The China Episode
1932-35

The 'Events Relating to China' are frankly considered in A. J. Gardiner's

• The Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth,

• long out-of-print but recently re-published by Kingston Bible Trust.

The relation of 'The China Episode' to the 'Little Flock' / 'Local Church' movement is touched on briefly in Mailbox GHI: Peter Hsieh My Stand 2: History of 'Local Churches' versus the 'Brethren' Movement Some related pages: Guests: My Answer 3: One Leader Guests: My Answer 4: One-City-One-Church Jane Anderson's experiences of 20 years in the 'Local Church" in her book The Thread of Gold.

G.A.R.

• and apparently governed by the truth and supported by the Spirit.

• In this work of God, Mr. W. Nee, who had been marked by considerable ability and devotedness, had been much used in blessing in the gospel and in ministering to the saints.

• He had been helped by some ministry by Mr. J. N. Darby which had come into his hands, and it was his writing to London to enquire whether further ministry of the same kind was available that had first drawn the attention of saints in the western world to the existence of this work of God in China.

The visiting brethren, feeling assured that there was no reason why we should not be identified in fellowship with the brethren they had met in China, broke bread with them on November 6th, 1932,

• after having first communicated by cable with brethren at Vancouver and Brisbane, two neighbouring meetings, and been assured of their fellowship with them in so doing.

In the year 1933 Mr. Nee visited England and America and attended many of the meetings as one fully accredited as in fellowship. At some of these meetings he ministered the word.

"On his longer journeys in Britain Mr. Barlow or someone else accompanied him," i.e. WN "as when he visited Aldeburgh to call on the veteran George Cutting …". Page 92 of A. I. Kinnear's 'Against the Tide – The Story of Watchman Nee'.This visit took place just one year before Mr. Cutting's death in 1934.  GAR, Jan 22, 2003. "Once I visited Mr. George Cutting, the author of the famous booklet 'Safety, Certainty, and Enjoyment'. … When I met him, he said, 'Brother Nee, I cannot live without Him, and He cannot live without me'. He had such a deep fellowship with the Lord. Thank the Lord, there were over eighty members in his household. All of them were saved. Every one of his sons, daughters-in-law, grandsons, granddaughters, nephews, nieces, great-grandchildren, old or young, male or female, were saved. George Cutting himself believed in the word: 'Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household'. His whole household was saved …",  WN.

After he had left England for America, it came to light that, unknown to brethren at the time, he had on one occasion broken bread with an independent company of Christians in London known as The Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre,

• which, though not identified with ‘open’ brethren, was governed by their principles in that anyone claiming to be a believer was allowed to break bread without regard to the religious and other associations in which he was involved.

• During his visit to America Mr. Nee similarly compromised the fellowship by breaking bread with some who were identified with certain sectarian bodies.

As a consequence letters passed between the brethren in New York and those in Shanghai, on the one hand, and between the brethren in London and those in Shanghai, on the other,

• seeking to enlighten the Shanghai brethren as to the principles of Christian fellowship and to help them to judge the actions of Mr. Nee above referred to.

• Occasion was also taken to call attention to the fact that Mr. Nee held unsound views as to the rapture of the saints, and also regarded the symbolical teaching of the book of Revelation as literal.

• The serious character of certain teaching which emanated from the Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre was also pointed out.

• The correspondence continued over a protracted period, considerable time elapsing between the date of each letter to China and its reply.

The final letter from the brethren in Shanghai addressed to the brethren in London was dated July 2nd, 1935; in it certain principles were laid down, among which were the following:

• “We are to receive all the children of God whom He has received for Christ’s sake”.

• “It is the Spirit, and the Spirit alone, who can decide the question of one’s fitness for fellowship. We are not sufficient for these things”.

• “We must distinguish between ‘sins’ – either morally or doctrinally – that hinder fellowship with God, and ‘sins’ which do not”.

On receipt of this letter a meeting of assembly character was held in London on July 30th, 1935, at which it was decided

• that we could not remain identified with those who held such principles,

• and this decision was communicated to the brethren in China by the following letter dated August 31st, 1935.

August 31st, 1935
To the Saints meeting in Hardoon Road, Shanghai.

