| G. M. MILNE |
|---|
| Halesowen, Worcestershire, England |
April 6, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Beloved Brother,
I have quickly read through a copy of your letter written to ——,* and would first of all like to ask you for a copy to myself if you feel free.
It was refreshing to read your experiences as I must say I have has serious questions about the ground we are on presently. The judgment of evil in Aberdeen is not in itself much of a basis.
Your affectionate brother, George M. Milne.
April 13, 1972
Toronto, Canada,
Mr. G. M. Milne,
Beloved brother,
It was a great encouragement to learn of your exercises. Though we have not met your name is familiar to me through David Waterfall who stayed with us last July.
I had no thought that my letter to —— would be of more than personal interest to himself and a few with whom I had contact about his move. But certainly I am free to enclose a copy for you, along with the other items mentioned in it.
—— replied [Mar. 14] and his letters confirm what you call “his rejection of J.N.D.” I do not share his thoughts as to this. In view of the interest you express and your exercise I also enclose a copy of his reply and a brief acknowledgment [Mar. 21]. He makes some very pointed remarks as to what may characterize us that only blind bigotry could ignore or deny.
As to your letter, you say “I have has serious questions about the ground we are on presently. The judgment of evil in Aberdeen is not in itself much of a basis”. I thoroughly agree and am thankful to have found some concern with a few as to this.
The “danger of setting ministry up as a standard” is very real. In fact it is still commonplace for ministry to be quoted freely for authority rather than establishing matters by the Scriptures directly. This is one of the distinctive features of sectarianism generally.
I agree that “a whole line of ministry is not to be rejected out of hand”, but am sure that it is necessary to trace the antecedents of recent failures to their source. This necessitates a review of ministry and the bringing of what has been said afresh to the touchstone of the Holy Scriptures for confirmation or repudiation, heretical as this may sound.
You say that “many brethren seem to think the departure started a lot earlier than 1959 or 1953”. Like yourself, I am not able to go back as far as some in personal knowledge of what took place. Nevertheless, there is a great body of published information and evidence which can be sifted and compared.
As to finding yourself “asking whether in fact ‘the worship of the Spirit’ justified the loss of brethren and separation”, I would doubt that you are alone in this. It may well be that the same question might be asked about other matters as well.*
I feel the particular need of being in communion with our blessed Lord Jesus and dependent on the enlightening service of the Holy Spirit in looking into these matters. Such investigation could become damaging to the soul and to communion with God if not carried out with the sense of having to do with holy things.
What is particularly before me now is whether there can be any reconciliation of certain parallel lines which seemed to have commenced about the time of J.N.D.’s departure and have continued to the present time. Some of these lines seem, at least, mutually exclusive if not diametrically opposed. I refer to the following:
2. Increasing centralization of authority – metropolitanism.
3. Gradual exaltation of ministers and ministry – which led to clericalism.
4. Hanging on the word of one man – universal lead – the essence of popery.
5. The proliferation of rules governing everything, including worship which ought to be the spontaneous expression of heart to God. This type of thing has stifled conscience and made spirituality and devotedness obsolete.
6. Discarding of the spirit of evangelism accompanied progressively by the loss of those who were gospel minded and used of the Lord – and the restriction of evangelical methods to those which would be accepted in an assembly meeting.
7. The progressive introduction – as new light – of esoteric doctrines – some of which are in direct opposition to what was believed by earlier brethren and teachers. This has also served to alienate other Christians, widening the gap and thereby engendering sectarianism.
The above may seem to be a harsh indictment, but I believe the statements are factual.
I have written my mind freely to you as feeling you are under exercise before the Lord. It is certainly not in my mind to be critical or to seek to overthrow anything that is good, but it is a time when one must be honest with oneself.
I have enclosed some other letters which will no doubt explain what lies behind my present exercises. They are not intended, nor are the other enclosures, for general circulation but rather for your own information.
If you are disposed to write again you may be sure that I will be most glad to hear from you and to know your thoughts and comments on what has been before us both.
Affectionately yours in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
June 9, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Dear Gordon,
I was thankful to see that you had sent a copy of your last letter to F.D.W. [Waterfall]. Last Saturday he stated that he accepted the Falkirk judgment as being the nearest meeting, and generally the brethren accepted this as sound advice. He was not at all swayed by the London judgment and I was thankful for your remark as to their action being unconstitutional.
It appears as though we might have lost 10 or 12 families. These include a lot of children which is sad, but the parents would never face up to stop them breaking bread. I have three children, aged 9, 7, 5. I stopped them more than a year ago but I have found it greatly resisted in our own subdivision. We have them 3 years old still breaking bread.
I noticed your remark that we don’t shift for the sake of shifting and, like many others, have felt that we ought to have been with the 'Ilford' brethren. But even if we went there, there are still questions that will necessarily arise. I hardly think they are free from sectarianism although only too ready to acknowledge that they were not taken in by the wicked system.
1. that he had never been in a sect,
2. that the fellowship was not sectarian although what was sectarian came into it,
3. and that he was in the same fellowship over the 10 system years that he had always been in.
There is quite a similarity between his remarks and Eddie Walkinshaw. In regard to the long way to get free from brethrenism I sometimes wonder if I can see the cloud as large as a man’s hand appearing. Yet E.M.W. is with J. Renton while J.M. professes to be with Glasgow. – Note by G.M.M.]
In our reading on Wednesday night we had the remark that we couldn’t be too separate’. I think it was this philosophy that kept me going on with all
——’s doctrines and I had to come to it that our separation was governed by the word of God.
This association matter troubles a lot who will accept the Falkirk judgment and expect an investigation into it. I noticed in 1959 G.R.C. pointed out the ways Paul recommended to deal with certain matters but —— wouldn’t have it, and we have still to get this legal constitution in ourselves changed by right teaching as Paul would bring in the new covenant. A good few of those going [out] have known little more than ——
I hear there is a good deal of exercise amongst the brethren in Glasgow over the matter of the Spirit.* I suppose you have read the booklet History: The Departure from the Truth after its Recovery by a brother called [A. G.] Brown near Croydon. If you haven’t and want it I’ll send it on.**
It seems as though the oppression amongst the 'Jimites' is greater now that has taken over. I hear that Roy Hibbert [Calgary] and W. McKillop [Chicago] were out but I don’t know how true the report us.
I was in Scotland last week. Went to the reading in Edinburgh with George Strang in Hermand Crescent and found quite a free spirit of enquiry.
I trust the Lord will guide you. Will be pleased to know how you get on. I have wondered myself as to whether we may be linking on with another party.
With love to you in the Lord Jesus, Your brother, George M. Milne.
| F. A. CHANDLER |
|---|
| Romford, England |
March 8, 1972
Mr. Fred A. Chandler,
Dear brother,
Your name came from Robert Stott. I asked him for someone in Havering who could provide clarification of the reported reversal of the 1960 Hornchurch judgment against Mr. G. R. Cowell.
