GLANTON
AND ALNWICK, 1908.
151
MATTERS which arose in 1908 in connection with the two neighbouring
meetings of Glanton and Alnwick, resulting in what has often been referred
to as "the Glanton trouble," served to emphasise the important
principle that responsibility to the Lord for the testimony in each
city or place attaches to the assembly in that place. This is in keeping
with the instruction in the first epistle to the Corinthians, which
is addressed to "the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to those
sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every
place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and
ours."
The facts
were as follows. In the town of Alnwick serious personal differences
had arisen among those breaking bread. It may here be remarked that
Matthew 5:23, 24, and Matthew 18:15-17, indicate the means by which
personal differences between brethren are to be settled, and it is the
responsibility of the spiritual, and ultimately of the assembly in the
locality, to see that these means are adopted wherever such differences
arise. The verses that immediately follow the passages cited above,
that is Matthew 5:25, 26, and Matthew 18:21-35, shew what serious consequences
to an individual may result if the divinely ordered procedure is not
followed, but in following the procedure a befitting spirit of uprightness,
meekness and forgiveness is essential. In the unhappy case of the meeting
at Alnwick, however, the differences were not settled, with the result
that eventually it divided into two parties, each of which appealed
for the fellowship of gatherings around. It was not a case of one party
being committed to some error in truth, or wrong principle, from which
the other party withdrew in faithfulness to the name of the Lord, but
simply of disunity,
152
resulting from personal differences, of so serious a character that
it was impossible for the brethren to go on together. Some of those
who had ceased to break bread at Alnwick started attending the meetings
at Glanton, a few miles away, and were eventually received by the brethren
there to the breaking of bread, ignoring the responsibility that attached
to them, with the rest of their brethren at Alnwick, to humble themselves
before the Lord in Alnwick in relation to the confusion that existed
there, and to adopt the means provided in the word of God to bring about
reconciliation. Those who were thus received to the breaking of bread
at Glanton were subsequently sent back to Alnwick as the recognised
company in that place. The infringement of divine principles involved
in their action was pointed out to the brethren at Glanton by many,
but as they maintained it and claimed that it must be recognised as
done in the name of the Lord, others supporting them in the position
they took up, a separation among brethren became inevitable.
The following
letters by Mr. C. A. Coates, written some time after the actual occurrences,
will help in the further understanding of the principles that were at
stake.
(undated).
The question
is raised by you as to whether the breach of 1908 was not caused by
some "misunderstanding." It appears that it is still your
conviction that it was so. I would most gladly do anything possible
to remove misunderstandings.
You say,
"I do not see disorder if, say, a saint in Laodicea or Thyatira,
feeling the condition of things, and having read the instructions of
2 Timothy 2, withdrew and was received at Philadelphia. I cannot see
that Philadelphia would be interfering with the Lord's prerogative
in receiving such a one."
153
If such a one had gone to Philadelphia it seems to me very probable
that the brethren would have said something like this to him:—
"Dear
Brother, we are deeply interested in you, as being of the assembly in
Thyatira, for we love the brethren everywhere, and we feel a special
care for those who are comparatively near to us, as you are. We are
conscious that the spiritual power we have is only little, but this
makes us desirous of clinging tenaciously to every intimation of the
Lord's mind that we can gather from His word. And we should like
to put before you what we have learned from Him.
"For
a long time we have had a copy of a letter written by the apostle Paul,
and we recognise that the things he wrote are the Lord's commandment
to us. We have gathered from that letter that assembly exercises are
to be taken up and worked out in each locality where the saints are
found, for not only was it addressed to 'the assembly of God which
is in Corinth,' but to 'all that in every place
call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.' This has taught us
to recognise the assembly of God as in local responsibility in each
place where saints are found, and that 'in every place'
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ can be called on as One who is available
to direct His saints, and to adjust them locally. Indeed we count it
a most precious privilege that we can thus refer directly to the Lord
in our own locality, and obtain His grace and help in seeking to keep
His word and not to deny His name. We thankfully own that we are set
in Philadelphia in responsibility to maintain here all that is due to
the Lord, and also to avail ourselves of all the resources and sufficiency
that is in Him for us. We feel it to be a great privilege that in our
local exercises we have not to look to our brethren in Sardis or Smyrna,
but directly to our beloved and only Lord. We have proved His grace
and faithfulness and sufficiency in our local needs,
154
and we earnestly and affectionately entreat you not to call upon us,
who are of another assembly, but to call upon the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ that He may show you His mind and act for you in the locality
in which He has set you.
