February 19, 1901.
Dear—:
... If Mr.—, wife and daughter are with you, please remember us to them in much Christian love.... I am sorry, too, that Mr.— is so poorly, though we know that God overrules all these trials for our blessing. The blessing comes through the exercise the trial gives, and if exercised, we are made partakers of God’s holiness. Hebrews 12. It is very sad about the runaway boy, but God can turn this to blessing too, perhaps in the breaking down of the boy through trial.
As to B—, I believe you are better without him, though it is sad to think so of any child of God. I have no doubt, however, that unless humbled and completely delivered from the state he is in, he would give you endless trouble, if among you. I believe he has found his own kind. Headiness, in an independent and unbroken spirit, is what has marked the party from the first. And it was just this spirit that made them take the course they did.
They are where they are, not because Mr. Grant was put away, but because they receded in a spirit of thorough self-confidence and independence. Th moral basis of the schism I believe to have been personal feeling against J.N.D. on the part of F.W.G., P.J.L., and others. This made them willing to oppose his teachings, and to act in defiance of those who held with him. Their state made them fall into the snare the enemy spread for them.
As to the point about which you did not feel very clear, in answering B, I don’t think it is really a question of majorities or minorities. The majority, as well as a minority, may go far wrong. As it seems to me, it is a question of having the mind of the Lord, and of spiritual power to carry it out.
A small minority might have this (that is, the mind of the Lord), and yet be unable to carry the consciences of the rest. And such — after due patience, and having exhausted all means within their power to carry out His mind — might be compelled to separate from a leavened meeting. In any case much patience is needed, and those who have the mind of the Lord about a case should seek to exercise the consciences of the others. A crisis, however, may come, and then it becomes a question whether they have the spiritual power to carry the meeting, in spite of a number who oppose. I do not mean this by a majority vote — though a vote may test the meeting and show where each one stands.
I suppose that in some cases even a minority might have sufficient spiritual power to maintain the truth against the majority, and to hold the meeting as such, while the majority might become demoralized. You cannot very well lay down any hard and fast rules for these things. We have to meet each case as it comes, and there are hardly any two alike.
But while unanimity is very desirable, it cannot be held to, absolutely and universally. In the first place, a man who is on trial is one of the meeting until he is put away. Would B. expect him to agree to a judgment against himself? That would be absolute unanimity. But this is absurd, on the face of it. But if the assembly has power to deal with one man who is under the power of evil, it has power to deal with two or three, or as many as may be under that power. If the evil has so completely got the upper hand that it cannot be purged out, then separation may become a necessity. But it is not a question of a majority, either on the side of good or evil, but of power from God to carry out His will. A reasoning mind might have difficulty to understand this, but if we are with God, when difficulties arise He makes a way which faith discerns, and in which we may walk according to His Word.
Even granting that Montreal was wrong in its action, through error of judgment, the thing for the aggrieved ones was to wait upon God, and let Him clear up the difficulty, unless the wrong action was a case of wickedness, in which case separation might have been justifiable, though even then it would be separation from evil to wait upon God in humiliation and sorrow, instead of rushing off to begin a new meeting the next Sunday.
Your other question about addressing the Lord Jesus personally in worship or prayer is no new one. And yet it seems to me Scripture is clear enough about it. The passage that has stumbled some as to praying to the Lord is John 16:23-2723And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 24Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. 25These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father. 26At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: 27For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. (John 16:23‑27), but it is from missing the force of it.
The disciples had been accustomed to go to Jesus for what they wanted from the Father, thinking that Jesus would have influence with Him, which they did not. They were not in that liberty which enabled them to go directly to the Father. But this would not continue after Jesus was gone to the Father, and the Holy Ghost was come. Then they would be able to go directly to the Father, in the full liberty of redemption and sonship. They would no longer need to ask Jesus in order to get something from the Father. “In that day ye shall ask Me nothing.” You can go straight to the Father Himself, and ask in My name. He loves you because you have loved Me.
But this does not preclude our addressing the Lord Jesus. We own Him as Lord, and in all service we have to do with Him as such. In the consciousness of child relationship I address the Father; as a creature I address God; as a servant I address the Lord Jesus, my Master. In 2 Corinthians 12:88For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. (2 Corinthians 12:8), Paul says “I besought the Lord thrice.” It was a question of service and he thought the thorn was a hindrance, and thrice he besought, not the Father, but the Lord, about it. Stephen commended his spirit to the Lord Jesus, in whose service he was suffering martyrdom.
As to worship also, the passage you refer to in Revelation 5 is in point. We shall worship Him there: why not here? Indeed Revelation 1:55And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (Revelation 1:5), is present worship. The wise men from the East also worshiped Him when a babe. And as you say, if we were in His manifested presence how could we help but worship? When the heart is perfectly simple there is no difficulty. But when the mind gets entangled with questions we get in a fog. For myself I habitually address the Lord Jesus at His table, as well as the Father. It seems to me most suitable, and I know of no scripture against it. In Hebrews 1:66And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Hebrews 1:6), we have, “When He bringeth in the first begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.” Well, if the angels — all the angels — worship Him, how much more fitting that we, whom He has redeemed at such infinite cost in suffering and sorrow should worship Him.
We need to guard against getting into a narrow way of thinking, through want of thoroughly weighing Scripture.... Yours affectionately in the Lord, Letter of Assembly Action at Des Moines Sustaining the Bexhill Action Regarding Ravenism. 1890.