Search
According to the Bible, the site for the building of the temple was on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah (2 Chron. 3:1). If this had not been God’s intention, it would not have been recorded in the Bible. The temple of God being built on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah is not a small matter; it was a great event in the universe. If a temple had been built according to the same pattern and materials but in a different location, there would have been a serious problem of division among the Israelites. Using the same pattern, materials, and even builders, the Israelites could have chosen any location to build a temple. There could have been temples in the south, the north, the east, and the west, but the Israelites would inevitably have been divided.
God not only spoke of the pattern, the materials and their quantities, and the builders for building the temple, but He also chose the building site to be on Mount Moriah. There was only one place for the building. This was the one ground that would forever keep the Israelites from being divided. Historically, however, the kingdom of Israel was divided into the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom because the northern kingdom forsook the one ground for the holy temple. The Israelites could build the temple on only one site. If the temple was to be built on the earth, it had to be built on this ground. Only the piece of land on Mount Moriah could be used for building the temple. Any other location would cause the Israelites to be divided.
For thirty years we have focused on the matter of the ground, emphasizing that the church is unique, that there can be only one local expression, and that the church can be built on only one ground. The church can be built on only one ground; apart from this ground the church cannot be built. If the building takes place apart from this ground, the church will be divided. The Lord has enlightened us in this matter so that we can fight the battle and contend for the ground of the church. This is an exceedingly great matter. If the temple had been built in a location other than the threshing floor of Ornan, many temples could have been built. However, for the past few thousand years of history there has been only one temple. Although the temple was destroyed, when it was rebuilt, it was built on the same ground.
The temple was built by Solomon (1 Kings 6). Then the temple was rebuilt two times. It was rebuilt at the time of Ezra (Ezra 3:6b-13; 6:13-15) and then by Herod (John 2:20). Herod did not rebuild the temple because it had been destroyed but because he felt that the temple built at the time of Ezra was not large enough or adequately restored. Based on political considerations, Herod, a Gentile king, rebuilt the temple in order to cope with the Jewish sentiment. Nevertheless, the temple was built at its designated site, not at another site. The Israelites did not annul the unique ground for the worship of God.
The children of Israel who were scattered among the nations built synagogues. Although the Israelites had synagogues, they knew that the synagogues could not replace the temple. The Jews must worship God, and they know that the place that God has appointed for His worship is the threshing floor of Ornan in Jerusalem; there cannot be another place of worship. During the time of the Roman Empire the Israelites were scattered among the nations, but they did not abandon their worship of God. They did not have the proper ground on which to build the temple, so they built synagogues instead as places for worship. No Jew would dare to claim that a synagogue is the temple. There are many Jewish synagogues in New York, but no Jew would claim that a synagogue is the temple. The temple can be built only on the unique ground. This keeps the children of Israel from division. Even though the Jews are scattered, they are not divided. They are waiting to gain the unique ground for the temple.
The threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah is the ground for the building of the temple. The third largest Muslim mosque was built on this site and still stands there. The largest mosque is in Mecca. The third largest mosque was built on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah. Mount Moriah is also the place where Abraham offered up Isaac (Gen. 22:2). The Muslims recognize Abraham as their forefather.
The city of Jerusalem has suffered many wars and has had its walls demolished and rebuilt. Today the city of Jerusalem is situated on several peaks, and the threshing floor of Ornan, which is the building site of the temple, is on the city border. Mount Zion is one of the high peaks of the city of Jerusalem.
The ancient fortress of David was on Mount Zion. This is also where he pitched a tent for the Ark (2 Sam. 6:17). Later, God instructed David to build a temple on Mount Moriah, where his forefather Abraham had worshipped God (24:18-25; 1 Chron. 21:18—22:1; 2 Chron. 3:1). After Solomon, David’s son, built the temple, he brought up the Ark from the city of David, which is Zion, into the temple (5:2; 1 Kings 8:1-11), and the tent that David had pitched was abandoned. At the same time, the Tent of Meeting in Shiloh with its vessels was moved into the temple, for Solomon merged the tabernacle with the temple (vv. 4-6). The tent that David pitched according to his will was abandoned. From then on, no matter how confused or troubled the children of Israel were, they had only one worship center. They could not build the temple anywhere other than on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah. This ground is unique and keeps the oneness of God’s children. The ground is not the base or the material for the temple but the site for building the temple.