We may say,
further, that we have just recently received from Patmos a copy of the
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him, and we have been
intensely interested in John's letters to the seven assemblies
in this district. These have greatly confirmed us in what we had previously
gathered from Paul. We have been greatly comforted by having a direct
communication from the Lord to us locally. It has given us the sweetest
sense of His love and concern, not only for the assembly universally,
but for His saints in each local assembly. This is exceedingly precious
to us, and we earnestly desire that you should prove
the value of it in your own locality. We know something of your exercises,
for we have read the epistle to the angel of the assembly in Thyatira,
and it encouraged us much to know that the Lord was taking direct account
of you in your locality even as He did of us in ours. We counsel you
to attend to what He says. He is addressing you in your local responsibility,
and your blessing will lie in owning this, and in obtaining His grace
to answer to His mind.
"As
to what you say about withdrawing from the assembly in Thyatira, we
do not understand what you mean. Are you not one of those of whom the
Lord has spoken as 'the assembly in Thyatira'? This is how
He regards you, and therefore how we regard you. We
could understand your having to withdraw from iniquity, and to purify
yourself from vessels to dishonour, for we, too, have read Paul's
second letter to Timothy. But we believe it to be impossible for you
to withdraw from the assembly in Thyatira so long as you are resident
there. The Lord
155
is unquestionably addressing you there, and though we have
observed with sorrow that there is much in the assembly there of which
He does not approve we have also noted that there are some exercised
souls there whom He has addressed as 'the rest who are in Thyatira.'
Why cannot you take up your exercises with them?
"If
you have not been able to get on happily together with them you need
the Lord's grace locally to enable you to do so. He wants you
to recognise His voice, and to obtain His grace for the adjustment of
your local differences. We are ready to help you in every spiritual
way that is in our power, but we believe the greatest help we can give
you is to exhort you to be cast upon the Lord that you may prove His
sufficiency in your own locality where He addresses you. He has reserved
to Himself the authority to adjust and regulate things amongst you at
Thyatira; He has not committed any charge as to this to us. We believe
it to be your great privilege to recognise His direct authority where
you are, and to obtain His personal direction and grace for every difficulty
and exercise in regard to your walking together there. We believe it
to be His holy and perfect ordering that it should be so."
Are you not
prepared to accept that the above is according to Scripture? Then why
accept another kind of action which is not at all in accord with it?
If there is a divine order, that which is not consistent with it must
be disorder. To acknowledge that there is a divine principle which should
govern our action, and in practice to go contrary to it, is a course
which I find it difficult to understand.
C.A.C.
May 6th, 1930.
I gather
from Deuteronomy 21:1-9 that certain conditions may be found "in
the land" which are altogether abnormal, and which by their seriousness
156
affect the whole of God's people. The matter has occurred in a
certain locality, but it is a concern for the elders and judges universally,
and for all the people; it is not merely local. I judge that we have
instruction here as to a case which, in its bearing and issues, cannot
be confined to the locality in which it arises, but which has to be
viewed as affecting the responsibility and fellowship of saints generally.
Something fatal to the enjoyment of the land has taken place, and this
is a matter which affects all God's people; all have to prove
themselves to be pure in the matter.
The gravity
of such a case required that it should not be left undetermined; it
had to be definitely taken up somewhere, and it was ordained
by God that the nearest city should do so. It was not left to any city
to act that might feel inclined to do so; responsibility to do so on
behalf of God's people generally was definitely assigned to a
particular city. Divine support can always be counted on when responsibility
is taken up according to the mind of God.
The case
contemplated here is not one of mere local unhappiness, but of the working
of things that are fatal to a fellowship which is according
to God. In the former case the Lord must be waited on to grant local
adjustment and recovery. In the latter the whole of the people of God
have to clear themselves of what is evil.