The first reports indicated that there had been a complete reversal of the whole terrible matter of which Mr. Cowell had been made the focal point. But R.S. says, “The matter at Havering only went as far as repudiating the judgment on a repentant person”.
I would appreciate hearing from you as to what actually took place recently and, as memory permits, what took place in 1960.
In recent months I have reviewed many matters including that of Mr. Cowell. Of course not being local it is more difficult to form a definitive judgment, but there is a fair amount of material which can be used as a basis, such as:
3. Various letters etc. in my files, which were written about that time, in which many charges were laid against G.R.C.,
4. South Africa Notes that 1958 G.R.C.
5. Notes of meetings with G.R.C. and others since 1960 which had been published by Philip Haddad, Ilford.
From a careful review of the above – remembering that item 3 is almost exclusively composed of items which were bitterly opposed to Mr. Cowell – in the light of what we have now come to in judgment of the wicked system from which we have separated,
Enclosed are some letters in which I have expressed what I have arrived at on the above and other matters.
The Edinburgh matter is sorrowful and from reports does not seem at all clear as yet.
I trust that you will find it possible and convenient to write.
Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon
April 28, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Beloved brother,
I do trust you will pardon the delay in replying to your letter with reference to G.R.C. We have been much burdened by issues relative to the Edinburgh matter.
A lot is made of the issue as to the Scottish Law Society but this is not the real issue.
As to G.R.C., I shall hope to write to you again but would just say now that we have not as yet looked into the charges that were made against him, as to whether they were substantial or merely a flimsy pretext to get rid of him. We may have more power now to deal with this.
I trust you keep well and are with the Lord in present matters. This week both Croydon and Bromley have said they stand by the Glasgow judgment.
With love in Christ, Your brother, Fredk. A. Chandler.
| ROBERT STOTT |
|---|
| Hove, Sussex, England Including extract from John Thomson |
April 28, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Beloved Brother Gordon,
A brother from England, visiting your side, is reported as saying that sober minded brothers in Canada are behind Jim Renton. Believing you owe no loyalties save as to the Lord I am enclosing a copy of a letter indicating some of my thoughts on current matters. I think it would be just to say that the majority of the brethren on this side share these convictions.
Division, however, is the order of the day, and some localities are strife riven, and there has been actual physical cleavage with many. It is the inevitable clash of two completely divergent lines of thought. The call is back to the Stranger of Galilee and the cave of Adullam.
You will understand that all this background does nothing to attract –– again, but the more firmly confirms his judgment that the Lord is through with brethrenism.
I am glad to report that locally and in the surrounding area the brethren’s vision has been greatly extended, and this has resulted in wholesale rejection of the baneful and withering attitudes of the last few years.
I have only had one brief conversation with A.J.E.W. since his return. I enquired about Toronto, and he remarked that it was “cloudy”. When I asked how much part you had taken in the meetings, he replied, “Not much”.
I have had you in my thoughts and would appreciate a line as to how Betty and you are, and also how things are in general.
With warm love in the Lord Jesus to you both, in which my wife joins.
Your affection brother in Him. Robert Stott
P.S. I do not know whether you had a reply from Fred Chandler. There has been division at Havering, about 25 (out of over 200) have gone with Jim Renton. My guess is that the way will have been cleared now for a long overdue realistic assessment of the G.R.C. matter.
It seems to me that there are three aspects of the events in Edinburgh since February 25, and these can be summarised briefly.
Taking these in order, it does not seem to me that the matter of the Law Society should be made an issue of fellowship.
But it is obvious that this merely part of a much wider pattern. There were deeply divided conditions in Edinburgh before the Law Society was ever mentioned, and these conditions seem to have had their roots in a profound difference of attitude towards the teaching and practice of the past decade.
It is a sad fact that this last feature, reluctance to admit failure, seems to have become one of the evil fruits of the past decade.
In the letter which Leslie Stewart sent out he admits, “This sad matter has its roots in difficulties over the past year”. W. R. Mason’s comment on this is, “What surprises me is that the remainder of the your letter completely ignores these roots and concentrates on a matter commencing in December 1971”.
As is known, there has been continuing cleavage in Edinburgh prior – for some months – to December 1971, but all admitted to clear cut division on February 25.
The question arises, Could the division have been averted? It is not for me to apportion blame. I give full credit to those brethren who are set against participation in associations as such but, as J.T.Sr. pointed out, discrimination is needed.
J.T.Sr.’s words, written in 1916, are timely for today:
April 24, 1972, Robert Stott.
Much has been said over these years about “involvements”, “links” etc., but the Scriptural words are “yoke” and “participation” according to 2 Corinthians 6.
Along with all this, as Christians we accept the injunctions in Romans 13: 1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14,
Edinburgh, January 24, 1972, John Thomson.
May 10, 1972
Toronto, Canada,
Mr. Robert Stott,
Beloved brother,
Thank you for your letter of April 25 .and the enclosed extract of April 24 which were both encouraging and helpful. Betty and I both appreciate your brotherly and fatherly interest at this critical time. The delay in replying has been in order, if possible, that I might answer more intelligently in view of the changing situation.
Fred Chandler wrote on April 28 and confirms what you mentioned as to the divided state in Havering. He said that they had not yet looked into the charges against G.R.C. but he felt that now [as a result of the division] they might have more power to do this, some of those who had left having hindered that and the setting right of other matters. He expects to write me again as to G.R.C.’s matter.
You say that “A brother from England, visiting your side, is reported as saying that sober minded brothers in Canada are behind Jim Renton”.
As to ourselves, we both, as before the Lord, have come to the conclusion that there is not a diverse yoke in connection with the Law Society and that there is a resurgence of the features of the —— system.
I can well appreciate how all this “confirms” —–'s “judgment that the Lord is through with brethrenism”. I have expressed somewhat similar thoughts.
I have not yet written to —— again. The present situation makes it difficult, although it was and is farthest from my mind to try to convince him of the rightness of the particular path and “fellowship” that both you and I are presently in.
As to A.J.E.W.’s remark, you quote, that Toronto was “cloudy”, it is likely just, however you look at it.
—— received a letter from A.J.E.W. this week which, among other things counselled Mr. [Sidney T.] Hill not to go to Britain at this time because he might in his age and simplicity – an expression I do not like – get tangled unwittingly in sorrowful things.
Another cause of concern is the great pretentiousness that is still being promoted by some at the expense of those who acted on both the Scriptures and their consciences in 1960-61. I refer to the remark which —— attributed to E.M.W. as to “wrong in principle”.
The pretension coupled with the partisanship as to Edinburgh does not lead one to the conclusion that we are in the right position – as we used to say. I do not want to sound dismal or discouraged but it is needful to be realistic and honest.