We should apply the revelation concerning the building and location of the temple in the Old Testament to the building and ground of the church. The location for the building of the temple implies the ground of the church. According to church history, many truths in the Bible were recovered in the eighteenth century by brothers such as J. N. Darby, but they were still unclear concerning the ground of the church. These brothers saw that the churches in every locality are independent in administration, but they were unclear regarding the ground. The truth concerning the ground was not made clear until 1934. Brother Nee spent considerable time studying the Bible concerning the boundary of the church. He saw that the church can be established only according to a locality, such as the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch, and the church in Ephesus (Acts 8:1; 13:1; Rev. 2:1). The establishing of one church in a locality is the ground for establishing the church.
We cannot establish a local church in a factory or in a school. A local church can be established only in a city. However, there are many details related to taking the ground. If there is already a local church in a city, another church cannot be established there; just as when there was a temple on the threshing floor of Ornan, another temple could not be built. An Israelite could accept only that temple and be joined to that temple. Suppose a brother goes to Tainan, and there is no church there. He has the liberty to establish a church because Tainan is a ground on which a church can be established. If there is already a church in Tainan, then he does not have the qualification or the liberty to establish another church. Taipei is also a locality, a ground, where a church can be established. However, since there is already a church in Taipei, another church cannot be established. The ground for establishing the church in Taipei has already been taken; hence, there is no ground on which to establish any other church. Believers can accept only the church in a locality and be blended into that church. Only thus can the oneness be kept wherever the church is expressed.
The thought that the church can be established apart from the ground of locality will produce many grounds and result in division. Once a church already exists in a locality, it is wrong to establish other churches in the same locality out of convenience for the believers. Regrettably, some believers have established churches outside the ground of locality. If we do not hold fast to the unique ground, the oneness of the church will easily be damaged.
If the children of Israel did not have the threshing floor of Ornan as the unique ground for the temple, many temples might have been built. Some Israelites could have built a square temple of wood overlaid with gold, and others, a long temple with the same material. Thus, the children of Israel would have been separated, and their worship of God would have been divided. God’s people must be united in their worship. Once the worship of God is divided, God’s people are divided. This means that once the place where we meet and worship God is divided, we are divided. Therefore, God, according to His wisdom, determined that there would be only one ground for establishing the church. That one ground is the unique ground of locality. There is no other ground allowed besides this ground.
The ground is the locality of a city, where people dwell and gather. Upon this ground the church—and only one church—may be established. Once a church is established, no other church can be established. All of God’s children in that locality should be joined to that local church to keep the one ground. Only thus can God’s children be kept from division, even though their opinions may differ. A believer may have opinions, but he does not have the liberty to establish another church. A brother may advocate baptism by immersion, but he cannot take that view of baptism as a ground on which to set up a church. Believers may hold different views on baptism, but they cannot and should not establish a church based on their view. However, for many years God’s children have violated the unique ground and caused many divisions.
Once the ground of the church is violated, not only can many churches be established in a city, but it is possible to establish the church on the ground of doctrine or practice. Opposers erroneously quote Matthew 18:20, which says, “Where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” Based on this verse they say that as long as two or three believers are gathered into the Lord’s name, the Lord is in their midst, and they are the church. However, we insist on the ground of the church because, according to the revelation in the Bible, only one church can be established in a city. There is no basis and no authority to establish the church on any other ground.
In Matthew 18:20 the Lord said that His disciples can be gathered into His name no matter where they are and that He will be in their midst, but He did not say that such a gathering is the church. In verses 16 through 17 the Lord said that if there is a problem between two or three, they should “tell it to the church.” These verses indicate that the two or three are not the church. The Bible does not say that the gathering of two or three believers is the church. We must be scriptural and not establish other grounds. Only the ground of locality can close the doors to church division.
A brother may advocate baptism by immersion or favor head covering, but no matter what he advocates or favors, he does not have the liberty to establish churches apart from the unique ground. In the Old Testament God told the children of Israel that they could not worship Him in the place of their choice. They had to worship God in the place that He chose to put His name (Deut. 12:5, 8, 11). God would not allow the children of Israel to build another temple besides the one built on the threshing floor of Ornan. The Israelites had to strictly comply with and practice this command. Regrettably, in the New Testament age God’s people neglect this. Some believers are bold and use many excuses to come together outside the ground of locality and even set up so-called “spiritual” churches. The desire to seek spirituality and holiness is good. But this desire has become an excuse for divisions among God’s people, producing justification churches, holiness churches, and spiritual churches. Division should be condemned. The desire to preach the gospel in a factory is not a reason to establish a church in the factory. The excuse of preaching the gospel must be removed. Division cannot be justified, but rather it must be condemned. We must see the importance of the ground.
