Search
Question: The Bible indicates that the children of the elders should believe in the Lord. Among us there are a few elders in the church whose children have not yet believed in the Lord. Their children, however, are only in their teens and are not that old. They come to hear the gospel, but they have not yet been saved. What do you think about this?
Answer: I think that your question on the matter of requiring children to believe in the Lord refers to the elders’ ability to manage their household. This is the point of emphasis. Therefore, if the children are very young, this does not apply. If a child is very disobedient and rebels against believing, this is a clear indication that the brother has no way to take care of the church. Perhaps he is able to be an apostle, but he does not know how to be an elder. If the young children are not that rebellious or negative and are able to come along with you to listen to the messages, then there is no problem. Of course, when they are young in age, it is impossible to know whether they have genuinely believed. But when they reach a certain age, they should be asked to receive the Lord. I think that the point of emphasis is still on managing one’s own household. Therefore, the brother whom you referred to may still be an elder.
Question: In the past when various localities began to have meetings, the leading brothers there seemed to be able to bear the responsibility. Later, when the number of saints increased, the responsible brothers did not seem to be able to bear the responsibility as before due to their spiritual condition. What should these responsible brothers do?
Answer: In a certain place there may be a group of saints beginning to meet, with some learning to bear the responsibility. According to God’s arrangement in the church, when some better ones are brought in, the responsible brothers in that place should be able to allow the better ones to bear the responsibility. The responsible brothers should then listen to these brothers. I hope that we can reach this stage.
Paul said, “We do not have such a custom of being so, neither the churches of God.” We do not like to have traditions, but we like to have customs. If one church does things in a certain way, spontaneously other churches will follow. This is a most beautiful thing. Formerly, you were bearing responsibility in a certain locality. Now other brothers have moved to your place. It would be a wonderful thing if you were able to step aside. You may say, “Brother! Come and do it. I will submit to you.” This is not being passive. Many people, as soon as they stop bearing responsibility, behave like outsiders and do not care for anything anymore. You should say, “I am willing to help you. You bear the responsibility. You are the one taking the lead.” If every church would practice this, such a custom could be established among the churches. When younger brothers encounter those who are more advanced in the Lord than themselves, they should be able to ask them to step forward. The children of God need to learn to recognize those who have higher authority when they meet them. It is not proper to have a confusing situation.
When several brothers go out together or talk together in a room, spontaneously someone will take the lead, and some others will follow. God keeps the order in every matter, whether great or small. God is a God of order. We should also learn to have everything in order, even more so regarding the things of the church. If a brother who bears responsibility knows spontaneously that another brother who has just come in is ahead of him in the Lord, he should lead him to become acquainted with the brothers and gradually withdraw. If he does not recognize that brother, there could be a big problem. If such a custom of order could be established in every locality, it would be a beautiful thing. This is the church of God. Those who have God’s authority should always be in the forefront.
Question: What can we do if he does not see?
Answer: I think that sometimes the brothers who are workers traveling through such places should bear more responsibility in such matters. When a brother who is a worker travels through such a place, he should be the one to make a decision according to the situation in that locality. The apostles should look into it and determine who should or should not bear responsibility. It is clear in 3 John that there was a person who had a view different from that of the apostle John. John has one view, and he has another. “Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not receive us” (v. 9). The local brothers were not clear concerning Diotrephes, and thought that he was indeed a person of authority. He loved “to be first among them.” He was not willing to receive people, nor was he willing for others to do so. Therefore, John said, “If I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he does” (v. 10). Hence, strictly speaking, the responsible ones in all the places should be considered by the workers who are reliable in the Lord. The latter should determine who may or may not bear responsibility in a locality.
If we can train the brothers and sisters in various localities with a basic education of knowing authority, it will be easy for them to submit when they go to other places to raise up meetings. The problem today is that the basic training is not sufficient; therefore, this kind of situation exists. Once the basic training is sufficient, the problem will be greatly reduced.
Question: Philip went to Samaria by himself, and Peter went to Caesarea by himself. Were these individualistic activities?
