Wrong in Principle ?
– The Walkinshaw Dogma

INTRODUCTION

• • •  EDITORIAL NOTE  • • • Those whose assertions are examined here – and many brethren connected with them – are known and loved by the authors who, at the time, were 'in fellowship' with them. This page is not intended – and should not be interpreted – as an attack on our brethren, either individually or as a group. The authors have made every effort to present the facts and principles – which are the only issues – accurately and fairly. This page is based on 'Wrong in Principle? – The Walkinshaw Dogma', No. 30 in my Historical Reference Series.

The events at the infamous July 1970 Aberdeen meetings precipitated a division among the followers of ——.

• Despite their previous support of, or submission to, ——, many who were at those meetings – or who received an accurate report of the public and private matters involved – separated from the legal sect sect.
  • This included most of the brethren in Scotland, a good number in England, lesser numbers in North America and in other parts of the world.

• It is to their credit that they did withdraw from that iniquity – but it was the outrageous character of those meetings that forced them to act, any who still had any activity of conscience having no other option.

• It is clear, however, that those in the lead had little, if any, perception of the real character of things from 1953, and especially from 1959 – of which Aberdeen was the ultimate and inescapable consequence.

The repudiation of those meetings by the brethren in Aberdeen, and other localities, and the later withdrawal, albeit by a minority, from —— in New York – right as that was – basically constituted a single issue.

• At that time, there was no general understanding or judgment of the erroneous teachings or the harsh legal system in which many – especially leaders – had been willing participants, and others the unhappy victims.

• The result was that the original separation was based on a shallow and superficial judgment.

• The ostensible cause was a dispute over whether an unequal yoke was involved in "membership" in a body established by government to regulate solicitors,
  • See My Stand 2: Aberdeen 2.

• but there were also – locally and generally – wide differences as to the judgment of the legal system and how the many instances of harshness and wrongful excommunication should be corrected.

• The "Wrong in Principle" Dogma – 1971

There was a further serious underlying difference among those who had separated over the 1970 Aberdeen events.

• This single – but vital – issue was publicly asserted in meetings at Buckhurst Hill on December 24-26, 1971.

It was definitively and dogmatically expressed by Mr. E. M. Walkinshaw, the brother giving the lead, who unequivocally asserted that

• "any person that went out of fellowship" before July 1970 when he and others withdrew "was wrong in principle to do so".

The disregard of genuine exercise which challenged the implicit ecclesiastical pretensions of some – for Mr. Walkinshaw was not alone in this belief –

• stumbled some ill-established souls and turned them aside in a different direction, completely away from the truth of the assembly, and

• contributed, with other factors, to oblige some to withdraw in order to preserve a good conscience.

While not the immediate cause of the impending 1972 division, this outrageous remark added its share of fuel to an already flammable situation.

• Letters of GAR and LJT – 1972

Letters between myself and Mr. Walkinshaw, including his replies to others – not included – deal specifically with the implications of the "wrong in principle" proclamation.

• His reply to me – not included but quoted extensively – discloses how deep-rooted the ecclesiastical pretension was, among some who had separated in 1970.
  • This pretension had been developing rapidly since 1959, if more slowly since JT's death in 1953.

The correspondence of Laurence Twinam, of Sevenoaks, Kent, with Mr. Walkinshaw (the same brother) is of special interest because of the close relationship they had once shared, and

• Laurence's intimate knowledge of the whole range of thoughts underlying his dogmatic statement.
• Laurence provides a careful and detailed examination of Mr. Walkinshaw's views as they had been expressed both in private conversations and in meetings.

Other contributions by Laurence J. Twinam: Home Page: Welcome: So you've left the Jims Poetry: Windows in Heaven Poetry: Retrospect and other poems

• What is True Assembly Ground? – 1977

The claim that the Lord was still with the "position" – while the legal system increasingly oppressed the brethren and erroneous teachings proliferated – did not dissipate.

• It had become a tenet of at least some of those who had made an issue of the government established body regulating solicitors, at Edinburgh in 1972, for

• in December 1976, the brother giving the lead in meetings – again at Buckhurst Hill, but not the same brother – asserted that there was "no authority or direction to move in any way until July 1970".

This exercised a few very deeply, but an attempt to arouse the consciences of leading brothers of that group failed.

Jim Soukoreff (1938-99) – see With Christ – in a well-documented 1977 paper, What is True Assembly Ground?,

• details the departure from the ministry and practice of earlier brethren, and

• the unscriptural position of those who claim the Lord's presence from 1960-70, and His sanction for remaining in that iniquitous system until July 1970.
  • The section which traces the major deviations from the truth, now appears in History: Decline and Departure: 1960-70: A Decade of Departure.

• Extracts from Meeting Notes – December 1971

The extracts from the December 1971 Buckhurst Hill notes were taken from copies of a partial set which finally came into my hands. The complete notes are not available.

• In addition to substantiating the statement as to "wrong in principle", the extracts show the trend of Mr. Walkinshaw's thoughts – and of others who participated.

• The remarks of the brother giving the lead at that time are shown as E.M.W. (i.e., answer) in the meeting notes.
  • He is the brother to whom my letters and those of Laurence Twinam were addressed.

G.A.R.

Page Top

GORDON  RAINBOW
Letter No. 1,  February 16, 1972

Mr. E. M. Walkinshaw,
Beloved brother,
I am thankful to have a brotherly link with you through previous correspondence, especially in view of the inquiry which prompts this letter.

• In a letter of January 3, 1972 to the brethren in — giving his "reasons for ceasing to break bread", — asks,

• "Do we agree with … Mr. Walkinshaw's statement last weekend that all who left before Aberdeen were 'wrong in principle' ?"