I trust that you experience the Lord's help and blessing in these troublous times, and that you will write again when time permits. I will let you know of any special developments. Betty joins in fervent love to Mrs. Stott and yourself and all the saints.
Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
In August 1970 a brother rang from Edinburgh to say, “I hear that you are now saying that eating does not involve fellowship. If that is true I certainly would not be free to break bread with you”.
In August 1970 a prominent brother in Edinburgh was saying, “If it had not been for the incidents in the house at Aberdeen, Jim Taylor certainly would have got away with it”. This extraordinary conclusion indicates a complete absence of conviction of the moral degradation of what we had been connected with.
The following relates to an aged brother who had arranged to visit his relatives in Edinburgh, and who on the way up intended spending a night with his son, whom he had not seen for a very long time. He received the “advice” that follows, from a young brother in Edinburgh:—
Our aged brother did not make the journey, but through the offices of a good Samaritan, uninhibited by the trammels of the 'Levite' and the 'priest', was able to have the joy of seeing his son.
Much more could be added. As late as September 1971, sisters were heard to say, speaking of ——, “Oh, the poor old man”. A month later there were undeniable evidences of rivalries within the City which, long before the matter of the Law Society ever appeared on the horizon as a suitable peg upon which to hang differences, the unjudged ramifications of the wicked
——system were so deep rooted and ingrained as to result in the crisis of irreconcilability of February 25.
May 18, 1972, Robert Stott.
| L. J. TWINAM |
|---|
| Sevenoaks, Kent |
,May 8, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Beloved brother,
George Milne of Birmingham has kindly sent me copies of your recent letter to him and of yours to E.M.W. [Walkinshaw] of Feb. 16 and April 6. I was indeed cheered to discover that somebody in Canada has very similar exercises to myself.
Confusion deepens over here. London is now ‘neutral’as to both sides in Edinburgh. E.C.B. [Burr], A.J.E.W. [Welch], C.H. [Hammond] and C.R.B. [Byng] being together in this; some who accept the Glasgow judgment have ceased breaking bread but a few continue to break bread and protest.
It must be extremely difficult for the dear brethren in Canada and U.S.A. to get their bearings over these matters, and I fear dear E.C.B.’s visit will not help!
What is our resource in such a difficult day other than in the Lord Himself? We find Him to be everything we need, and He is the One who gathers as the Good Shepherd, able if He will to defeat the enemy’s extensive scattering.
Have had a cheering letter from Willie Petersen who appears to be holding his ground in New York. Would Laurie Overland share your exercises? We had a real link with him in times past, and have ministered to him recently.
Interesting contacts are possible with many over here especially in the 'Ilford' and 'Croham' groups, but so far I have refrained rom attending fellowship meetings of theirs etc., on account of the conscience of some.
Latest news of E.M.W. is that he feels 'Renton' to be right but is refraining from a public declaration. This is sad indeed from one who has suffered as he has in 'system' days. E.M.W. is also not proposing to minister for the time being, which is a 'good feature'.
Would be glad to hear from you, and meanwhile will post you some copy letters.
Your affectionate brother in our Lord Jesus, Laurence Twinam.
P.S. I heard today from Alan Worsley that London are now saying that Deut. 21 does not apply to Edinburgh, that it is for the spiritual to reach a judgment and that some in London propose to visit Edinburgh for this purpose.
May 22, 1972
Mr. Gordon A. Rainbow,
Dear Gordon,
I enclose some poems* which may interest you, which have been sent to quite a lot of believers not breaking bread with us – and also to a lot of 'Jimites', without much result!. the expression of ‘one body’ is, I suppose, a favourite theme of mine, and some people think me rather open in consequence. But we have much to learn about practical relationships with other believers.
No doubt you have heard of the division in London – 21 households have ceased breaking bread in consequence of the hierarchy’s [C.H., C.R.B., A.J.E.W.] association with 'Renton' of Edinburgh.
Please pardon brevity. I look forward to hearing from you as you promised, and meanwhile I hope to write again.
Your affection brother in our Lord Jesus, Laurence.
P.S. A declared 'Rentonite' London brother preached at Strood yesterday – where E.M.W. is local – reaction expected in Strood this week, which hitherto has outwardly been ‘neutral’.
May 27, 1972
Mr. Gordon A. Rainbow,
Dear Gordon,
E.M.W. is now with 'Renton'; about ½ of Strood-Gillingham is with him and they will break bread at Gillingham tomorrow, leaving Strood room to brethren who accept the Glasgow judgmen
The splitting is rather serious, but in the main a good spirit still exists between both sides and there will be plenty of reconciliation work to do if the Lord gives opportunity.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Yours affectionately in Him, Laurence.
June 5, 1972
Mr. L. J. Twinam,
Dear Laurence,
Thank you very much for your brotherly and informative letters of May 8, 22 and 27, also the copies of correspondence with E.M.W. and J.M., and some of your poems. We had seen a couple of the poems before and were very glad to receive copies; they were all greatly enjoyed and any further ones would be most welcome.
It must have looked as if I was never going to reply. Please excuse the delay which has simply been because of the pressure. This has now been lifted and there may be a little leisure to engage in correspondence, if there are any who will still be interested in view of our present situation. You no doubt will have received my letter of May 26, which was simply duplicated to make it easier to let some with whom I have had close contacts know what had taken place.
There is one other couple here who also separated for basically the same reasons. We have had some contact with a few of those we left and there is evidently some measure of concern but questions as to how any move would affect young people and children are deterrents to following any exercise there may be. We intend to maintain what contacts we can.
While we refuse to be identified with the party support for 'Renton', we do not, at this time, feel that we are prepared to identify ourselves with those with Mr. Strang.
Of course, some may think we have acted precipitately in now separating. We have felt confirmed in ourselves and things which we have since heard add further confirmation. While there is much to commend in individual brethren the whole question of the so-called 'position' seems very dubious if the fruits are any evidence of the roots.
I am looking forward to hearing from you again if you are still free. Your correspondence with E.M.W. – especially in view of his identification with the 'Renton' party – and J.M. just expresses my own feelings for some time, although I was not aware how deep the pretentious spirit was in some. It is clear that the —— system and its antecedents have not been judged, except in a superficial way.
When the spirit of the glad tidings is lost – and it has been – there is a turning in and biting and devouring. I feel it is important to break out of the hard shell of 'brethrenism' and learn to live Christianity in the light of the truth, which is what early brethren did, otherwise the ‘one body’ becomes meaningless to us.
Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
| D. R. FREEMAN |
|---|
| Kingston, Ontario |
May 5 1972
Mr. D. R. Freeman,
Dear David,
You may recall that when we were in Kingston recently and at your house for dinner I referred to what had happened in the years since 1959 in the attempt – which was fairly successful – to regulate by commandment everything in the private lives of the saints.