Dear Brethren,
Your letter dated July 2nd has been received by us with sorrow. It was carefully considered by brothers, and in view of its serious nature, saints in all the gatherings in London were specially called together as in assembly on July 30th.

• The letter was then read to all as thus together before the Lord. Three of the brothers who met you in Shanghai in 1932 were present.

It was at once noticed, and we call your attention to the fact, that your letter completely ignores

• the specific instructions as to Christian fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10, and the guidance as to it for the present day, in 2 Timothy 2, to which our letters referred.

• It also dismisses as of minor importance the serious error in teaching propagated amongst you, and to which your attention has been drawn.

• the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ

• and of the necessity, as a principle of first importance, of obedience to His commandments.

• You say: “Without the quickening of the truth in us by the Spirit, we will not act”, and “It is the Spirit, and the Spirit alone, who can decide the question of one’s fitness for fellowship”.

• A commandment of the Lord calls for action in obedience to it –
  • 1 Corinthians 5: 12; 2 Timothy 2: 19-22

• – and as it is obeyed the Spirit will support in power.

• Indeed, Paul challenges all who profess allegiance to the Lord by saying:
  • “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14: 37.

This disregard of the clear commandments of the Lord opens the door to every kind of evil, and calls in question the sincerity of your love for Christ,

• for the keeping of His commandments is both the test and the proof of loving Him, and alone provides the conditions in which the greatest spiritual privileges can be enjoyed,

• as the Lord Himself said:
  • “If ye love me keep my commandments”, John 14: 15, and

  • “He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me; but he that loves me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him. Judas, not the Iscariot, says to him, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us and not to the world? Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. He that loves me not does not keep my words; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but that of the Father who has sent me”, John 14: 21-24.

To suggest, as your letter does, that there are sins which do not hinder, as you put it, “fellowship with God”, is an affront to His holiness.

• Not only are the expressions you use in this connection quite unscriptural, but they disclose grave ignorance of the truth as to the presence and service of the Holy Spirit.

• It is contrary to the truth to attach to the Spirit personally, as you do, the responsibility as to fellowship which the Lord has so directly placed upon the saints –
  • see 1 Corinthians 10, and 2 Timothy 2, etc.

• The practical effect of so doing is to open the door to every possible kind of independency.

We recoil from your closing suggestion that we should now set aside assembly principles and order, so clearly defined in Scripture,

• and thus surrender the holy heritage which has been recovered in divine mercy in these last days for the whole assembly.

• The long succession of attacks upon it during the past eighty-five years – Bethesda and since – have only tended to make more clear the truth as to fellowship.

• It is to the preservation, in the Lord’s mercy, of these very principles of fellowship which you would have us surrender, that we owe, in these last days, the rich stream of spiritual ministry from Christ as the Head of the assembly of which some of you have cognizance.

You have alluded in your letter to being guided by the Holy Spirit, but He is the Spirit of truth, and those who are guided by Him are marked by ways of truth.

• In this connection we feel sorrowfully obliged to refer to a lack of uprightness which has marked Mr. Nee, particularly in some of his movements, while amongst us.

• We must also add that such principles, as are now set out in your letter, were certainly not disclosed to our brethren who visited you in 1932.
  • Had this been done fellowship with you would have been impossible.

• Your letter clearly indicates that you prefer to substitute for the plain teaching of Scripture, your own professed experimental knowledge,
  • a feature which also largely characterises the teaching of the ‘Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre’ to which previous reference has been made.

• We have humbly to confess that we grievously failed in our lack of holy care in laying hands too quickly on those with whom we were insufficiently acquainted, and whose principles as to fellowship we now find are so unscriptural, and therefore not of the Lord.

It is with sorrow that we are obliged thus to write to you, but our desire to be faithful to the Lord leaves us with no alternative.

• The truth, which the Lord has recovered and is preserving for His assembly, requires that our position should be set forth clearly.

• At the meeting referred to at the beginning of this letter, it was judged before the Lord that we must entirely repudiate, as not being of God, the principles you set out as governing fellowship,
  • and that since you identify yourselves with these principles, we are unable to walk with you, or to receive from or commend to you.

• This, of course, applies also to all those maintaining links of fellowship with you.

You are, we believe, missing an opportunity afforded by the Lord, in failing to benefit by the truth set before you regarding the assembly.