Answer: I would like to see these kinds of fruitful individualistic activities. From now on we need to be very careful with this kind of expression — individualistic activities. There may be many brothers who live together with eight or ten other brothers, yet they can still act individualistically. Not acting individualistically does not mean that we have someone sleeping next to us, or that we have someone eating with us, or that we always buy two tickets when we travel. As long as one has not seen the Body of Christ, he still acts individualistically. He may do things with others physically, but in reality he has not learned to obey authority or to fellowship. This is the kind of person who acts individualistically. Philip could go out by himself, but not act individualistically. Others can go out with eight or ten, yet still act individualistically.
The matter of authority is a very wonderful thing in the church. When some workers of God or believers are together, they spontaneously are confronted with the matter of authority. God never does things in a disorderly fashion. Even between two persons, God sets one up as the authority.
The order of names in the Bible is consistent. There are special reasons when they are not consistent. For example, in the Old Testament God set up Moses as the authority; it was always Moses and Aaron. You cannot reverse the order to have Aaron and Moses. When they were together, one always represented authority and the other represented submission. Even with those sent out by our Lord two by two — those whose names are mentioned — one was before the other. If it was so with two, it is more so with many.
Whenever God’s children are together, they should immediately fall in line. This does not mean to line up physically, but that we realize that a brother is in front of us. Since the Lord is working among us, He must have a mouthpiece; therefore, we must believe in God’s presence. We should declare, “I believe in the presence of the Lord. I believe in the presence of the Holy Spirit.” Consequently, when several brothers have the presence of the Holy Spirit, you must believe that God has a mouthpiece among them.
The reason God’s authority cannot be established among His children is that His children are always criticizing others and always asking for perfection. To them there is only one man in the whole world whom they admire — the perfect man. That man has not existed before, does not exist today, and will not exist in the future. Therefore, they cannot submit. They want to submit to a perfect man, but that man does not happen to be around. Therefore, they will not submit to anyone. Yet God does not give His authority to a perfect man; He gives His authority to a man who is being perfected. God gives His authority to a person who is in front of you. This is a basic principle in the Bible. God gives His authority to a brother in front of you.
When God’s children are together, they spontaneously should fall into a good order. This is not a matter of organization. It does not mean that when several brothers are together, you need to elect a team leader or a person in charge. But you must realize that even when several go out for a walk on the mountain or when you all gather together, someone will be in front of you. In those five or ten minutes of walking, you need to learn to be a submissive person. Wherever God’s children are, regardless of the environment or occasion, there are those in authority and those who should submit. This is a very beautiful thing.
When a person is governed by such a principle, there will be no individualistic activity. When a person does not submit to authority, he will still act individualistically no matter how many others may be with him. What is individualism? Individualism means that you cannot be under authority. When a person is individualistic, he has no way to be under authority. Once he comes under authority, individualism has to go. Once you receive authority, individualism cannot exist.
It is not a matter of receiving one authority, nor a matter of receiving ten authorities; it is a matter of receiving authority.
Let me give you an example. I have used two servants. They started working for me at different times, one earlier than the other. When the first one came to my house, I charged him saying, “There is a basic requirement for you to be a servant — you need to obey. No matter how smart you are, just do whatever I ask you to do.” Later, I also told the other servant, “You need to learn to obey. You need to listen to me, and you also need to listen to the servant who came before you.” However, the servant who came later obeyed all of my words, but he did not obey the words of the servant who came earlier. He always tried to find ways to point out the mistakes of the other servant. Do you think that this person submitted to authority?
What is submission to authority? Submission to authority does not mean choosing the person to whom you will submit. If you choose the person to whom you will submit, you do not know authority. He who knows authority recognizes it whenever he encounters it. When he encounters it, he knows he should submit. If you cannot submit, it proves that you have never known authority. You may have submitted to man, but not to authority. At best you merely fear a man, and when you meet him you obey him. You have never been under authority because you have never known authority. Authority is not a matter of one place or another place. There is authority in every place and on every occasion. Regardless of where one may be, he who knows authority recognizes it whenever he encounters it.