• On the one hand, it is a condemnation of many who saw the evil (to which many were blinded) develop and dominate,
  • and who acted on their individual responsibility and conscience and followed the directions for the last days and withdrew from iniquity – 2 Timothy 2: 19-22.

• On the other hand, it is a justification of all those who remained until that time.
  • Some of these had seen the evil go on unjudged but through fear, or other reasons, did not act on their conscience.

  • Others were supporters and participators in the evil.

• But on such a basis they are all exonerated for going on with iniquity –
  • those who suffered so greatly for their faithfulness are condemned.

• What sort of reasoning would this be? What sort of justice? Surely this would not be the judgment of a holy and righteous God!

• How could we say that we believed what JND said, "Separation from evil, God's principle of unity"
  • and maintain that it was right to remain in a unity which was a cloak for evil, and that it was "wrong in principle" to leave that kind of unity? [Isaiah 5: 18-25 quoted here.]

We need to beware of the pride of Laodiceanism – 'There is nothing wrong with us.' How nauseating! –

• brethrenism and ecclesiasticism, the pretension to succession and position, to having the truth, to being always right in every issue. These things are so near and so native to us.

• How humble we need to be, and to remain, for all the sorrow and shame we have brought to the Lord Jesus and the suffering we have brought upon His saints.

But some may say that it was not right to act before the Lord acted. What a feeble sophism!

• Everyone who names the Name of the Lord is individually responsible to the Lord to maintain the truth and to withdraw from iniquity.

• There is no instruction to wait for the Lord to do anything in such a case.

• When evil is apparent as a governing principle – and it was apparent to those who were not blind to the sectarianism, clericalism, judaizing, disregard of grace as the reigning principle of the dispensation, and the lauding as righteousness all manner of oppression of the saints –
  • then the obligation of everyone is to act.

  • When the Lord says "I am about to spue thee out of my mouth" – "Behold, I stand at the door and am knocking", Rev. 3: 16-20, it is the time to act!

When He has spued the whole nauseous thing out anyone can see that it was wrong. It is then no time to make claims.

• The humbling thing is that I was blind for years. No doubt others will take part in the common humiliation.

• Rather than say anything that might even seem to condemn any who, in love to Christ and for conscience sake, acted in the only way that was left open to them,

• I would rather confess my own blindness, weakness, slowness, and thank God that someone did what was right. [Jeremiah 7: 3-12 quoted here.]

Your own words – in your letter to me of Oct. 20, 1971 – have been an encouragement to me. You said,

• "Mercy has delivered us from a system of darkness and we need to be kept in self-judgment that elements in ourselves so easily held by it may lose their power.
  • "Habits of thinking even need adjustment, that the spirit of our minds might be right.

  • "It is perhaps the spirit of things we carry over with us when we may have judged the externals by right principles".

• This is so true. I think it applies to how we may think of our brethren who acted on their conscience in the 1960's.

• I have no brief for them above any for we should love all the saints, and in our affections embrace the whole assembly of God.

• At the same time, we should not forget how many of them were treated so cruelly, many cast out of the synagogue
  • for having the same judgment which we have just recently come to make.

• We have a special responsibility towards them on this account.
  • Therefore it behooves us to keep from attitudes which could not be justified in the light of the Scriptures and the plain facts.

Again, I would assure you that it is not in my mind to make any charges but, as the statement was attributed to you and having confidence in a brotherly link established,

• it has seemed right to take the opportunity to write to you so that our thoughts and exercises could be shared.

May the Blessed Spirit use the occasion to strengthen our links in what is right and dispel any doubt that the enemy might seek to bring in to divide.

Affectionately, your brother in Christ, Gordon.

Page Top

Gordon Rainbow :  Letter No. 2,  April 6, 1972

• I said "We" including myself "need to beware of the pride of Laodiceanism … These things are so near and so native to us".
• In an address in Belfast on December 26, 1970 – in 'Life in Manifestation', meetings with J. Mason –
  • you said, "… and I would like to ask another question. If, as JBS says, Laodicea is Philadelphian light without Philadelphian state, how near am I to Laodicea, or how near have we been to Laodicea? That is a sobering consideration, is it not, because there is light. Who has had more light than we?".

• Surely the difference of a mere question mark does not make one wrong and the other right.

• It is well worthwhile reading The Leaven of Laodicea, JBS 9: 139-145, especially page 143.

You object to my use of "sophism" in regard to "some may say" – a hypothetical statement of mine – and suggest instead, "this is a grave mistake".

• Then immediately exception is taken to "such errors".
  • An ordinary dictionary shows that "mistake", which you approve, is a synonym of "error", which apparently offends.

• Mr. Darby's use of a similar expression – "poor and transparent piece of sophistry", in Letters 1: 421 and CW 14: 304 – indicates that the use of "sophism" is not extraordinary in such a context.

• Surely it would not be in your mind to "make a man an offender for a word", Isaiah 29: 21.

Regarding "what some sober men believe to be the truth", there are also some sober men who believe differently. To give but two examples:

• In the early 1960's one older man here was forced out over the 'eating' matter, and another older brother separated when coercion was being used to divide husbands and wives.

• Those two brothers were among the most sober men in this city. They are still so, and are continuing in Christian simplicity and separation.

• You think that if I said, "this is a grave mistake" I might win my brethren.

• These men are also my brethren. Would they be won by telling them that they had been "wrong in principle" in what they had done?

• These, and many others, had a sober judgment long before the Aberdeen matter of which you say, "Every Assembly – in fact every Christian – should have accepted that judgment".

• You could hardly be unaware that many Christians had for years been sickened by, and had a judgment of, many matters which had been aired in the public press.