• You also place yourselves in a position of grave responsibility before Him in rejecting as of little importance the precious truths for which many brethren in years past have stood and suffered.

• These truths we have proved and do still prove to be of God, and we humbly seek grace to continue in them until the Lord comes for the whole assembly.

We shall continue to pray that at least some in China may yet be found true overcomers as keeping the commandments and word of the Lord in a day marked by general independence and lukewarmness.

On behalf of the saints with whom we walk in London,

Yours faithfully in the Lord,

Percy Lyon, Chas. R. Barlow, Alfred J. Gardiner.

The exercise resulting from the sorrowful events recorded in this section brought into fresh relief the subtlety and pressing danger of the ‘open’ principle, which Satan is ever seeking to introduce as his most successful means of attack on the recovered truth of the assembly.

Thus the whole position in China is most precarious, as Nee is by far the most influential among the brethren there.

• My comfort is that the Lord has heard His people during several years as to the movement in that land, and I am assured He will stand by them now. He will make a way for us.

• In the meantime it is for us to watch and pray more intently …

Affectionately in Christ, James Taylor.

2. Letters of James Taylor, 1: 405-06 Brooklyn, N.Y., August 25th, 1933

Mr. P. Lyon,

Beloved Brother,
Many thanks for your letter and telegram. The latter is, of course, most serious.

• Nee is out of town, spending the week-end with Dr. S—, whom he knew in China, and will not return until Monday, so that I cannot take the matter up with him immediately.

• His going to a place where there is no breaking of bread and not indicating any exercise as to this, is causing us concern.

• I spoke strongly to him as to this, and found afterwards that he partly promised to go to S. Manchester to break bread – so we are awaiting word as to this, as two brothers offered to motor him to S. Manchester on Lord's Day morning.

We got on well on the steamer, Nee was very free, making much enquiry, and communicating much as to the work in China which helps us to grasp more clearly the nature and extent of it.

• He gave me a list of the meetings, also a list of the more useful brothers. He also spoke much of local conditions – needs, etc.

• We could not get him through the immigration department the day we arrived, as he had no USA visa.

Beyond what I said above there is no change as to Nee from the position known on your side as we sailed.

• The views he holds on prophecy are quite wrong – unscriptural. This does not refer to one part merely, such as the rapture but to the whole field.

• He says the apocalypse is all literal, even the gold in the heavenly city!

• I spoke freely with him, and he with me, but I cannot speak of any change in his mind. The same in part refers to Plymouth-Bethesda. I questioned him, but he made no reply.

Of course Nee has been received here with open arms and had a very large – for New York – audience to hear him on Tuesday.

• Considering all things the address was fair – generally thought "wonderful".

• At Westfield he gave an address on deliverance, which by most was also thought wonderful, but in my judgment very defective doctrinally.

• I pointed out the defects as I saw them to Nee and he listened, but that is all.

Nee is sailing from Vancouver on September 8th, and hopes to attend the special meetings there. They are in raptures there, as you may understand, at the prospect of having him.

• I have written to HG [Herbert Gill] something of the facts and I hope he will act wisely.

• One or two brothers will, please God, see Nee on his return as to your cable and it is on my mind to speak seriously to him as to the whole Chinese position as it now stands.

Affectionately yours in Christ, James Taylor.

3. Letters of James Taylor, 1: 406-08 Brooklyn, N.Y., August 29th, 1933

Beloved Brother,
Watchman Nee left New York yesterday and I send a few lines as to our experience together.

Last week I heard from Mr. Percy Lyon that Nee had broken bread with an independent company of Christians in London, which he admits.

• Then he went to the country last Thursday, to spend a few days with Dr. S— and his family. These are the people among others that Nee came to this country specially to see.

• I urged Nee to break bread in some of our meetings on the Lord's Day, but on his return yesterday, he told me, as I enquired from him, that he broke bread with the S— family, and some others.

Some of the brothers in New York, myself included, entered into this sad development with Nee.

• He said finally that he regretted what he had done, that he should have told the brethren beforehand, but he made no admission of violation of principles.

• He said the brothers who visited China last year had agreed that the Chinese brethren should be free to receive such Christians as Dr. S—, as Christians.