We also have encountered problems. We have gained spiritual help from Madame Guyon, but if she were among us today, she might influence us to worship an idol of Mary, and we might be unable to resist. We also have been helped by Andrew Murray and even recommend his books to the saints, but if he were alive today, he might bring in a speaking that opposed the ground.
In the same principle, we highly esteem the spiritual supply of Brother T. Austin-Sparks. However, when we invited him to visit us, he should not have touched the matter of the ground. During his first visit in 1955 the fellowship was very good, and since he did not touch the ground, we invited him to come a second time. During his second visit in 1957, sadly, he touched the issue of the ground. At that time we had serious fellowship. He said that any gathering of two or three into the Lord’s name is the church. Afterward, I visited him in London, and I was his guest of honor. We had countless talks together. In the end, however, he insisted that as long as a gathering is in Christ, it is on the ground of the church and that as long as two or three are gathered, the Lord is in their midst and that is the church.
We are not criticizing or opposing Brother Austin-Sparks, but he did not see the danger of this matter. If we accepted this kind of teaching, the church in Taipei could be divided into not only three or five groups but into dozens of groups. If we can say that any gathering of two or three is the church, then Taipei could have many churches. We fellowshipped this with Brother Austin-Sparks and said that if we practiced his fellowship, there would be the danger of endless divisions. However, he would not accept this word.
We need two views concerning our fellowship with Brother Austin-Sparks. His spirituality is unquestionable; we esteem it highly, just as we esteem Madame Guyon’s spirituality. But we cannot accept Madame Guyon’s idol worship in Catholicism. Likewise, we fully accept The Spirit of Christ by Andrew Murray, but we cannot accept the denomination that he was in. This requires discernment. We highly esteem and fully accept the spiritual fellowship from Brother Austin-Sparks, but his view regarding the ground is not scriptural, and we cannot accept it. The saints who were affected by him have caused serious problems.
We were aware of the problems that could arise the first time we invited Brother Austin-Sparks. We were also aware of this when he spoke of the ground during his second visit. I did not initiate the fellowship concerning the ground. Sadly, some brothers among us did not keep their bounds. Regardless of their intention, a chaotic situation came in because they did not keep their bounds. The chaos that ensued did not allow us to invite Brother Austin-Sparks to come again. When our situation is stable, we can invite him for his spiritual portion. However, he should give us absolute freedom concerning our practice of the church.
I was not ignorant of our brother’s view concerning our practice. I have known his view since I was in Shanghai. I invited him to visit us because our situation was stable and because of the one accord. However, I relied too much on our situation. When I objected to our brother’s view concerning the ground, a few co-workers went beyond their measure. If the co-workers acknowledge that I am taking the lead here, then please allow me to say that since I was the one who invited Brother Sparks, I was responsible for the fellowship. When I objected to the fellowship, the co-workers should have stood with me. When I invited him, the co-workers accepted my invitation; when I objected to the fellowship, they should have stood with me and kept their bounds. If they are willing to stay within their measure, we can invite Brother Austin-Sparks to come again when our situation is stable.
Before that time we had the one accord and were in harmony. But problems arose after those years. The underlying cause of the problems is related to our brother’s visit. I am responsible for inviting our brother, and I am responsible for raising objections to the fellowship. The co-workers are under my leading and should have stayed within their measure. They need to comprehend this word. The work has been under my leading for many years, but our brother’s visit damaged the work because when there was a disagreement and I objected, the co-workers held differing opinions. Perhaps no evil was intended, but it caused us problems. It is as if the boat was capsized.
This fellowship is for us to learn a serious lesson. When Brother Nee was among us, we did things as he said they should be done, and whatever he spoke, we spoke; we did not have a second opinion. When he was taking the lead, it was his speaking that mattered; we just obeyed. Even if I did not see things as he did, I followed without questioning, and this brought the blessing. I invited Brother Austin-Sparks to come, and the co-workers accepted that invitation. I raised objections, but they held opinions that were contrary to mine. This was our problem. As a result, rumors arose, and the saints became confused; some even spoke of compromising and waiting to see if we would change our stand. There is no need to wait and see, and we do not compromise the truth. We only know to follow the truth.