You "notice" that I "omit any reference to London" in my letter to —.

• I also omitted any personal reference to yourself. The omissions were intentional.

• I was giving my views as to the principle of certain matters. I was not expressing a judgment of, or on, either persons or gatherings.

• As to one of the matters, it was said in ministry in this city – not by me, but by a brother from Scotland – that to have made 'eating' a test of fellowship was "legality".

• To my knowledge, the brethren here accepted that statement as being right.

As to your statement, "You answer —'s letter but not —", please see the sixth last and the second last paragraphs [letter not included].

• I seek to be preserved from answering any person, whatever my judgment of him, or his course, may be by the use of sarcasm or innuendo.

• You say that you were "somewhat surprised … at the character and tone" of my letter.

• Please reflect on some of your own expressions:
  • "such a spirit" –

  • "The 'we' you use is a 'royal we' " –

  • "There is a pride that apes humility" –

  • "Are you the Arbiter of the truth?" –

  • "Again are you in Toronto an arbiter of Assembly judgments?" –

  • "It is possible to be proud of the fact that humiliation is the only ground [Colossians 2: 18] and to very proudly take it, and let every one know that I am doing so. [Psalm 139: 23-24]".

• I make no defence against such unbridled abusiveness. "To his own master he stands or falls".

You also say, "when you on your own confession were promoting it" and "I must say, dear brother, that I would expect from one who had been 100% behind —— some reluctance …"

• Such points are not in keeping with your own remark, "Who is 'the most separate', or, 'Who saw it first' is totally irrelevant".

To my remark, "But some may say that it was not right to move before the Lord acted. What a feeble sophism!",

• you reply, "I believe that where the Lord is in any matter is the primary consideration in it". You speak of "Scriptural evidence". I find none to support your belief.

• I do find clear directions for the obedient disciple, "he that has My commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves Me", John 14: 21, and
  • "Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity", 2 Timothy 2: 19.

• Your reference to the evil existent at Corinth and it being "futile to say this was before the breakdown" disregards the vital fact that
  • direct apostolic power and authority were present in Paul to deal with the anomalous situation.

• In fact they began to deal with evil at his direction. We no longer have apostles. Paul committed the Ephesian elders "to God and the word of His grace", Acts 20: 32.

You say, "the breakdown has not modified one of God's words or principles. We must look to Scripture for guidance and not be governed by our own reaction to the ruin".

• Not setting aside other Scriptures, the peculiar guidance needed in view of the ruin and for the last days is given by Paul in 2 Timothy.

• No one is called to act upon his own moral judgment solely. Those you declare to be "wrong in principle" also acted on 2 Timothy 2: 19-22. Many will testify to this.

• There was not only evil but unjudged evil. If one has a moral judgment it is a sign of full growth. Hebrews 5: 14. Such will go to the inspired Scriptures for their directions and not be governed by selfish whims.

Your assertion that "Persons who are guided by their conscience will go astray" stops short.

• An exercised conscience leads to God and to the inspired Scriptures for guidance.

• Consider what JND said as to Plymouth, "but my conscience allowing me no longer to stay … I … only stated the principles on which I went", CW 20: 40.
  • And so he withdrew from iniquity, evil which could not be remedied.

• "And allow me to ask a question here … What were the people to do who had come to the same conclusion in conscience, and that from much longer and fuller evidence, but who had shops and children at Plymouth, and could not leave?", CW 20: 43,44.
  • Though he withdrew from Ebrington Street he stayed in Plymouth for the help of others who likewise acted on their conscience as governed by the Scriptures.

If as you say "the condition was not without remedy …", where was the remedy from 1959 to 1970?

• The exposure at Aberdeen was proof that the condition was indeed without remedy – just as was Laodicea – and so the Lord spued it out of His mouth.
  • "If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth", Jeremiah 15: 19.

• This, which was the principle on which JND said he acted at the beginning, was not done by those of us who remained till Aberdeen – and so the exposure and the judgment.

• It is only a puerile evasion of my responsibility to say that I was waiting for the Lord to act – and to defend such inaction is shameful.

• The Scripture never puts me in the position of having to remain in fellowship with unjudged evil.

You speak of "Satan's attack; his intention being to ruin the substantial expression of the Assembly in these days".

• The church is publicly in ruin and has been so for centuries. It were better to accept that and walk softly, especially in view of the shameful history of recent years,
  • rather than to make pretentious remarks as to "the substantial expression of the Assembly".

• This is the type of thing on which brethrenism thrives.
  • "The Christ also loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it … that he might present the assembly to himself glorious …", Ephesians 5: 25-27.

• That is the whole assembly, not a part of it, not 'brethren' – of whatever section – but the whole assembly.

You remark "that Satan's present effort is to shift the brethren on to 'open ground' ".

• That it is combined with claims as to "what is Assembly in it's nature and character; as governed by every original principle proper to the Assembly" is the more sad.

I reject your reasonings and the position to which they lead.

Faithfully in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

LAURENCE  TWINAM
Letter No. 1,  February 24, 1972

Mr. E. M. Walkinshaw,
Dear Eddie,
Your remarks at the recent meetings with — at — prompt me to write as they tended to confirm the impression I have that you are holding views about the brethren's position that cannot be substantiated either from Scripture or by historical facts.

• This is a great grief to me especially as a year or two ago I had the privilege of sharing in sufferings with you which we both felt at the time were for the Lord's Name's sake.

• At that time there was no one locally in whom I had more confidence than you, and this confidence was founded not only on my experience of you as a brother, but on your knowledge of the truth –
  • especially too your full acquaintance with FER's ministry which – as now – I much appreciate.