When a person is under authority, individualism cannot exist. If you stand on the ground of individualism, you will have no way to submit yourself to authority. This is a very important matter as far as spiritual principles are concerned. A person needs to learn to know authority. For Christians it is not a matter of who a person is. Christians should submit to authority whenever we encounter it.
Individualism cannot exist if one seeks fellowship. With individualism one always tries to maintain his individual spiritual life before God, his individual visions before God, and his individual work before God. He is always an individual; it is not easy for him to seek fellowship. This is the problem among us. Such a person does not seek fellowship, but struggles and labors by himself. Many children of God today can say only in words that they cannot do without other brothers or that they must have the church in order to live. Actually, many can live without the church and without fellowship. This proves that they are individualistic. If a person receives the principle of fellowship and the principle of the Body only in concept, yet in actuality lives and works by himself, has a spiritual life without fellowship, and does the work of the Lord without fellowship, then this person has never been broken before God. He is altogether an individualistic person. Fellowship is versus individualism. It is not what you say about fellowship; rather, it is a matter of whether fellowship is a part of your life, whether you really cannot live or work without fellowship. One day God will bring you to this stage. I feel that this is the greatest step.
When many people come to an impasse, they only consider that there are problems with their faith or faithfulness; they do not consider that there is a problem with their fellowship. The education which many people have received in the past and the books which many have read instruct people to be faithful, to believe, and to submit directly to God. Therefore, a problem occurs when they are unable to get through. When they cannot get through in their personal lives, they always consider that they themselves have a problem, that their faith has a problem, or that they are lacking in faithfulness. This is right, but many only see that their failures and difficulties are due to problems in their personal faith, their personal faithfulness, or their personal submission. They do not see that there is something else in the Bible called fellowship. If there are problems with fellowship, they can also arrive at the same point of failure and difficulty.
Many people’s problems have nothing to do with the matter of faith or believing in God, but the matter of fellowship. Sometimes the Lord must allow this kind of person to struggle in his faith, faithfulness, and submission so that he reaches a point in his Christian life where he simply cannot believe or submit no matter how hard he tries. Perhaps he will then realize that he cannot make it simply as one member, nor can he make it merely by his union with Christ. He must be joined with the Body of Christ in order to get through. Perhaps he will then begin to see that he needs the help of other Christians in order to make it. Many have not yet been brought on this way; they are still walking on the way of individualism, laboring by themselves. It is God’s great mercy to bring a person to a point where he cannot get through, and where his eyes are opened to see that while submission, faith, and faithfulness do not suffice, fellowship does suffice.
This is a great revelation! One day God’s children will be brought to a stage where all their ways are exhausted, and where they see that even such a great item as faith does not avail. Faith is not a small matter, and we should not despise it. Faith, faithfulness, and submission are all great matters. However, one day you will reach a point that even when all these conditions are fulfilled, you still cannot get through. Faith, faithfulness, and submission to God are all weighty matters in the Bible. But even with these weighty things, you still have no way to get through until your eyes are opened one day and you begin to realize that fellowship is also a great matter. Without fellowship, you cannot get through. Only a person who has passed through this pathway before God can escape individualism, not doing things individualistically. Those who only know the doctrine of fellowship or the doctrine of the Body of Christ can still be individualistic for the rest of their lives. They can believe in the doctrine of fellowship in a very individualistic way. God needs to bring them on a path where everything is exhausted, where the way is impassable, and where their problems still cannot be solved even though they continue to believe, be faithful, and submit. When God gives them a little light one day, they will see that their problem was actually in the matter of fellowship. Then their individualism will depart.
When Peter went to Caesarea by himself, he did not go individualistically. He had fellowship. When Peter went from Joppa to Caesarea, he took the brothers from Joppa with him. He was always under authority and always seeking fellowship. Therefore, as soon as he returned to Jerusalem, he told the brothers what had happened. Although the job had been done, he still sought fellowship.