Any feeling of there being a necessity for the private lives of the brethren to be regulated in minute detail and to prescribe by regulation – oral or written, and perhaps traditional, without the positive sanction and direction of the Holy Scriptures on a particular point – seems to me to be only a return to the judaizing system from which we have so recently escaped, and which was only a repetition of what took place in the early centuries of the assembly’s history.
As to the world and what is worldly – or earthly – there are many things such as costly clothing – and other costly things – which we accept and tolerate in each other – because we have the same type of things – even though there are positive Scriptural statements on this subject.
Now, merely to hedge in the flesh will always fail – witness the dispensation of law. God has triumphed through the judgment of the man that sinned, in the death of Christ and in the setting up, in power of His risen life and in the power of the Spirit, those He has redeemed through the precious blood of Christ.
Let us never seek to impose regulations – however well-intentioned – for God will expose worldliness and self will. Let us go on in the Spirit. [This is only putting my thoughts on record and in no way directed at you personally.]
Affectionately, your brother in Christ, Gordon.
| F. W. LAMBERT |
|---|
| Croydon, England |
April 5, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Beloved brother,
You have been mentioned to us as one who is serving the saints in your area, so I am writing to say that a gift* of —— is being sent with the warm love of the brethren in Croydon in happy fellowship with you in the work of the Lord
Things in Edinburgh are still unresolved. Glasgow, I understand would be ready to commit themselves to a decision, but Falkirk wants to try again. There is very little doubt that the Rentons are pressing the association matter out of all proportion, in fact with untruths, but all to cover up a failure to judge the —— system and their part in pursuing its wickedness.
We trust you have a very helpful and encouraging time with dear Mr. Welch.
With love in the Lord Jesus, Your brother in Him, Frank Lambert.
P.S. Thursday – I hear that Glasgow acted last night and said they are in fellowship with Mr. G. Strang and A. Walker. If you have only seen Stewart’s letter, circularized by J. Renton, don’t commit yourself till you have read A. Walker’s reply to it and G. Strang’s letter. Glasgow went into things very carefully.
May 1, 1972
Mr. F. W. Lambert,
Beloved brother,
Thank you for your letter of April 5, 1972. Please forgive me for not replying sooner. We have been rather busy of late. My wife was in Kingston for the last two weeks looking after Ken and Mary Wyllie’s little girls while Mary was in hospital and the recuperating from the birth of a son. I understand that you are related to Mary so that you may have already heard. I spent the second week there. Andrew is a very fine little boy and we trust he may be held for the Lord.
Please thank the beloved brethren in Croydon for the exceedingly generous gift of —— which you said was being sent. It is cheering as well as humbling to be so thought of by the saints, especially as one’s part in the work of the Lord is small. When we have done all we have to say we are unprofitable servants.
The news of the Edinburgh situation was most welcome in view of the many reports. I have since seen the letter of Alex Walker, to which you referred, but have not yet seen that of Mr. Strang. There seems to have been a great number of letters circulated to gain support, especially by those with J.R.
There has been a subtle attempt here to identify the saints with the Renton party, especially in the prayer meeting.
Having seen almost all that has been written on the subject by both sides in the matter, one is inevitable forced to come to some conclusion as to what is right – and there is no doubt that the issue will soon be on our own door step.
If there is a general division – which unhappily seems to be imminent – I would certainly not support or join any party committed to legality as the Renton party seems to be.
In view of the foregoing you may feel – and I would understand – that you did not wish to commit yourselves in fellowship and that the gift should not be sent. I feel that it is only right to be frank at such a critical point. I would be glad to hear from you.
Your affection brother in Christ, Gordon.
Considering the favour of being delivered in 1970 from the wicked system it is grievous to take account of the enemy’s onslaught in dividing the brethren in many places since the tragic division in Edinburgh on February 25.
I cannot see how we can come to a right decision without taking into consideration that fact that a brother in Edinburgh has become a member of the Law Society and, in this connection, it was interesting to re-read the letter of G. R. Cowell on the subject in 1958 on page 170 of 'The Way Everlasting'. J.T.’s letter, 2: 18, on the Newcastle matter in 1935-6 which has some parallel features is instructive.
It is a comfort and encouragement to be assured that the Lord Jesus knows and with a word can calm the storm, but I think the call to dedicate ourselves afresh like Joshua 24: 15 and as 1 John 3: 3, 7 says, purify ourselves and practise righteousness. Interesting that this links with the reference to the Lord's coming (verse 2) which should surely be much before us as the day draws near.*
May we be preserved for the pleasure of Divine Persons and the service of God. With warm love in Christ,
Your affection brother in Him, Eric F. Woodford.
May 10, 1972
Mr. E. F. Woodford,
Dear brother,
Your letter of May 4 with the enclosed gift of —— from the brethren in Croydon has been received. Thank you for your service in this. I will acknowledge directly to the brother in Croydon who advised me that it was being sent.
The extended references to the Edinburgh matter in your letter are interesting but I would submit the following to you:
You will appreciate that in view of the above it is only right that I apprise the brethren in Croydon of what I have said to you.
Your brother in Christ, Gordon.
May 10, 1972
Mr. F. W. Lambert,
Beloved brother,
This is further to your letter of April 5 and mine of May 1. Yesterday I received through Mr Eric Woodford the generous gift of —— from the saints in Croydon, as to which I expressed my thanks to you in my previous letter. As there has not been time for you to reply, I am holding the bank draft uncashed.
I have written today to Mr. Woodford as to the contents of his letter to me accompanying your gift. Enclosed is a copy of my letter and of his letter of May 4, which are self-explanatory.
There seems to be a growing and solidifying support for the Renton party in these parts which has been fostered by some in your general area through visits and correspondence. No open rupture has as yet taken place.
Last night [Tues.] I felt burdened to bring Isaiah 8: 12-13 and 1 Cor. 1: 10-13 before the brethren, especially having in view the words of J.N.D. – Letters Vol. 3 – that he would no more go with a party against evil than with the evil itself.
Our trust is in the Lord. Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
May 6, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Beloved brother Gordon,
Thank you for your letter received to day. So you have got us tracked up through Mary.
We are very interested in your letter. You seem to have come to a true judgment of the present crisis. The Law Society matter is only a blind, and has taken those mainly who have not a full judgment of the wicked system.
We are seeking, with God’s help, to return to real Christianity, as the Lord would have it in out broken days, i.e., not Christ and the world, but Christ and the assembly.
It would take one much more learned than I to answer your 7 points. Most of them were combatted by F.E.R., and had we really followed his ministry in heart and practice wo could not have fallen into such grievous error, provided of course we were kept near to His blessed Person.
Well we have not any though of asking you to return the gift: accept it with our fervent love. We would encourage you to keep on in the work of the Lord. Keep at the dear saints to get them into the truth, and the joy of whole-hearted committal to the Lord, and deliverance from the world and earthliness. You can still work at the gospel and helping the dear ones not walking with us.