• We, the brothers who met Nee yesterday, said we could understand this, but that we were assured that no such situation as his action in London, and New Haven, where he broke bread last Lord's Day, could have been contemplated. He admitted this.

His view on prophecy came into our conversation. We had spoken much of this on the steamer.

• He thinks some of the saints will not be taken to Himself, by the Lord, at the rapture, that they will go through "tribulation".

• He also said on the steamer that the language of the book of Revelation was literal, not symbolical, for instance, the "gold" in the heavenly city is literal. The city thus has a corruptible element in it.

• I pointed this glaring error out to Nee, but he did not seem to take any note of it.

• What makes his erroneous prophetic views seem more serious is that the person through whom he was converted, a woman, taught him, as he told me yesterday, something on prophecy, according to what is generally accepted by the saints, so that he has given up truth for error.

You can understand my sorrow, because of what has come to light, especially as Nee and ourselves got on very well on the boat. He was free, and made much general inquiry.

• He was received here with the greatest affection. He addressed one of the largest meetings held here.

• Considering everything the address was good, but the next night at Westfield, an address on deliverance, disclosed much that was misleading in the way of doctrine.

• This, however, was not noticed by many. His personality and ability eclipsed all else.

The attitude we take up here, having talked matters over with Nee, is to assume that

• the whole Chinese position is still in the tentative or learning stage, and that it should be left for the moment entirely in the Lord's hands.

It is so extraordinary, and so many Christians being involved, that if issue were taken in a formal way the enemy would get an advantage. The Lord heard our prayers, and will not fail us, as we wait upon Him.

Nee said he would take counsel with his brethren in China, before saying anything definite as to what has been placed before him.

Affectionately yours in Christ, James Taylor.

4. Letters of James Taylor, 1: 408-09 New York, September 8th, 1933

Mr. P. Lyon,

Beloved Brother,
Thanks for two letters and enclosures – all of which I value. I also received your cable as to W. Nee. Most distressing.

• I had written you after arriving here, and as I was writing Arthur Mayo I gave him what further news there was as to W.N., hoping he – A.M. – would tell you and others.
  • Note: Arthur E. Mayo was one of those who visted the Chineses brethren in 1932 and recommended fellowship with them. GAR

By this you will know that he broke bread here with — and family, and one or two others.

• He went to spend the week-end – from Thursday to Monday – with them near New Haven. I had not received your cable when he left,
  • but others and myself urged Nee to be sure and break bread on the Lord's Day – either at New York – we invited all the S—s to spend the day in Brooklyn – or S. Manchester, two brothers who were staying at S. Manchester offering to go for him.

• He partly promised he would accede to our wish, but did not – he broke bread with the others, as I said.

• I do not think he would have told me did I not ask him, and I should not have asked only I had in the meantime received your cable.

• Several of us thought we should take matters up definitely with Nee. Possibly some headway was made.

• We covered the whole ground, not only of these actions, but of his false views as to fellowship, prophecy, etc.

• He regretted the actions – not that they were wrong in themselves, but because he did not tell the brethren of them.

• We asked if he would say definitely that he regretted them, and that he would reconsider the whole prophetic matter; but he said he would say or write nothing until he took counsel with his brethren at Shanghai. Thus the matter stands.

• We thought it unwise to take definite issue – especially as Nee had made some acknowledgment – as this might jeopardise the whole work in China.

• The Lord has heard the many prayers for the work and will not fail to act for His people and make clear what is now so dark and confused.

• He will own the attitude that the whole matter is still in the tentative or learning stage. This is true of it as a whole, but I cannot say it is true of W. Nee.

• We sent on all the facts to Vancouver, where Nee was to attend the special meetings' week-end …

Affectionately yours in Christ, James Taylor.

5. Letters of James Taylor, 1: 427-30 Brooklyn, N.Y., January 27th, 1934

Mr. Faithful Luke,

Beloved Brother,
It was indeed a pleasure to receive your letter; others and myself have enjoyed reading it, noting therein the brotherly spirit and affection which are in accord with our Lord's injunction: "Love one another".

• There is also an evidence in it of love in the truth, which is of the last importance in our day, when the truth is either being given up or perverted on all sides.