• You will not need reference to helpful ministry on this subject, but CAC's Righteousness in the Last Days makes all this abundantly clear, I should have thought.

• That paper of CAC's (reprinted on pages 231-248 of A.J.G.'s "Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth") also touches other matters relevant to this letter.

8. That 1970 was 'the Lord's time' for delivering 'His people' and persons who withdrew previously on account of moral evil or unscriptural doctrine 'went before the Lord' and left 'the fellowship of God's Son'.

The above raises several points.

• Undoubtedly the Lord acted in great mercy towards us in 1970; the more we appreciate such mercy the better!

• But we had long since forfeited any special claim to be His people, for we had departed from the Scriptures, and from the testimony of God;

• we were not walking in the light – 1 John 1: 7 – and were thus not truly 'in fellowship', however sincere we thought we were.
  • In fact we had fellowship with 'wicked works'. 2 John 11.

9. That to admit the possibility of the Lord being 'with' two different companies of believers meeting in the same locality would be equivalent to regarding the Lord as 'Head of a disjointed body'.

This appears to me to confuse the truth of the body with that of the house.

• There never has been – nor could be – any breakdown in the unity of the body, whereas there has been a long and terrible history of breakdown and confusion in the house.

• In my comments on (1) above I set out my belief that the Lord as the Good shepherd of the 'one flock' has nothing less in His heart than the gathering together into one of companies of believers gathered simply and faithfully to His Name, some of which may be largely unaware of other such companies.

I will not extend this letter still further by making long quotations from ministry, but the following additional passages in FER have been a help to me recently:

• 1: 44-5, 64, 66, 128 and especially 120 and 130;

• 7: 408, 467; 8: 304; 9: 11; 14: 40-1.

Before closing this letter, allow me to make an earnest and affectionate appeal.

• I believe many of the Lord's people, including some still associated – alas – with ——'s ministry, are hampered like Job by a deep seated conviction of their own uprightness

• which can greatly hinder an honest and simple and objective reassessment of matters in the presence of God – i.e., repentance.

• Repentance puts us in very good company, and adjusts our outlook towards all our fellow-believers, some of whom we have grievously wronged and offended, to whom we have – alas – misrepresented the Saviour whom we truly love.

This zealous claim to an 'only-right position' savours to me of a subtle form of self-justification; it is in fact an efficient formula for proving that whatever our history, We are the People anyway!

• Let us beware, for God is no respecter of persons!

If you and certain other influential brethren continue to press your views, they will of course continue to do damage, especially among younger brethren.

• Some of the young men who left us recently referred especially to some recent statements by you – as I think you know – as a reason for giving up the path;
  • were I responsible, this would trouble me very much.

• Others to my knowledge have become unsettled for the same reason.

I hope this lengthy letter will not weary you, but I earnestly pray that the Lord may use it to exercise you about these things.

• It is no light thing for me to take my life in my hands, as it were, to challenge you in this way; and certain personal influences have made me hesitate to do it.

• I trust you know me well enough to realize that I have no personal axe to grind, nor bear you any grudge.

Mercy undeserved from God is a wonderful thing; I think we need to be kept in a constant sense of it, and to let it steady and transform us.

• Let us, who have proved mercy beyond all measure over the last two years now be watchful lest we 'forsake our own mercy'.

Your affectionate brother in our Lord Jesus,

Laurence Twinam.

Page Top

Laurence Twinam :  Letter No. 2,  April 4, 1972

I think your statement about "open ground" needs to be clarified. Over 124 years this expression has tended to lose its original specific meaning.

• For instance, you and I were immediately called 'open' by the —— sect after the Aberdeen events!

• There is no thought in my mind of an alliance with Bethesda. But we do need to recognize in practice, as well as in doctrine, the truth of the one body and One Spirit.

As to —, he was in touch with me in the few weeks before he left us, and subsequently wrote.

• My impression – without proof – is that he was deeply troubled by developments among us, and became depressed.
  • While depressed he was both tempted – by the enemy – and stumbled – by remarks of influential brethren.

• In speaking of such a case I feel sure we must be compassionate and consider lest we also may be tempted, watchful also lest we give any offence or cause of stumbling.

I was rather puzzled by your reference to the spirit of my letter, as I wrote quite freely to a brother I know well.

• Certainly I am anxious to be free entirely from the spirit of the system with which we were both also in measure associated, and from which we both suffered.

Your affectionate brother in our Lord Jesus,

Laurence Twinam.

Page Top

WHAT  IS  TRUE  ASSEMBLY  GROUND
JIM SOUKOREFF –  1938-99 Vancouver, BC, November 9, 1977, updated by JS, 1988 and 1999.

It is my judgment that the ground brethren were on up to 1959 could be examined by Christians and they would discover that the teaching and practice was supported by Scripture,

• and that when wrong teaching or practice showed itself it was rejected by faithful men who loved the Lord, who loved the truth, and who loved the brethren.

It would be well now to soberly read the address by GRC, London, July 16, 1958, entitled Separated from Evil and Separated to God.

• It is not only affecting to read this word and hear the Lord speaking to us about the matter of unequal yokes in associations, but it is distinctly prophetic in the warning :
  • "But let us rightly represent God in all these exercise. Otherwise, in our very effort to get things done, we shall lose Divine support; we shall allow in another form the very man we are seeking to exclude". Alas, how true.

• Also, "the returned captives came to a very distinct appreciation of El, the unchanging God, who never deviates, never lowers the standard".
  • Think how this very name of God was blasphemed amongst us.

• He also mentions "the tower of the furnaces where all the rubbish was burnt. There is a lot of rubbish to burn in days of recovery; we have to get rid of all the wrong ideas and the tower of furnaces is available".