My wife and daughter send you and yours our warm love in the Lord.
Affectionately your brother in Him, Frank Lambert.
P.S. I find my daughter has written you a line too.
May 5, 1972
Dear Gordon and Betty,
I would welcome the chance of replying to your letter if only to get my own thoughts aligned, but can, of course, speak only of my own experience, which is obviously limited.
There is now a real vitality in the meetings, strangers coming in to the gospel, and at least one interested person attending meetings here, also a renewal of exercise about the open air preaching – my father goes with 2 or 3 on Saturdays and Lord's Days after the gospel, and other brothers at noon on Fridays – also one hears of house to house visits being made, and no doubt others are active who do not say much about it.
Of course we have our exercises, worldliness being the main one, I would judge, but we are very encouraged on the whole, and do not see any indications to disband.
Now I wrote out these few thoughts in a slack time on Friday, not intending to do anything with them, but Dad says to send them, so there you are. It would be only honest to say that the London brethren do not feel the same, but they are not representative, at the moment.
With love in our Lord Jesus, Jean.
May 23, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Beloved brother,
Thank you for your letter of the 10th and the enclosures. We are certainly concerned about Eric Woodford’s letter, and thankful for your faithful reply. On receiving it, I had a copy made of all its contents which I gave to Mr. Davey, who is local with Eric. Primarily it is Dorking’s responsibility, although there is only one other brother there, besides Eric.
Mr. Davey has been carefully considering the matter and was going to raise it with Eric last night. He asked me if I would go over to see Eric with him, if it were necessary, to which I agreed. I will phone again before posting this.
As you will know London has divided, all the big brothers have gone with Renton. Mr. Welch and David Hutson went up to Edinburgh and saw both sides and made what they call “a thorough search”.
May 24th – I spoke to Mr. Davey last night. He has spoken to Eric, who doesn’t seem to have given any reply. They are having another talk tomorrow. So you will see the matter is being looked after.
This is just a hurried line in odd moments. With love in the Lord.
Affectionately your brother in Him, Frank Lambert.
| L. A. OVERLAND |
|---|
| Edmonton, Alberta |
May 6, 1972
Mr. L. A. Overland,
Dear Laurie,
… From several reports that I have had from responsible brothers it seems clear that there has been considerable support in some places, especially Edinburgh, for the continuance of the whole —— line, Aberdeen excepted. This seems to be at the bottom of the whole Edinburgh matter, and the Law Society appears to be only a convenient item on which to force a division.
I have seen practically all that has been circulated on both sides of the issue and, as going over it with the Lord and in the light of the Scriptures, two things have become crystal clear –
Even where there is clearly a diverse yoke – which I am assured there is not in the Edinburgh case – the affection Fatherly entreaty is to come out and the precious promises – 2 Cor. 7: 1 – are used as a lever to promoted that end.
After having been delivered from such a system as we have, it is astounding to see how brethren can still be deceived – some at least – by the same methods that we have professed to have repudiated.
Affectionately in Christ, Gordon.
February 29, 1972
Mr. Gordon A. Rainbow,
Dear Gordon,
Thanks you very much for yours of the February 1. An answer is long overdue! Please be assured that it is not from lack of appreciation that I have not answered earlier. For one thing, I have found my thoughts undergoing change and adjustment with each passing day.
I feel that it would be presumption on our apart to claim to be “the position” or “the testimony” and that all others who left previous to Aberdeen are wrong in some way.
The Lord loves to gather – He is the Good Shepherd. I feel we have all had to walk on the water to the Lord. “If it be Thou” is a question every honest soul has had to determine and act on his own faith, and found the Lord's hand available when faith failed for a moment.
I had a letter from Cyril Bacon of Croydon. He says Robert Stott was at his house and showed him a copy of letter from you to ——. Cyril says it is very good and I should ask you for a copy. Would you oblige
We go on quietly here. We are very few and weak but not as bad off as some. I hope to get to Winnipeg soon to visit the few there – one brother and three sisters. We visit the west coast, Maple Creek, Calgary and Kalispell, as Lord orders things for us …
Have you been in touch with any “Cowell” brethren since the adjustment re Mr. Cowell? I don't think it would be a matter of two groups merging but brethren finding common ground in self judgment and moving on together …
Laurie Rand of Victoria and his wife have been visiting some of those who had left over the years. Some of these people have been “more righteous than I”.
Please give my love to all the brethren … Thanks again for writing – I will be glad to hear from you at your convenience.
With warm love in Christ, I am your brother in Him, Laurie Overland.
March 14, 1972
Dear Laurie,
Your letter of February 29 was most welcome and interesting. It was cheering to hear that you were “very much in agreement” with what I had expressed in the letter sent.
As to “the only point of difference . . . hymn 383”, I certainly respect your thought that, “Even what Joab contributed to the temple was dedicated”.
I have spoken on the telephone with both Mr. R. W. N. Saunders and Jack Heggie “since the adjustment re Mr. Cowell”. They both expressed their thankfulness but were understandably reluctant to commit themselves further. They feel the many cruel things done in the past.
As requested, my letter to —— and some others are enclosed.
The Edinburgh matter is another boil on the surface. You may have seen Leslie Stewart's letter to John Welch which is an account from one point of view. At least two copies of it have been received in this city enclosed with the personal letters from brethren in Edinburgh. It seems as if it is being widely distributed.
You mention that, “I have found my thoughts undergoing change and adjustment with each passing day”. This is my experience also. I trust that it is that of many others as well. There is certainly much to undo and it is a gradual process; may Lord hasten it!
It is clear, to me at least, that a complete review of things is needed in order to determine the root cause of the recurring difficulties and our defection from what was at the beginning.
In the beginning of such a work of God there was delineated so attractively its distinctive features in freshness and vitality:
Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
May 21, 1972
Mr. Gordon Rainbow,
Dear Gordon,
As usual I enjoyed your letter with the enclosures as to the polarizing regarding the Edinburgh matter. What comes to light is an amazing lack of moral judgment because of person being bound up in brethrenism.
I received a very distressing letter from —— in Victoria. They seemed to have closed their minds to any kind of help, having been affected by brethren who favour Jim Renton & Co., and refusing anything that would be designed to enlighten them.
I am sure the Lord will come in where there is a humble spirit and a waiting on Him. Your remarks as to 2 Cor. 6 are just what Doug Greene and I have been discussing. Brethren have made any divergence of opinion or judgment or interpretation of Scripture, a basis for separation. This is the enemy’s work.
What comes to me is that our resource is the same now as at Pentecost – the Spirit of God. The privileges of Christianity, the temple and the body, are still true and available. The present test seems to be, “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”, Gal. 3: 3. May we go on quietly, not disturbed by the storm but carrying things in confidence before Him.