There may
be much local friction without the definite action of an evil principle,
but if, for example, clericalism as at Plymouth, or independency as
at Bethesda were definitely working they would be things in regard to
which all the people of God must prove themselves pure. A local breach
amongst brethren raises the question whether it is a case of local confusion
which the Lord may adjust locally, or whether it is the evidence that
saints are standing in faithfulness against principles which are really
157
fatal to spiritual fellowship. In either case it seems to me that Deuteronomy
21 appears to give the mind of God as indicating that any necessary
steps for proving the saints generally to be pure in the matter are
assigned in the wisdom of God to those nearest. It is a principle which
J.N.D. insisted on, and I am not aware that any other principle has
ever been put out by intelligent brethren as having divine sanction.
It may be that brethren have not always been consistent in acting on
it.
In a case
of local disagreement, without the setting up of any principle contrary
to those which govern the fellowship generally (as at Alnwick), matters
must be left for the Lord to adjust locally, brethren giving such help
by prayer and counsel as they are enabled to do. In a case where principles
contrary to the truth are the cause of local division, and this is fully
ascertained, it is the responsibility and privilege of the brethren
to identify themselves with those who are seeking to maintain what is
due to the Lord, and to repudiate what is contrary. There is no interference
whatever with local responsibility in either case. If the nearest meeting
has no special responsibility in such cases, who has? To leave such
matters altogether undetermined would be fatal to true fellowship either
locally or generally.
I return
herewith the little paper on Local Responsibility, which has been for
many years out of print. It contains much that is important, and which
I should fully maintain, but obviously it does not touch the principle
which you write about, which was not at that time in question. Indeed
Glanton was held to be quite in order in declining, for the time, to
receive from either party in Alnwick. It was when they absolved saints
from their local responsibility in Alnwick by receiving them at Glanton
that a serious issue was raised.
C.A.C.
158
The following paper, by Mr. James Taylor, "The city nearest to
the slain man," further elucidates the principles set out in the
passage in Deuteronomy 21 already alluded to in the preceding letter,
and is of great value in the matter of local responsibility, which,
as already stated, was the issue in the Glanton and Alnwick controversy.
THE CITY NEAREST TO THE SLAIN MAN.
DEUTERONOMY 21:1-9
The above
passage has clearly a dispensational significance, "the slain
man" referring to Christ as slain near Jerusalem, although the
city is not charged with the guilt of His death, but rather in grace
given an opportunity to clear itself. The remaining subjects in the
chapter follow on the death of our Lord in regular order, bearing on
the assembly and Israel as seen in the Acts. The "stubborn and
rebellious son" is a type of the Jews as utterly disregardful
of divine grace and authority in Christ presented to them in the gospel.
He would "not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his
mother." Being brought to "the elders of his city"
he is stoned to death by all the men" of it. But verses 1 to 9
contain most important principles in relation to local ruptures, or
other causes of uncertainty involving fellowship among the saints of
the assembly.
First, as
to general responsibility. "Thine elders and thy judges
shall go forth." This refers to the saints universally viewed
in their responsibility as to any sin or division, the cause of which
is unknown, but which must be investigated so that judgment according
to God may be rendered. The next direction deals with proximity
to the scene of the sin. The nearest city is determined by the measurement
of those generally responsible, and this matter of proximity
159
is in view throughout the instruction. The fact that the nearest city
to the slain man has to clear itself rather than determine the murderer
or murderers, does not set aside the importance of proximity as a principle.
A divine principle is always valid. Scripture may confirm itself, but
does not necessarily repeat. One scripture is enough to establish any
point, as John 10:35 shows. Some would make the Old Testament secondary,
or a matter of detail, but the New Testament constantly insists on the
equality of the Old Testament with itself. Throughout these verses 1-9,
the mind is focussed on "the city that is nearest unto him that
is slain," "the elders of that city," and "all
the elders" of it being mentioned.
Then priesthood.