• I would recommend that all read this address as being a current word to us.

After this word from the Lord in 1958 there was much exercise amongst the brethren.

But, the next year, open conflict took place at the London three day meetings in August, 1959.

• Note: See Unity as Presented in Paul's Epistles.

• Subsequently, —— assumed universal leadership with a harsh and legalistic spirit contrary to what had been characteristic in the recovery.

• This quickly showed itself in a vicious and unbrotherly attack on Mr. G. R. Cowell culminating in his wrongful withdrawal.

• Many who protested against this arbitrary spirit were withdrawn from.

• The working of deceit, cruelty and treachery was soon to be felt and continued to work throughout the 1960's.

• Departure from the Authority of Scripture

• Dishonour to the Lord and Damage to Persons

1. 2 Timothy 2: 19-22

   has been well shown in the teaching of the recovery to be Divine authority and direction to the Christian who wishes to walk in faithfulness to the name of the Lord.

   "Lord" implies His absolute authority over His own. We are given directions that, is we are to be faithful to that Name, we must act on if we are connected with iniquity or a vessel to dishonour.

2. JT, Vol. 39: 460-1.

   "If you are right in withdrawing from a certain position, I also should withdraw.

   "You are not withdrawing from your brethren, you are withdrawing 'from iniquity',

   "but lower down in the chapter, you withdraw from vessels to 'dishonour', that is persons who are shown to be dishonourable to the Lord in what they hold or what they do".

3. FER, Notes of Lectures (Morrish) Vol. 20: 205.

   "It is to be feared that we have been too ready for division in the spirit of our minds. Separation is a last resource when evil is irremediable.

   "In regard to fellowship we maintain that the Lord is with us; if evil arises, the question arises, is it such that we are assured the Lord has left, for until this is the case we have no ground for leaving.

   "Evil coming in does not drive the Lord out, it is when it is sanctioned that His presence is withdrawn.

   "This is seen in the case of Achan; His presence discovered the evil, and if they did not judge it, He would not be with them any more".

4. JT, Judgment of Current Conditions, Vol. 39: 459

   "It is the name under which divine administration is carried out down here.

   "The Name involves all that the Person stands for in testimony; how He dealt with it as meeting it in His service, and how He met it victoriously on the cross,

   "as naming that Name, we must, to be consistent, withdraw from iniquity,

   "and it is religious iniquity that is particularly in view, that is to say, evil allowed in the profession of Christianity where the Lord's name is nominally owned".

5. CAC, A Warning and An Appeal.

   "A man who holds, teaches, and maintains what is contrary to the word of God is a 'vessel to dishonour'. Charity and liberality have no place when the truth of God is in question.

   "We must not excuse error on the ground of the sincerity of the one who holds it. Truth is of God and whatever is contrary to it is of the father of lies.

   "If you remain in association with those who pervert or deny the truth, you lend your sanction to what they teach or hold, and you fail to be a witness to the truth.

   "You cannot do this without an immeasurable loss to your soul, as well as dishonour to the Lord.

   "Moreover, your continued association with vessels to dishonour indicates that the Lord's claims and the truth of God have but little hold upon your conscience and heart".

6. JND, Letters, 2: 3-4.

   "Wherever two or three are really gathered together in Christ's name Christ is, and there is the within and the without. It is a clearing of the conscience of the assembly, "Ye have proved yourselves clear in this matter".

   "Otherwise the assembly would be the positive sanction, and by Christ's presence, of the association of Christ and sin; and it would be far better there should be no assembly at all than that.

   "2 Timothy 2 gives us the general principle of every one who calls himself a Christian, separating from iniquity, purging himself from false teachers, and walking with those who call upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart. It is individual duty when evil has come in.

   "As to the second question, it is practically answered already. In bestowing power God is sovereign.

   "When the word has spoken I am bound to obey. To refuse obedience to it is to disobey, to assume on my own will authority not to act till God chooses to do that which rests on His will".

7. JT, Vol. 10: 256.

   "If there is not the disposition and determination to deal with evil the Lord is not with any company".

   JT, Vol. 10: 248.

   "This second epistle to Timothy makes much of Scripture which is one whole and no passage should be used to nullify another".

8. JND, Collected Writings, 20: 336.

   "I name the name of the Lord; I cannot abide in what is not right. It is destroying all responsibility, and denying God's authority over me to allege any motive for not departing from evil. To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams".

   JND, Letters, 2: 493 (re husbands and wives).

   "He who confesses Christ must obey His word and if that word tells people not to separate, I am setting aside Christ's authority in doing it".

9. JT, Vol. 41: 121.

   "… withdraw from iniquity". "You must depart from it if you have anything to do with this matter of coming on to the firm foundation for the foundation of God does not support iniquity".

10. JT, Vol. 52: 346.

    "If I condone evil, I am identified with the evil, and I become evil myself. That is the general and unchanging position between right and wrong".

    The above show that we had both authority and direction to act against the evil in the 1960's.

"The Lord continued to manifest Himself at the supper."

Ans. We cannot limit the Lord in His movements; He never leaves His sheep, but to use this is to sanction the evil is blasphemy. It is really saying that the Lord supported us in going contrary to His own word.

"To maintain in practice the possibility of union between that name and evil is to blaspheme it", JND Synopsis, 5: 140-41.

"The Spirit was grieved, but not quenched, therefore we had assembly status."

Ans.This is similar to the above. The Spirit does not support teaching and practice contrary to Scripture.

"There was evil unjudged in Corinth and Galatia."

Ans. The evil was taken issue with, not condoned, nor did it prevail – see reference 'C'.