• The apostle John says of the elect lady and her children and of Gaius: "Whom I love in the truth".

I much appreciate your desire to meet me and I assure you it would be a pleasure to me and my wife to meet you, and if you are free to come to New York we shall be glad to entertain you.

• As regards pamphlets, etc., of mine, a good few, I believe, were sent to Shanghai last year, which you may have opportunity of seeing; but I shall gladly send you others if you so desire.

That you had left Shanghai was not known to me when I wrote you, but I also sent a copy of the letter to the brethren to Mr. Nee, and he handed it to them.

• It was no doubt ordered of the Lord that you should also have a copy, especially as you obtained help from it.

Enclosed is a copy of a further letter the brethren here believe should be addressed to our Shanghai brethren.

• It seems of the Lord that they should have these additional facts as to Mr. Nee's actions here and in London before them.

• I trust this will be your mind also and that you will be enabled of the Lord to arrive at a judgment according to His mind as to this very important matter.

Your remarks as to the correspondence between the position of the dear brethren in China now and that of brethren in Great Britain and some other countries 100 years ago call forth my sympathy.

• The many with you in China are just emerging from heathen darkness and cannot be regarded as seeing all things clearly – Mark 8: 25. They deserve therefore the tenderest consideration.

• But there is this important difference between the brethren in China now and those in Great Britain and other countries 100 years ago;

• you – especially Mr. Nee, yourself, and others who speak English – have opportunity of profiting by the experience of those in whom and through whom God wrought during the last century.

This is an immense advantage, for the history shows how scriptural principles and human principles have respectively worked out.

• The latter took root in Plymouth, where clericalism through the example and influence of Mr. B. W. Newton, became established.

• Mr. J. N. Darby and others withdrew from the meeting there because of this and other evils there; and later deadly evil doctrine against Christ was shown to be held by Mr. Newton.

The brethren in Bethesda Chapel, Bristol, knowing all these sorrowful things, deliberately took the ground of receiving persons coming to Bristol from the meeting in which Mr. Newton was,

• providing they professed not to hold his evil doctrines –

• ignoring the solemn statement of Scripture that one receiving into his house or greeting one who brings not the doctrine of Christ is a partaker of his wicked works – 2 John 2.

• Breaking bread with a man expresses fellowship with him and so those who broke bread with Mr. Newton, although they might not actually hold his doctrine, were partakers of his wicked works and so were unfit for Christian fellowship.

• We are enjoined to "come out from among them and be separated, and touch not the unclean thing", 2 Corinthians 6: 17.

• We are to hate the garment spotted by the flesh, while seeking to save some with fear – Jude 23.

• "Garment" would be surrounding circumstances, such as human religious organisations, unscriptural principles, false doctrine, etc., etc.

• Bethesda brethren ignored these solemn divine requirements in receiving from Mr. Newton's meeting, and the leaven involved in this has worked among 'open' brethren ever since and has spread far and wide.

On the other hand, those who stood loyal to Christ and the principles governing the house of God, especially as to fellowship,

• refusing Bethesda's principles and conduct,

• have been steadily blessed of God in a gracious ministry of the Spirit given through and to them – a steady stream through all the years which have elapsed, and it still goes on.

• The truth as to Christ and the assembly, eternal life, the gospel of the glory of God, the service of God in the assembly, fellowship, and more recently, of the absolute and relative features of the Persons of the Holy Trinity –
  • indeed the whole system of truth has been coming before the saints with a clearness and definiteness unknown since apostolic days.

• The evidence of this is, of course, more apparent through those whom the Holy Spirit used, but anyone who has not had this privilege may readily verify it by examining the written ministry of the period mentioned.

• What I am writing is no question of boasting in men – God forbid – but of owning and showing what God has done in honouring His own truth and those who, having His commandments, keep them.

• I am not, of course, ignoring that sorrowful things have happened through human unfaithfulness, but I speak of what God has done in relation to the maintenance of His own principles.

This ministry with the divine formations more or less in keeping with it, in hundreds of gatherings of saints throughout the world,

• is your heritage, my beloved brother, and that of all the dear brethren in China, as it is ours in Europe and America,

• and you are obligated to the Lord to embrace it, profit by it, and stand firmly by it, refusing what is not of God until He comes for us all.

