained that some of the ministry was in the power of the anointing);

2. the error as to the sabbath;

3. the separation of husbands and wives;

4. the extreme actions that followed what was said as to eating and those with whom we ate. Such reviews were marked by the setting aside of such Scriptures as 1 Cor, 10: 27 and very much contention;

5. the practice of children partaking of the emblems at the Supper without any indication of a work of God in them;

6. we reviewed over 50 cases of brothers and sisters having been withdrawn from, and in all save three, we have had to acknowledge that our judgment was wrong and could not be ratified in heaven.

• The absence of self-judgment with those who had been most active in these wrong judgments was manifest in that not one of them expressed any repentance, and they did little or nothing in visiting those brethren, whose innocent blood had been shed;

7. during the 60's, the use of whisky was advocated in ministry and in some cases practised. One brother strongly supported this in the ground that it was a creature of God. He was given several opportunities of withdrawing this but he would not;

8. the outstanding matter centred in the calamity of Hamilton in June 1968. This was hailed as a masterpiece of assembly administration and for months on end the brethren had to suffer in many meetings and several were discouraged.

• But when there was an overturning in December 1970, again not one of the guilty ones has made any admission or expressed any sorrow for having harassed the saints.

It has been remarked that it was always the same brothers who opposed godly efforts to purge out these evils.

• Up to the time of the division, it was asserted that what —— said on eating was light from the Lord; children under school-age continued to break bread; there was no condemnation of encouraging the use of whisky under the guise of ministry; there was no acknowledgment of guilt whatever in the sorrow of Hamilton; a word given in a meeting for prophetic ministry that what happened in Belfast in May 22nd 1970 was of the Lord and we had to take account of it was never recalled. In a word, the “green-book” ministry was upheld.

In December 1971, when we were very near division, another matter arose out of a brother applying to the Scots Law Society for a certificate to enable him to practise as a solicitor.

• On the face of it, this had the appearance of a diverse yoke, but the more it was examined (and we had ten long meetings on it) the clearer it became that it was not a “yoke” as Scripture speaks of it, that is, a community of thought and moral judgment. Many thought that 1 Peter 2: 13-14 applied.

Interwoven into these ten meetings was the issue that had beset us so long, namely, the carrying forward of evil that God had judged in the exposure at Aberdeen.

• Yet those who showed that they had little or no conscience about that course of sin and their part in continuing it, took the ground that this brother was unfit for Christian fellowship and that there was evil.

• On the one hand, they would not withdraw these charges; and on the other, they took no action. They refused to moderate their attitude and insisted that their judgment must be accepted. Their pursuit of this matter was as relentless as anything that had obtained in the previous 12 years.

Late on Friday evening, it was plainly stated that we are not giving up any principle as to professional associations in a general way, but we do discriminate as to a body set up by the Government for the protection of the public, and in this case the Government requires that every practising solicitor in Scotland must have a practising certificate from this body. We do not consider that compliance with this requirement should be made a test of fellowship.

• The majority of the brethren accepted, but the same cleavage appeared again, the root cause of this continuing cleavage being the failure to judge the evil of perpetuating the system of oppression and tyranny that has been so dishonouring to the Lord, so damaging to the testimony and so hurtful to many of the children of God. At this point all admitted that there was clear-cut division.

Several brothers and sisters, in number about 40, then left the hall, most saying that they were withdrawing from iniquity. Next day, they were joined by about 80 others, and in the course of the weekend, others followed the same line.

• Those who met on Saturday humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God, and continued this, household by household, throughout Lord's Day. On Monday evening there were gatherings for prayer in some of our houses, again to humble ourselves before God, and to seek of Him a right way for ourselves and our little ones. Beyond that, nothing has been arranged. We live in complete dependence, a day at a time.

This letter has been revised by our brothers A. H. Dickson, W. [William] A. Black and A. [Alex] Walker, who agree that it is a just and fair statement of the facts of our sorrowful history.

With warm love in the Lord, Affectionately your brother, George M. Strang.

Edinburgh, Scotland
Mr. Robert Drummond,
Beloved brother,
I have today received a copy of a letter dated February 18 addressed by Mr. Leslie Stewart of this city to Mr. A. J. E. Welch [London]. This letter has, I understand, received wide circulation and has been copied to brethren in Lochgelly, including yourself.

What particularly concerns one is not only the fact that the letter has been widely circulated but that it contains serious errors of fact and biased views, both which are likely to mislead those who are not intimately acquainted with the recent history of the brethren here and the sorrowful events which culminated in division on Friday, February 25.

• I feel obliged, therefore, to write to you to point out these discrepancies. The paragraphs numbered below are those of Mr. Stewart’s letter.

Paragraph 2. The last sentence reads, “It is said that those who gave us a lead have refused to judge the system of those years and make confession of their part in it but brethren feel that this is not justified”.

• The fact is that brethren in Edinburgh have in a sober way as before God sought to review and judge the evil doctrines, practices and erroneous judgments that belonged to that period – including such matters as the sabbath, the eating ministry, unclean houses, separation of husbands and wives, young children breaking bread, the pressing on brethren of the Hamilton tragedy, the profanity of the 1969 meetings with ——; but in all this, as in the review of some 50 cases of wrong assembly judgments, they have been continually obstructed by leading men among them.
  • Take as an example Mr. Stewart himself. You know how active he was (like myself, alas) during the whole time of the system; yet, apart from the retraction of one statement, I know of no spontaneous confession made by him since August 1970, nor of one case of wrong assembly judgment or other exercise that he has raised as a matter of concern.

• In the light of these considerations I leave it to you to judge as to whether the above quoted sentence can be held to be the truth.

Paragraph 3. It is true to say that the brother referred to “got out of fellowship”, but it must be stated that this was a result of a precipitate assembly action which was owned