If the co-workers want me to take the lead, then I will take the lead. Regardless of whether I was right or wrong in raising objections to our brother, I was responsible for our fellowship. The co-workers must learn to stay within their measure; otherwise, I cannot take the lead. The co-workers have solemnly indicated that they accept my leading and are willing to move forward. I hope that we have all learned this serious lesson.
This fellowship is necessary for the co-workers to be in harmony. My concern is that some may still disapprove. Therefore, I am begging the co-workers to stay within their bounds. If our situation were stable, we would have invited Brother Austin-Sparks to come a third time. However, we did not receive the help that we should have received from his last visit; instead, we brought unnecessary trouble upon ourselves. After the second visit those who said that they were helped by Brother Austin-Sparks became factors of division. Receiving help is good, but it is wrong for someone to become a cause of division after receiving help. My heart grieves because of this. We love the Lord, and we belong to Him. Therefore, please consider these words.
We receive all the truth that God has recovered in the church throughout the ages, but we do not receive blindly; we receive with discernment. Just as we receive Madame Guyon’s spirituality but not Catholicism and Andrew Murray’s revelation but not denominational organization, we receive Brother Austin-Sparks’s spirituality, but he must give us freedom concerning the practicality of the ground of the church. Otherwise, it will make things very difficult for us. Our situation shows that after our brother’s visit, things have indeed been very difficult, and I regret this. If the co-workers had stayed within their measure, I would have no regrets. Unrest and chaotic situations have prevented us from advancing.
According to Brother Austin-Sparks, the building can take place anywhere as long as there is spiritual material; that is, as long as there is gold, silver, and precious stones that issue from Christ, the building can take place anywhere. This is not the truth that we see. Although gold, silver, and precious stones are the right materials, the building must take place on Mount Moriah. Any building not on Mount Moriah is wrong even if it is built with the same materials and according to the same pattern. Although we are in Christ and are of Christ, only building on the local ground is right; building on the ground of doctrine or practice is wrong, and building on the ground of the two or three gathered together is even more wrong. This is the truth in the Bible and our view.
On the one hand, I am displeased with what our brother said, but on the other hand, our fellowship did not cease. When I was in the United States, an experienced brother whom I had never met came to see me. He had a question regarding house churches. He had no problem with the local churches but asked how I could explain the church in the house of Aquila and Prisca (1 Cor. 16:19). I pointed out that when Aquila and Prisca were in Ephesus, the church in Ephesus gathered in their house (Acts 18:18-19, 26) and that when they were in Rome, the church in Rome gathered in their house (Rom. 16:3, 5). After my explanation he asked concerning my fellowship with Brother Austin-Sparks. I told him that even though Brother Austin-Sparks and I do not hold the same view concerning the ground, our fellowship had not ceased. Even though Paul was Peter’s junior, when he saw that Peter was wrong, he opposed him to his face (Gal. 2:11). Even though Brother Austin-Sparks and I disagree concerning the ground, we have always maintained fellowship.
The ground of the church is very important. If we do not have the ground, why should we gather together? There are many Christian groups. What need is there to form more gatherings? There are many positive things in the Christian groups. We are not saying that we are spiritual by insisting on the ground. In many regards we cannot compare with other Christians. We gather outside the many Christian groups because of the ground. A person who wants to build a house must have a definite site on which to build. Likewise, besides having the right materials and pattern, there needs to be a definite ground in order to build the church. This is indicated in the Old Testament by the building site for the temple—the threshing floor of Ornan.
May the Lord have mercy on us so that we would have a clear vision concerning the building. If we fail in this point, we will commit a serious error. It is not a matter of having good or bad intentions or of doing something purposely or accidentally but a matter of committing a serious error. The work among us has suffered loss because of this. Hence, we need a clear vision to know what our attitude toward Brother Austin-Sparks should be. We need to be clear concerning what we should receive and hold fast. We need to know the pattern for the building, know what materials can be used, and know the ground for the building. If we are not definite regarding the ground, things will be difficult. If some hold differing opinions and cannot accept the truth concerning the ground, then we need to fellowship. Please do not pass on rumors that trouble the saints. I can lead only those who are one. I cannot lead those who give an uncertain sound of the trumpet (1 Cor. 14:8). This matter concerns the co-workers. May the Lord have mercy on us so that each of us will be clear.