Latitude allowed to persons breaking bread to retain their links with human religious organisations, and others of a worldly nature, may give you larger numbers, as is witnessed among 'open' brethren,

• but it involves the spirit of the world and material unsuited for assembly formation – a state of things that the Lord cannot identify Himself with and in which the Holy Ghost will not have liberty to operate.

• 2 Timothy is especially the scripture for our day as regulating us in reference to Christendom as it is, and the “seal” there is,
  • “The Lord knows those that are his, and, Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, chapter 2: 19.

• Iniquity is evil, unrighteousness, in various forms; and then there are vessels “to dishonour” – verses 20-22 – and these [persons] have also to be separated from.

• To allow people to break bread until they have thus cleared themselves is to link ourselves on with the evil – for this is the significance of the word fellowship – with which they are linked.

• The types – important instruction from God – such as Leviticus 11, show that if one touches an unclean thing he renders himself unclean.

What you mention as done at Foochow in allowing persons to break bread – some for eight years – who retained their links with the “churches” is certainly not in accord with 2 Timothy 2.

• Nor was it in keeping with the order of the truth in 1 Corinthians. There fellowship – communion is the same word, chapter 10 – comes before the Lord's supper – chapter 11.

• The former is exclusive of what is inconsistent with the death of Christ; the latter is inclusive of those that are consistent with it.

• The principle of Scripture as to these matters is,
  • “Cease to do evil, learn to do well”, Isaiah 1: 16.

• The principle governing you at Foochow was to get people to do well with the hope that they would cease to do evil. Thus you had some in fellowship with you there for eight years who had not ceased to do evil!

Please pardon so long a letter, but the spirit and tone of your letter encourages me to write freely and I trust that what I have written will be of service.

With love in Christ to you and the brethren, I am,

Affectionately in Him, James Taylor.

I am thankful to have had my eyes opened at last to see the unscriptural, and finally unchristian, character of what had developed among the 'London' group.

• In the goodness of God my wife and I were delivered from that system.

It is remarkable that many of the aberrations of the 'Little Flock' had their parallel among the 'London' group,

• after the death of JT and the subsequent 1959 assumption of leadership by JTJr.

• References are to your page numbers:

1. 119, last paragraph. The exaltation of the meeting in a particular locality – JT called this 'metropolitanism' – and of one man "our Brother" – exactly the same expression was used – and "new teaching".

2. 126-9. Involvement of the Lord's servants in commercialism

3. 131-3. Organization of meetings and strict control of personnel including attendance and investigation of personal affairs, dissemination of uniform teaching etc. Emphasis on authority.

4. 136-8. Breaking up of lage numbers in certain localities by sending persons to establish new meetings. This happened especially in Australia in the late 1960's.

5. 138-9. "An order of seniority, expressed by a row of chairs" with a "Number One seat" – exactly the same practice.

6. 138. Personal control of ownership of meeting rooms by leaders or their appointees.

I have only briefly touched on the similarities which in many instances are striking, even identical.

• I read some of the passages to my wife who immediately connected them with practices among the 'London' group.

In the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

February 6, 1974
Mr. Gordon A. Rainbow,

I write to thank you for your kind letter of appreciation of the Watchman Nee Story, 'Against the Tide'.

I am most interested in what you write of the parallels between the later practice in China and the Brethren practices.

• I myself had observed a little of this, but you make the point much clearer.

• What is disturbing is the fact that these methods are being applied in a strongly authoritarian way by Witness Lee in the expansion of the 'Little Flock' work in the West and this is already producing a great deal of sorrow.

• I feel it is most valuable if any who understand this would share in prayer for the brothers involved, that we may not have a repetition of the same in fresh terms.

• I have, as you will have gathered, great confidence that God is in control of the Church within China, and believe that Nee was perhaps a prophet for this day in his own country.

• I have however grave doubts about the wisdom of carrying across to the West, with its so different history, the methods designed by God for this day in China.

• Perhaps I am wrong, but I fear mere imitation. God will, I trust, work afresh in our countries through His Spirit with means of His own choosing.

I much appreciate your expression of fellowship in Christ at this time and thank you for writing so fully and so interestingly.

Yours in His eternal bonds, Angus Kinnear.