If brethren would just recognize divine principle and accept the decision of the neighbouring meetings to Edinburgh it would avert confusion. It might not mean that everything is as it ought to be but it provides a basis to move on. Waiting on the Lord would then clear matters in time.
With warm love in Christ to you and your wife and all the brethren.
Affectionately in Him, Laurie Overland.
P.S. I have just heard that Barnet has divided, George Brown and some declaring for Renton. Mr. Ephgrave, Naphtene [?] and Lucas [?] of Enfield – the nearest meeting – laid hands on Dr. Bill [W. G.] Thomson and those with him. So we have lost George. This makes London’s position of neutrality very shaky. I had hoped we would be preserved together but there seems to be too much pretension yet, and the humbling goes on.
Warm love to all, Laurie.
May 21, 1972
Mr. ——, Victoria, B.C.
Dear ——,
The difficulty as I see it is the lumping of all associations or memberships all together without any discriminating between things that differ. Scripture makes these discriminations.
In 1 Cor. 5: 1, I am told not to mix or eat with someone called brother who is fornicator or avaricious or idolater or abusive or drunkard. The assembly is told to put him out. No question there!
The action of Jim Renton and others at Edinburgh was based on ——’s ministry and nothing else. J.T.Sr. said that membership in the pharmaceutical association was nominal and not evil. [See copy letter of J. Brown enclosed.*] I do not quote this as authority for joining associations, only to show that a spiritual man discriminated between matters. Scripture does and we must.
As to the principle of proximity and confidence, like all divine principles it always works and I acted on it in the Aberdeen issue. When I wrote to New York I did not ask if what was reported to have happened was true. I asked why they had not accepted the judgment of Aberdeen and near meetings.
You also lump together blasphemy in the assembly, sleeping with someone’s wife and drunkenness and lewdness together with belonging to a professional association which Scripture does not do.
Yours affectionately in our Lord Jesus Christ, Laurie Overland.
May 29, 1972
Mr. Gordon Rainbow,
Dear Gordon,
I received your enclosure today. I was glad to get it as it is a clear setting out of your position. It is much the same judgment as mine and the others here locally except we seek to maintain the unity of the body [?] in the acceptance of Glasgow etc., and consequently preserving fellowship in a general sense. This may of course prove impractical in the light of future events, but at present this is our position.
Our warm love to you and Betty and others who feel the tragic state of things and seek to avoid party activity. Practically speaking we would not be accepted in Toronto or any meeting taking their ground.
Affectionately in Christ, Laurie.
| E. M. WALKINSHAW |
|---|
| Strood, Rochester, Kent, England |
May 19, 1972
Mr. J. Mason,
Beloved Brother,
As you expect to be here in early June, I thought well to put before you my exercises in the present crisis which has come upon the brethren.*
You will know that through the insistence on the acceptance of the Glasgow judgment many localities are now divided and in some cases open separation has taken place. There are those also in which there is another breaking of bread. Brethren who until recently were together are now alienated from each other. This is indeed sad.
For many months now in various cities in this country any man who has sought to hold to the truth and contend for “the faith once delivered to the saints” has been called a system man.
Many reports about Edinburgh and the present issue are being circulated, and letters written from various points of view. It is clear however that there are certain facts which cannot be disputed. They are these:
I believe that to walk out of God's assembly is lawless.* It is a despisal of the Assembly of God and a disregard of Christ's authority in it.
For a member of Christ's body to become a member of any other body is unrighteous, and to make such a question one of individual conscience destroys the very constitution of the Assembly and leads to every man doing what is “right in his own eyes”.
Regarding the Glasgow action, I believe it to be wrong in principle and unsound in result. Compare F.E.R. 20: 293 and J.T. Letters 1: 295. Judgments based on anti-system or pro-system sentiments have a false moral foundation. As I see it neither Edinburgh, Lochgelly nor Falkirk has lost its franchise and Glasgow has interfered with the Lord's direct rights in these local Assemblies. In due time they will meet with His stern rebuke.
I have written rather lengthily but hope you can read it with patience. The Lord is over all and knows what He is going to do.
I hope you and your wife are well. With warm love in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Your brother in Him, Eddie Walkinshaw.
| JOHN G. HUNTER |
|---|
| Columbus, Ohio |
January 25, 1972
Mr. John G. Hunter
My dear John,
If the expressions in prayer are any true measure, the brethren were greatly affected through the ministry on the weekend. Now, as always, it remains to be seen how deeply we have been touched in our affections for the Blessed Lord Jesus, by how much we are practically helped and changed.
The danger of sectarianism, narrowness of heart, pride in position and a haughty attitude towards others who may have acted in simple obedience while we were following a multitude to do evil is always present and is lurking near, right in our hearts. Oh, may God deliver us from it!
Following on our all too brief conversation, I am enclosing some copies which you might find of interest:
C.H.M. is of a great value generally but especially as confirming and opening up the outlook of the early brethren, which certainly was not as narrow as ours has been for many, many years.
Your remark that you did not see that any company had a monopoly on the Lord's presence commends itself in view of all that has taken place.
I am in contact with several persons in various stages of interest but the unsettled state makes it difficult to say “Come and see”. If the Lord will, I hope to see Mr. Saunders again – and perhaps Jack Heggie.
Affectionately yours in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
February 3, 1972
Dear Gordon,
I do not want your welcome letter of the 25th to go too long unanswered; and while very much in arrears in correspondence, hasten a few lines to thank you for it and the valued enclosures. I think your own letters were quite good and trust the Lord may use them.
You will be interested to know that —— is in contact with Bob Smith [R.H.S.]. I do not know how far things have gone between them, but trust there may be help looking toward reconciliation.
We had quite a cheering time in Indianapolis last weekend …
Excuse more now, but with warm love to you both in which Martha joins.
Very affectionately in Him, John.
February 12, 1972
Dear Gordon,
Having part of Saturday free, I am trying to get partially caught up with correspondence. And as you have so graciously sent on the material you did, I thought I would send a prompt line of gratitude.
I think it is quite fair to state that the early brethren believed in the “eternal Sonship” of our Lord. Of course, exactly what that phrase meant to may be open to inquiry – if indeed it could be determined.
I think your letter to —— very well done. We can pray that God may use it. I am so impressed with the necessity for divine work in souls. We may present things ever so well, and yet “unless Jehovah build the house, in vain do the labourers labour at it”. Still, if so led of the Lord, it is most right that we should earnestly labour in one another's behalf.
There is one statement you make in relation to which you will pardon a comment or so. You say “Nevertheless, the recovery of the truth as to Christ and the assembly, the present power and presence of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, was made known among and in connection with brethren”. True. But not exclusively so. Then you add, “These truths are not known elsewhere, or if known (from brethren) are lightly esteemed in favour of individual truths”.
You might have heard that Ben Taylor was a witness for three hours in the Nostrand case. This, however, was in the nature of a deposition, I judge. It would seem the case is going to be tried. I say, “it would seem”, from a report I have had. Very sorrowful.