"The Lord said, concerning Jezebel, 'I gave her time that she should repent', Rev. 2: 21. Also as to witnessing to evil, He said, 'the days in which Antipas, my faithful witness was, who was slain among you' (note 'among you') where Satan dwells'."

Ans. To answer this, I appeal to JND, Letters, 2: 224, where he says

"As regards the seven churches, they are neither the unity of the body nor directions how to act from the Head by the apostle,

"but judgment by Christ on their state (I get positive directions for my conduct in 2 Timothy), Christ's judicial estimate of the whole, and what He will do if they do not repent,

"and this has been used to shew we are to acquiesce in things as they are – if so, with everything, and exercise no discipline at all, for none is spoken of …

"Your use of it would go to allow all evil in an assembly, fornication, communion with idols an all else, and so it has been used".

[See also pages 103-104 of the same volume.]

God bearing with Israel 40 years, the time of Ahab, the iniquity of the Amorites being full, etc.

Ans. Many have attempted to use the Old Testament Scriptures to justify going on with evil.

These are really what JT calls "unscriptural statements sought to be based on Old Testament Scriptures".

God's relationship with His people was national in the Old Testament, in the New Testament it is strictly moral.

JT says "The New [Testament] comes first in our teaching, and our doctrine in our teaching, we must regard the precedence of the New Testament in all matters", Vol. 60: 159-60; and also

"If other Scriptures seem to disagree we must defer to the teaching of the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit through the apostles", Vol. 60: 161.

Also, "2 Timothy is the direct word for our days", Vol. 29: 301.

"Where are they now?" and "Were they with God in what they did?"

Ans. Reference has been made to those individuals who stood against the evil and were separated from us.

This is an ugly slur on their motives and if there was consequent failure to maintain the truth of the assembly do we not bear some responsibility for not standing with them?

Any failure with those who went out does not make what we were doing right.

As JND says, "God will secure by eternal power the vindication, not here perhaps, but before His angels, of them who have rightly owned His nature and truth in Christ Jesus", Separation from Evil, God's Principle of Unity.

The question should be :
Were we with God in withdrawing from such?

"God is not the author of what He allows."

Ans. I agree. Therefore, I would not be free to attach the Lord's name to iniquity – see reference 'D'.

"There were those who were sighing and crying continually to God that He might come in." and "In the area with which I am acquainted there was a burden often voiced – on the spirits of a nucleus of exercised persons bearing I believe the 'iniquity of the sanctuary'. There were men exhorting the saints to endure and who though gifted were hindered in their ministry."

Ans. Mr. M. W. Biggs answers this in 'The Christian's Path in Days of Difficulty':

"How many godly souls are sighing in their spirits and are deeply grieved in their hearts because of evil allowed in the religious systems with which they are connected.

"It is well, indeed, that they do sigh. The Lord hears every sigh, but our spiritual exercises are not complete if we only sigh …

"We must depart from iniquity; we must sever our links of association with the evil by which we are already grieved' for if we are associated with evil we have obviously not departed from it … Nothing could be plainer".

"The test came in July 1970, and it was right to wait for this."

Ans. I disagree. I believe the test came in 1960 and we failed because we collectively took a stand against the truth and called persons wicked who stood for the truth.

"The Lord remained where the ground on which persons were gathered was separation from evil. I think the Lord gathers where there is intention to be apart from evil."

Ans. This statement can also be applied to the Symington/Hales fellowship for they would make this claim, but their works prove otherwise. Matt. 7: 21-23 is the examination, who does the will of the Father.

"JND waited at Plymouth."

Ans. JND remained in Plymouth for eight or nine months. This is what he says about it:

"The fact is, while I attempted to heal or remedy, and walk with the evil, God, though He sustained me, never (after the April meeting) gave any efficacy to a step I took.

"I do not doubt I ought to have left then, or brought it publicly before all the brethren", Collected Writings, Vol. 20: 36 (bottom of page).

As a result of this exercise, he wrote Separation from Evil, God's Principle of Unity.

"I felt sure that the Lord would intervene on behalf of the cry of His people, and He did, but not until the iniquity of what was superimposed upon the saints became evident."

Ans. See references 'E' and 'K'.

1. A leading brother has stated, "If the truth we hold is not the truth which should govern not only every Christian, but every man, then we are sectarian".
   • I, therefore, must conclude by examination of the teaching and practice of the 1960's that we were on sectarian ground, not on true assembly ground.

2. A full moral clearance in the conscience of the brethren can be arrived at simply by judging that we had departed from the Lord in the 1960's and had no moral sanction to continue in that company.
   • To refuse to fully judge ourselves and like Saul to try to save the best, 1 Sam. 15: 15, is to put in jeopardy our present testimony and will certainly hinder recovery of the scattered sheep. Ezekiel 34.

3. To support the statement of — at Buckhurst Hill in December 1976 [continuity theory ] requires a drastic deviation from fundamental doctrines taught in the recovery.

4. I judge it to be open ground for it supports going on with evil in the 1960's and, if accepted, will justify the same thing at the present time. I stand by the teaching of JND, FER and JT.

5. The exposure of 1970 was not an intervention to remedy that position for the Lord had left it.
   • It was to awaken the consciences of individuals to a fresh call to "go forth to Him without the camp bearing His reproach". This is recovery to true assembly ground.

6. If we look for the continuity of the position of the 1960's it is to be seen in the —— position
   • where the teaching and practice of the 1960's is continued and enlarged on and the deceit, cruelty and treachery continue.

7. A full judgment is needed by parents who were committed to the —— system
   • in order to help their children who may be committed to the —— system; it is in principle the same thing.

   • "And having in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled."