"The priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah
thy God hath chosen to do service unto him, and to bless in the name
of Jehovah; and according to their word shall be every controversy and
every stroke." They represent the spiritual elements; those who
are spiritual, and so can "discern all things." Note, they
are not regarded as local, nor as belonging to the people: not "thy
priests." They are on God's side, chosen of Him. But observe
a very important fact, that as the sons of Levi are mentioned, the elders
of the city nearest the slain man are again introduced and the priests
are not mentioned again, while the elders of the nearest city speak
to Jehovah. The onus of slaying the heifer was on them, and they
wash their hands over her. Then they say, "Forgive thy people
Israel... and lay not innocent blood to the charge of thy people Israel."
They act as priests, and not simply for themselves but for
all Israel. This as applied to-day, would mean that the meeting or meetings
nearest to a locality in which division and consequent uncertainty as
to the sin involved exist, as judging the matter in the light of the
death of Christ and depending upon the Spirit, for the heifer had her
neck broken in a
160
"water-course," show themselves to be spiritual, and so
capable of discerning and judging according to God. A decision reached
under these circumstances will be accepted by "Israel,"
and morally binding.
Christian
fellowship is general as well as local, and so if its practical expression
in a locality ceases through division among the saints there, the general
aspect is involved; in principle responsibility as to it belongs to
all the gatherings. This is recognised in verse 2, "thy elders
and thy judges," but afterwards all rests with the nearest
city and the priesthood, the elders of the former merging into
the latter. Thus a local sorrow, such as we are contemplating, after
general responsibility is accepted, resolves itself into proximity and
priesthood. These must go together, and as they do, the nearest meeting
will not act arbitrarily, or officially, but on moral grounds, recognising
that what they have on hand is not in their own midst and for which
they are responsible to the Lord only, but in another locality, and
so coming within the range of all; but that wisdom and confidence in
others would leave the service of adjustment with them as the nearest
to the scene of sorrow.
While the
unmanageable and rebellious son alludes to the Jews, as already said,
verses 18 to 21 afford important instruction relative to the subject
under consideration. He was to be brought "unto the elders of
his city and unto the gates of his place." This
links with 1 Corinthians, and shows that when actual sin is in question,
and determined, judgment of it must be where the guilty person resides.
"All the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he
die." This is done on adequate testimony, for his father and mother
accuse him before the elders. In the light of this, as connected with
the letters to Corinth, matters belonging to a given locality cannot
be scripturally adjudicated upon in another locality.
161
Thus while responsibility as to the slain man is determined by measurement,
his position is not presented exactly as a locality; the measurement
is from him, not the field. Nor is the heifer slain there,
but in the valley or watercourse, and expiation thereby made for Israel,
although in professed innocence of the death of the man. But when sin
is active, innocency no longer contemplated, the guilty person is regarded
as of a city and his judgment is there. In truth as evil has to be met
the two cities merge into one, for the principle established is that
sin occurring in a local assembly must be dealt with there,
although a nearby assembly. may have responsibility as to it, because
of division or inability otherwise in the former to deal with it. Leviticus
14:33-53 governs this.
But the extension
of fellowship by a nearby meeting to saints in a place where division
has existed is not exactly the same as dealing with sin in it, although
it may involve the judgment of some who cannot be recognised because
of their conduct; it is a question of owning "the approved."
This action is as of one assembly to another, and so is done, so to
speak, by the neighbour assembly in its own locality, after godly deliberation,
based on full inquiry.
Referring
again to verse 2 of our chapter, it is a grave mistake to assume that
what is said of "thine elders and thy judges" warrants brethren
from many gatherings, whether of a district or generally, coming together
to judge of matters belonging to another locality. There is no scriptural
warrant for such a procedure; indeed it would set aside the truth governing
the local assembly taught in 1 and 2 Corinthians, which is that, as
having the Holy Spirit, it has the character of the temple of God and
the body of Christ, and so furnished with what is needed for its guidance
and maintenance; gifts, as for the whole assembly, being also available.
162
The truth governing the assembly, as seen in local companies, taught
especially as we have seen in 1 and 2 Corinthians and Deuteronomy 21,
the disregard of which has caused widespread sorrow, needs to be constantly
pressed, particularly in places where this sorrow was lightly experienced,
where many of Israel have not known "all the wars of
Canaan."
*
* *
|