Martha joins in much love to you both.
Very affectionately, John.
February 18, 1972
My dear John,
Your letter of February 12 and comments are appreciated. Enclosed is a copy of letter of today to Abe Gosen. He is evidently quite concerned as to the Lord's Sonship in view of early ministry and his contacts with other believers.
Your statement: “Most certainly I would not wish to make either view a test of fellowship” is confirming. The ringing of the alarm and the raising of unscriptural barriers to fellowship has been a great bane in the past. It is especially important that this should not be done where honoured and valued servants of the Lord have expressed different views.
As to the remarks in my letter to ——: “Nevertheless, the recovery of the truth as to Christ and the assembly, the present power and presence of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, was made among and in connection with brethren. These truths are not known elsewhere, or if known (from brethren) are likely esteemed in favour of individual truths”. That, as you say, “there were flashes of light relative to these matters before J.N.D.” is unquestionable.
I do not think I attributed all the light to which I referred to J.N.D. It came by the Spirit of God in many parts and in many persons before J.N.D. was ever so prominent.
Affectionately your yours in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
| ALAN WORSLEY |
|---|
| Putney, London, England See A. G. Brown’s letter, Jan. 26, 1973, as to Alan Worsley in The Departure from the Truth after its Recovery. |
May 23, 1972
Dear Miss Freytag [locality unknown],
You asked me to let you know about the sorrowful events which culminated in a division here in London on Saturday morning, the 20th inst. You would be aware that division had already taken place in Edinburgh on Feb. 25th this year.
Matters came to a head in December 1971 when a solicitor brother re-registered with the Scottish Law Society to enable him to obtain a practicing certificate, and thereby became a member of the Law Society.
The matter was discussed on about ten occasions altogether and on Feb. 25th actual division occurred. The division was consummated when Mr. James Renton said that the brother was unfit for fellowship. Some of the brethren said “Amen” to this, but the majority said “No”. Mr. Renton declared that the city was in a state of division.
The nearest meeting, Lochgelly, then looked into the matter but being unable to reach a conclusion, referred it to Falkirk and Glasgow. Falkirk failed initially to agree but Glasgow, after careful consideration, had an assembly meeting where they recognized Alex Walker and George Strang and those in fellowship with them at Hermand Crescent. Falkirk later expressed agreement with this judgment in an assembly meeting and although some have expressed disagreement in Glasgow and Falkirk, the assembly judgment in both still stand.
These judgments have been generally accepted in Britain but, in Barnet, George Brown stated his fellowship lay with James Renton and those in Meadow Place.
On the 16th of May – on their own personal exercises – Mr. John Welch [A.J.E.W.] and Mr. David Hutson visited J. Renton and L. Stewart from the Meadow Place gathering, and G. Strang, A. Walker and W. Black from the Hermand Crescent gathering.
A number of brethren in London who had been following the situation in Edinburgh closely felt that this witness was unfair and inaccurate.
1. Mr. Welch and Mr. Hutson said that Alex Walker withdrew without specifying the iniquity. This was not so. [See para. 3 this letter.]
2. Mr. Welch and Mr. Hutson said that no executive action was proposed in relation to the brother in the Law Society. Since Mr. Renton had said that the brother had disqualified himself from fellowship, this was not accurate.
3. Mr. Welch and Mr. Hutson said that Mr. Renton was wholly clear on all matters of the truth.
4. Mr. Hutson said that the brothers from the Hermand Crescent gathering were not at one in their testimony, in that one brother had used the word ‘dishonesty’ in describing the forcing of an issue on the Law Society and another brother had used the word ‘hypocrisy’. In fact, the brothers were fully agreed in their testimony, both adjectives being applicable.
5. Mr. Welch and Mr. Hutson said that in no less than 14 cases Mr. Renton had made personal acknowledgment to persons who had wrongly been put out of fellowship during the system years. If Mr. Renton has done this, it would appear that he has done it since Feb. 25, because at that time it was a matter of concern to the brethren there that he had done so in only one case, and that, two months after the reversal of the judgment, and only after it had been laid heavily upon him to do so.
6. Mr. Hutson referred to a telephone conversation between himself and Mr. Strang on My 18th, in which he said that Mr. Strang had said that the unbridgeable gulf that existed between the brethren related only to the Law Society.
Most of these inaccuracies were pointed out in Park Street on Saturday, yet leading brethren said that nothing had been brought forward which in any sense invalidated the witness of Mr. Welch and Mr. Hutson. They insisted that the issue was 2 Cor. 6, and nothing else.
However, leading brothers (Mr. [Charles] Hammond, Mr. Welch, Mr. [Cyril R.] Byng) insisted that it was an unequal yoke and that our fellowship lay with George Brown of Barnet and those breaking bread at Meadow Place.
Alan Worsely – Accuracy confirmed by: E. White
Copied in Hove by R.S.
| G. M. STRANG |
|---|
| Edinburgh, Scotland |
May 24, 1972
Mr. G. M. Strang,
Beloved brother,
Understanding that you may well be burdened with correspondence at this troubled time, as well as with the cares that are always present locally, I have hesitated to write to you and add to your burden.
A local brother told me that he had a telephone call from England which is to be confirmed by letter. The details appear to be that two brothers from London – one presumably being John Welch – had recently been to Edinburgh to speak with both sides in the sorrowful division in your city. My local brother connected this with the "elders". Deut. 21.
I believe that I have correctly set out what was told me, although whether the statements are factual or accurate in themselves I could not say.
You will appreciate that it would be extremely helpful to have some account from you of what has taken place regarding the above report. This is especially important in view of the fact that, according to the way it was reported to me, it seems that many will accept and act on what the majority in London are said to have done, possibly without further investigation. This is quite possible here as some have already displayed marked partisan tendencies in favour of those with Mr. J. Renton.
Please be assured of my sympathetic prayers and interest in your sorrows and exercises. May the Lord sustain you and give grace. It is comforting to know that He knows and sees all, and feels all more deeply than we could imagine. May it lead us to a deeper sense of the public ruin and into fresh communion with Him.
Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
May 28, 1972
Mr. G. A. Rainbow,
Beloved Brother,
I reply at once, however briefly, to your urgent request of May 24. Messrs. A. J. E. Welch and D. Hutson of London paid a visit to Edinburgh on May 16th, and came here after seeing J. Renton and L. Stewart. Two brothers, W. A. Black and A. Walker, and myself sought to answer their questions, as we had already done to brothers from Lochgelly, Falkirk and Glasgow.
It is not true that we said we were not prepared to look at associations.
I thank you for your sympathy and prayers.
Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, G. M. Strang.
| G. A. RAINBOW – CIRCULAR |
|---|
| Toronto, Canada, May 26, 1972 |
Beloved brother [to various brothers],
In view of our brotherly relationships and contacts in the past, it is only right that you should know what has recently transpired here.