When Philip went to Samaria, he was one who submitted himself under authority. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would not have called him to the wilderness. All those whom the Holy Spirit has met are those who are still going on. Everything in the church is arranged and regulated by the Holy Spirit. The Head of the church is Christ, but the operation of the Head is through His Spirit. When the Holy Spirit brought Philip to the wilderness, he was still under authority.
Individualism is not a matter of one person or two; it is not a question of more people or less people. Individualism is a matter of whether one is under authority and whether one has the fellowship of the Body. Today some brothers may go out with several others, but these brothers can still be completely individualistic. When you go down from the mountain to work, you may say that you are standing in the position of the Body to learn to serve, yet if five of you are still five persons, and ten of you are still ten persons, you have failed completely before God. That is not fellowship. Fellowship is not a matter of how many people are in the room, the number of people who sit beside you, or whether anyone accompanies you as you go out. The Bible emphasizes two persons going out together so that there may be fellowship concerning things. But this does not mean that when there are more people, there is fellowship, and when there are fewer people, there is no fellowship.
Today, God’s children should know these two basic lessons. First, they need to know authority and submit to authority. Second, they should treasure the fellowship of the children of God. They should seek the fellowship of life and the supply of life from others so that they can go forward. Only when these two lessons are present can we be free from individualism. When these two lessons are absent, immediately individualism becomes present.
In the Bible the principle of workers going out to work is that of at least two by two. For example, when Paul went out to work, there were at least two persons. There might have been an exception to this principle in Philip’s going to Samaria. If a man is under authority and lives in fellowship, even if he has one exception, he still does not damage the basic principle.
This does not mean that having many people going out is sufficient. If you are not in oneness, even if there are ten brothers going out to work together, it is useless. Therefore, when you go to Wen-Shu or Tsingtao, it is not a matter of electing someone to be a group leader. This is not something done by the church. Rather, spontaneously you realize that there is a person in front of you, and that you need to listen to him. Spontaneously, you learn submission and fellowship. Many people will become as one man, as one body going out. In this there is no individualism. Otherwise, if you have one person, it is called one-person individualism; if you have ten persons, it is called ten-person individualism. The more persons there are, the more individualisms there are. Thus, you will be proposing a work based upon multiple individualisms. In the past you might have believed in personal individualism; today you believe in plural individualisms. If this is the case, this is not the Body of Christ.
We need to know what the Body of Christ is. The Body of Christ is one in life and submits under authority. This authority can be manifested among any group of God’s children. Each one needs to learn to stand in his place; then there will not be any problems. In such a condition one should not humble himself deliberately, nor should he be so concerned for himself. Rather, he should learn to accept man’s instruction and opinion and learn to submit to authority. As everyone stands in his own place, all will see that this way is proper. Perhaps all the problems are due to individualism. This is the whole problem and the greatest problem.
Question: According to the Epistles to Timothy, the elders must be appointed by people like Paul, Timothy, or Titus. Peter and John were elders in Jerusalem. Did James appoint them? Or were they appointed by themselves when necessary?
Answer: I believe that all the elders need to be appointed; therefore, I mentioned that all the elders must be appointed by the workers when they are in their midst. I want you to pay special attention to what Paul said to the elders of the church in Ephesus. This church was different from the church at the center of the work. However, they shared the same principle, which is that the Holy Spirit has placed the elders as overseers of the whole flock. Therefore, when the workers and apostles appoint elders in other places, they must have a desire, a seeking, and prayer before God, with the assurance that the persons whom they appoint are the persons whom the Holy Spirit appoints. Otherwise, the problems will be great. The Holy Spirit appoints one person, but the one you appoint is another person. The problem this gives to the church is too great. Therefore, as each goes down from the mountain, no brother can become loose or casual in appointing elders in other places. Paul had the boldness to say in Ephesus that the Holy Spirit had appointed them as elders. Paul did not say that he had appointed them but that the Holy Spirit had appointed them. He had considerable confidence to say that the Holy Spirit had appointed them. Therefore, we need to be in fear and trembling. We are afraid of people who are too bold. We should be in fear and trembling. We have to see that the responsibility of deciding who are and who are not elders is very heavy. We must have adequate consideration and prayer before God. Only those who are appointed by the Holy Spirit are useful. Otherwise, they will be useless and will sooner or later be problems.