Jim Soukoreff

NOTES
EXTRACTS FROM NOTES OF MEETINGS Buckhurst Hill, December 24-26, 1971 These are the meetings referred to in the letters of GAR. Jim Soukoreff also refers to meetings at Buckhurst Hill but in 1976. The lead in those meetings was given by a different brother than in 1971.

Ques. May I ask you another question? In view of what you are saying as to the way God has led us, and the way that we have found our way thus far out of the breakdown, I suppose you would not say such a thing as, 'I should have gone out of fellowship ten years ago, or five years ago'?

E.M.W. No, I wouldn't think of saying that, I don't know that it would come within what was in mind in this reading, but I would say that any person that went out of fellowship was wrong in principle to do so …

Ques. Is it right to say then, that what really underlies the collective position is the 2 Timothy 2 position, in which every one of us has to come to own the Despot?

E.M.W. I think that is right. It is essential to own the Despot; that is why I have felt, and submit it for consideration, that it is never right to act simply on your moral judgment … Separation from evil, while it is of the utmost importance, is not the only aspect of the truth; where the Lord is, and what the Lord is doing, and His right to choose the battleground, all need to be considered. We have spoken as though things have been worked out in the last ten years through all our troubles and trials, and that we have arrived at something, without seeing that the Lord has been operating somewhere; and I think there are those that have been with Him. I am not saying who they are, but I am just looking at the thing objectively for the moment, so that we should be established in principles …

Rem. You made an important remark a little time back, that we have not the right to act solely on our moral judgment. The Lord, for example, has the right to choose and time the battleground. I feel the importance of that in connection with what you are saying now, as to Gods' faithfulness in calling us into the fellowship of His Son.

E.M.W. … Is it just that we have been struggling around with one another, and with brethren generally, and fighting skirmishes and trying to get some where, or is the Lord a Man of war? …

… I was thinking that what is involved in the anointing is Gods' committal. It was unreserved committal to Christ when He was anointed; it was not simply, speaking with reverence, that the Spirit came down, but that God was committed to that Man; completely committed to Him. Now, in that sense, God was also committed to the anointed system. I think that was true in Corinth. There was something there, substantial, to which God was committed in the anointing. Now, the question is, is that so today, and if so, where? …

Rem. I think the question you asked is a most important one; is this true today, and where is it? It might be profitable if we spent a few moments on that.

E.M.W. Well, I feel it is an important question myself. It is one to soberly weigh, and maybe to say something about in these meetings; but to soberly weigh in our consciences and hearts with God, whether He has, in the recovery, secured what is substantially and characteristically the assembly, to which He is committed; and if so, where is it? …

… What is a burning question in the minds of many sober believers is, where God is committed; or to whom is the Lord committed. You see, Mr. — has referred to the collective position; some say there isn't one. Well, I think it is false to say that, although there is no ecclesiastical status. You have always "those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart". Now, in Scripture, there is only one anointed vessel, and there is only one body; and it is a moral impossibility for Christ to be the Head of two bodies …

… Now, can He be committed to two companies that are out of fellowship with each other? It is unscriptural, and a moral impossibility! …

… If we are just satisfied to try to argue out points, we shall get nowhere. What is needed is real depth of exercise with the Lord in this confusion, to reach Him among those to whom He is committed. And He is not committed to two companies alienated from each other. The truth is, there is only one body. There is only one anointed vessel.

Rem. Paul raises a very pertinent question in the first epistle, he says "Is the Christ divided?". It is thoroughly impossible.

E.M.W. Yes.

Rem. Having reached that, in the secret of your soul, these questions such as you raise, as to whether the Lord can be committed to two companies, would be settled wouldn't they? I think that is really the need, as you have been stressing; not only to get the truth that governs it (although that in itself is necessary enough, when there is so much that is spurious being taught), but to find a thing in the secret of our own souls, in company with Christ …

E.M.W. …What one is seeking to do, is to raise exercise with the brethren, as to the truth, and then as to the substantial expression of it in our localities. There is much being said, and I am not saying it is being said with any wrong motive, as to where the Lord is committed collectively. You hear such expressions as: 'They are just as separate as we are'; that does not determine anything; the monks are more separate than we are. Then you hear of persons being very devoted: that does not determine anything except that they are more devoted. It doesn't determine the truth. … His devotion does not determine the truth, nor does my cowardice. Someone may say, if you had not been such a coward you would have done that, so-and-so did, five years ago. That doesn't determine the truth. Maybe I was a coward, maybe he was courageous; but that does not determine the righteousness or unrighteousness of what was done.

Ques. How wide would you regard the thought of the body of Christ?

E.M.W. Well, the body is indivisible, isn't it?

Ques. How do you distinguish the body in the sense that you have been speaking of it, from the individuals who comprise it who are collectively in separate bodies? I use that word very carefully.

E.M.W. Well, you have to accept the fact, of course, that publicly the church has broken down; but the body, I think, is indivisible. In broken days we walk, or seek to walk, in the light of it; and cannot therefore recognize two or more bodies.

Ques. Is not the Lord's relation, (1) with the body, and (2) with the individual?

E.M.W. I think that would be right. You see, the Lord will look after His sheep, will he not? I would have no hesitation in saying that the Lord would give a little food to His sheep through, say, a godly pastor in a Baptist church, because He loves His sheep. But our immediate business is to walk in the light that He has restored us to.

Ques. I think what you said earlier is important; where today is the expression, I think that was the word you used wasn't it?

E.M.W. Yes.

Rem. Which might help the minds of some who may be afraid that in these matters we are getting onto sectarian ground. It is not sectarian, because where the truth of it is held and entered into, it is held rightly in relation to the whole body.