For some months there has been in this city, and area, avid partisanship both privately and publicly in favour of the Edinburgh Renton party.
All this has caused much distress to brethren not prepared to be committed to a party. Sisters, especially, have suffered much in their spirits, experiencing the same tensions in meetings as were common under the Jimite oppression.
Laurie Overland of Edmonton called [Tues. May 25] to say that a Croydon brother, who had been visiting in the west, was coming through and ask if we would care for him while he was in Toronto for a few days. Of course, we were quite happy to be of any service.
Last night [Thursday] after the reading, I mentioned that we were expecting the Croydon brother.
The inconsistency of Toronto taking such a neutral position was pointed out in that a brother had already left for Philadelphia. Eric C. Burr, who is to serve there, was said by other brethren to be in full agreement with the majority London decision to recognize the Renton party. – This recognition is the result of an unconstitutional visit of two London brothers to Edinburgh to see both groups and get facts without recognition of the stand of the nearby meetings which had already made full investigation.
Sorrowfully and soberly, with regard to affection for my brethren and my responsibility to the Lord Jesus, I had come to the conclusion that – as beloved J.N.D. said in his Letters – I could no more go with a party against evil [if indeed there is evil] than the evil itself.
The widespread circularization of Leslie Stewart’s letter [of Feb. 28] to John Welch, by the Renton party immediately after the division [Feb. 25] while the nearest meeting was looking into the matter, was patently partisan. The active support of the Renton party, reminiscent of Jimite “organization”, in flagrant disregard of neighbouring meetings, is also partisan.
I could not conscientiously, before my God, support that which appears to be a reconstruction of the wicked system from which I withdrew more than a year ago.
I cannot, before the Lord, commit myself to what has become identified with a party and will, therefore not break bread at 43 Elm St., Weston, as formerly. It is a time to be humbled and to seek the face of the Lord for His direction. My wife is in full agreement with the above. You may be assured that, whatever the general outcome, we will continue to hold you in Christian affection and regard as members of the one body.
Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.
Laurie Overland phoned to say Mr. [George] Urquhart – Croydon – had decided to come, and stay with us. He phoned again quite late to say that G.U. had changed his mind following a call from —— who tried to insist that Toronto was neutral. He offered to have Mr. Urquhart at his home – but not at the meetings! Mr. Urquhart was apparently quite shook up and decided not to come. Another example of —— having to have everything his own way regardless of how it affects the feelings of others. We have had numerous examples recently, but it sad that Mr. Urquhart should have been unnecessarily upset.
It appears to be what we used to call vindictive. —— was very upset when I told him our decision and said it was “mean” to leave them, spoke of what he called my “chequered history” and other petty things.
I phoned Edmonton to speak to Mr. Urquhart and apologize for the way he was being treated in being kept out of Toronto. He sounds like a very timid and cautious man. He felt it that he could not go to Victoria, B.C., as they would not receive him because of Croydon’s stand. He told me that —— had told Laurie [on Lord’s Day evening] that I had been withdrawn from. —— did not know of our move till late on Saturday. Sounds fishy, unless they are still following the Jimite practice of withdrawing over the telephone or on the Lord’s Day.
Mr. Urquhart will be staying in Edmonton till Thursday and then flying home with a 5 hour wait in Toronto. We are expecting to go to the airport in the evening to see him. What cruelty to scare him out of coming to stay and then letting him wait 5 hours here with no company! If there had been any doubts in my mind – which there are not – this would certainly settle it.
Things and persons are coming out in their true colours. On Thursday —— was telling me how much they needed me [?] and how he had been carried by my prayer on Monday, etc., etc., and then as soon as I refuse to play follow the leader he turns and speaks harshly and bitterly, as he holds to “the position” and does whatever he can to disturb others who do not see things his way.
How thankful we are to be out of the turmoil and to find Christ waiting to receive and comfort. G.A.R.
| A. P. ROBSON |
|---|
| Edmonton, Alberta |
October 12, 1972
Mr. Alex Robson,
Beloved brother,
Betty and I were both greatly cheered to speak with you on the phone yesterday. I was sorry that the situation at ——’s made it difficult for you to contact us and that our conversation had to end abruptly.
We would have liked to have seen you and, if we had known you were coming through, would have been delighted to look after you. Please feel completely free to contact us in advance any time we can be of service in any way.
Your words as to the Lord being with “two or three” and your experiences were encouraging, also your exhortation to “Keep On!”
We certainly are not discouraged although the enemy seeks to make us impatient as we wait for the Lord's solution in His own time
Betty joins in love in the Lord Jesus, Affectionately, Gordon.
October 28, 1972
My Dear Brother and Sister in Christ,
It was a pleasure to hear the tone of your voice on the phone, for I listened to other not very complimentary voices in Toronto.
The Frank Lambert family, with whom I put in a most happy two weeks in Croydon, phoned to —— and he said that he would be pleased to see me and care for me for two days, so I came and was well cared for by them. I should have got in touch with you earlier but lacked the opportunity.
As I told you, Gordon, I think about 90% of the brethren in Scotland are with us [i.e., with Strang]. In Glasgow, 10 of the Rooms are with us, and one Room accommodates the others. Not that numbers are everything.
I had a judgment as to what was going on in Toronto and New York and Detroit when I was with you last July. The root of this trouble is these big men, giants in their own eyes, who care more for their own exaltation than for the poor of the flock. Read Isaiah 26: 5-7. Too, in all this there has been an awful lack of uprightness, don’t you think so?
Now do not think you are alone for I have spent a very happy six weeks in England and Scotland amongst saints who are most lively and seeking to walk with the Lord. I visited Croydon, Hove, Worthing, Purley in Surrey, Knaresborough and Middlesbrough in Yorkshire, Castle Douglas, Edinburgh, Dalkeith, Musselburgh and Glasgow in Scotland. And was taken by the oneness of the brethren in these localities.
On this trip I have experienced the companionship of many ardent believers. The last one I had was a young Negro boy from Tanzania, 18 or 19 years, a real lively Christian. He was going to Toronto University to take a course in Church Music.
Now in these divisions I have seen that they mostly start off with a sort of puritanical move with a lot of edicts to do this and that which, after all, is nothing else but fleshly effort, as we get in Colosse.
We are much encouraged in our gatherings here, and I hope you may soon be able to see some fruit in Toronto. You will be much in our prayers. Please write soon. All join in love in the Lord. Laurie and Vickie [Overland] are coming over tonight, so I will have a lot to tell. The [Douglas] Greenes are all in fair shape and send love.
Your affection brother in Him, Alex Robson.
P.S. Sunday, 1:30 pm. Had a good Morning Meeting and Reading. Mount Zion, the theme, Psalm 102: 11-14; Heb. 12: 22-26; 2 Cor. 3: 17-. A.P.R.