E.M.W. That is the truth. I think it is utter presumption for [illegible] to say 'We are the church'; but I think that it is equally utter presumption to say that there is no substantial expression of it today, to which God is committed. The enemy was successful in regard to the former, and I think he is trying very hard to be successful in regard to the latter. We need to watch both sides of this, do we not? I think what we have had in these meetings is the truth, and it is unalterable …

Ques. Would you expect to find this situation to which God is committed in any particular, known company today?

E.M.W. Yes.

Ques. What must be the characteristics of that company?

E.M.W. … I believe that it is possible for two or three to he held in the vitality of it, in a gathering of two or three hundred, and most miss the point. I accept that we need to keep Christ before us in His glory, and see the establishment of everything in Him, so that we are lifted up in seeing the permanency of God's thoughts in Him; but we must face up to the practical truth as it exists; and we must ask ourselves whether the Lord Jesus, in His progressive movements in the recovery, has secured somewhere, in some person or persons, the substantial representation of the assembly. Is it all a mixture, and He just going on with us, making the best of a bad job? …

… Of course, we are apt to claim maybe, that we have a pure heart; but you can walk into this city, I expect, as you can into most cities, and you will find four or five different companies all claiming the same ground, and all out of fellowship with one another …

Rem. … I just wanted to be clear as to who the "many" might include, because I had thought that it included all believers, and that the body is indivisible, and yet we do not, in one sense, all partake of one loaf.

E.M.W. Well no, that is because of the breakdown, I suppose; hence, we must take very lowly ground; but I do feel brethren, that we should not, in taking lowly ground, abrogate the truth, or weaken what the Lord has done in the recovery. And in particular, we should pay attention to JT's ministry, and what the Lord secured through it.

Rem. Therefore, the important thing for us, in considering these matters, is just to confine ourselves to the consideration of the truth. We don't need to consider other companies, and how they gather, and that sort of thing; if we maintain the truth, and they maintain the truth, there will come a point when we find we are together. But the maintenance of the truth will be the test, because the truth is our bond.

E.M.W. That is how it stands, I think, although in saying we shall find ourselves together, you are not suggesting a movement that would join various independent companies together.

Rem. No, I am not, because we have been taught, and understand, that that is not the way on which believers would come together. What I am concerned with is that we, as having light from the Lord, should maintain the truth; and then if anyone else maintains the truth, we would find that we have a basis on which we could then break bread; because I think it is easy for us to fall into discussion of other persons, and other companies, whereas the great point, especially in a reading, is, where does the truth lie?

E.M.W. Yes. So that the truth is our bond, and the truth is always the issue. Everything should be looked at in the light of the truth.

Ques. So we should not do it as joining two companies together, but do it as all being individuals, and doing it together?

E.M.W. Well, no doubt that is the way it might work. We just have to count on the Lord as to what He may be doing; but I do feel that it would be an affront to Him, to say that an individual believer cannot find the path of His will in the confusion …

… and right through, in this last ten years, I believe, there has been a nucleus of persons agonizing for the faith once delivered to the saints; and the Lord has been committed to them.

Rem. That is really what I had in mind this morning when I said there was substantially, in some at Corinth, the things which Paul sets out in the first nine verses of the first chapter; and the analogy in our own experiences, when things have been so wrong, that there have been persons who have been with God in relation to them.

E.M.W. Yes. The leaders mainly have been all wrong. We have to accept that; but in the body of the saints, especially probably with spiritual sisters, and some elderly ones. I have found that there has been (if one might use Jude's words), an agonizing (contending earnestly) "for the faith once delivered to the saints".

Page Top

• • •  Editorial Note:  Open Ground • • •
It is enlightening to compare the position of those who justify going on with evil in the 1960's with the classic exposition of the open ground they rightly condemn. "If my Lord should say to me in any congregation of the almost unnumbered sections of the Church, 'What doest thou here?' "I would reply, 'Seeing Thou wert here to save and sanctify, I felt it safe to be with Thee.' "If He again said, as perhaps He may amongst most of us, 'Didst thou not see abominations here, an admixture of that which was unscriptural, and the absence of that which was Scriptural, and in some points error, at least in your judgment?' "My answer would be, 'Yea, Lord, but I dare not call that place unholy where Thou wert present to bless; nor by refusing communion in worship to reject those as unholy whom Thou had'st by Thy saving power evidently sanctified, and set apart for Thine own.' "So long as Christ dwells in an individual, or walks in the midst of a congregation, blessing the ministrations to the conversion and edification of souls, we dare not denounce and formally leave – for fear of the awful sin of schism, of sin against Christ and His mystical body." From the Memoir of Mr. A. N. Groves, 1795-1853.
Return to GAR 2   or   LJT 2   or   JS: Conclusions

Page Top

• • •  Historical Note:  Mr. G. R. Cowell  • • •
Mr. G. R. Cowell was invited to serve at the August 1959 London special meetings. He was challenged when he said that "the greatest numerical losses we have had of late years have been through the Galatian spirit". See Unity as Presented in Paul's Epistles In the months following those meetings he was bitterly attacked with allegations of serious doctrinal errors and weakening the truth of separation. Many prominent brothers were caught up in – or acquiesced in – this unjustified and violent onslaught which led to the spiritual slaying of a righteous man in July 1960. Compare Matthew 23: 35. The challenger gained undisputed dominance and, in the years following, the subtle introduction of erroneous doctrine and a harsh legal system brought great public reproach and caused incalculable suffering. Conscientious brethren and servants, who protested, were ruthlessly excommunicated. Others were deceived by smooth words or capitulated through fear of consequences. G. A. R. See Biography: G. R. Cowell
Return to Mr. G. R. Cowell

Page Top