The positions of Peter and John in Jerusalem were quite clear because they were apostles. The elders are appointed by the apostles. Peter the apostle appointed Peter the elder, and John the apostle appointed John the elder because this responsibility was in the hands of the apostles, and at the same time there was a local need. Perhaps, among those apostles, they might have all felt that at least these two should bear the local responsibility at the same time. Therefore, they both became elders in Jerusalem. Toward the end James had passed away, and the other James remained. In the church in Jerusalem, he was definitely in the forefront. Perhaps Peter and John were not appointed by him, but I dare not say. However, there hardly was a problem for Peter and John to be elders because they were already apostles.
Question: Peter and John went to Samaria, and the Bible says that the apostles in Jerusalem sent them. Paul and Barnabas went, and the Bible says that the brothers sent them. Why is this?
Answer: In this kind of sending, there is fellowship. You dare not say that there was authority, but at least there was fellowship.
There were twelve apostles in Jerusalem. The matter of Samaria was brought to Jerusalem. Jerusalem knew the situation in Samaria, and they also saw that the believers in Samaria had not received the Holy Spirit. Philip only did a part of the work; he did not do the work thoroughly. So Jerusalem felt that Peter and John should go. Perhaps, while twelve or more than twelve brothers were waiting and praying together, Peter and John felt that they should go, and the rest of the brothers also felt that they should go. So they sent Peter and John to Samaria. This is a very beautiful picture. I dare not say that the matter of authority had no part, but I feel that the matter of authority did not occupy a major role; the greater part was the principle of fellowship. Suppose while there are a number of sisters eating together, they feel that one among them should go to a certain sister’s home. This is not a matter of authority; rather, everyone considers together who should go. The principle of fellowship has a greater part than the principle of authority. I do not say that it has no part, but I say that the greater part is the part of fellowship.
It was the same with Paul and Silas. In Thessalonica they encountered danger. Paul was imprisoned, but later he was released. After he was released, when the brothers were together, he was sent by them to Berea. Here we clearly see that in this certain brother’s home, the home of Jason, they were praying, seeking, and considering their future. As a result they said that Paul and Silas should not continue living there and that for them to remain there would be very difficult. The brothers felt to send them perhaps to Berea. Therefore, in this instance, there was also the flavor of the fellowship of the brothers and sisters.
You will remember that I mentioned yesterday that Paul had two things in his work. When Paul sent Timothy, very often it was through fellowship, because Timothy often could not see clearly. It is not that I use authority to tell you to go; rather, it is that I fellowship the Lord’s desire with you so that you can walk more properly. Perhaps you did not see the importance of fellowship yesterday. Today you need to see these two aspects. Very often it is not just a matter of authority but a matter of fellowship. You need fellowship because perhaps you have not seen, no one has made a decision, and you yourself do not know what to do. Perhaps the brothers made the decision, or perhaps Paul made the decision. Even if Paul made the decision, it was not through authority but through the fellowship with the house of Jason. In Thessalonica it was very clear: The brothers were together, Paul and Silas were in danger, and the Jews wanted to arrest them. What should they do? The brothers felt that they should still go forward, so they went forward. It seems that they were discussing together, and they went out. Therefore, the brothers sending them to Berea was simply a fellowship in the Lord. What was the result? The result was very good. The Bereans were better than the Thessalonians because they were willing to study the Bible.
I do not say that there was no authority, but I say that the element of fellowship was greater. It is possible that there was no element of authority. However, there was fellowship. Paul sent others many times. Even though Paul was a brother in the lead, you still have to admit that there was also an element of fellowship. There are two basic principles in the coordination of God’s work: authority and fellowship. When both principles are present, it is the highest leading and the most perfect coordination.
Question: What would you say concerning the sending in Acts 13? Verse 2 says, “The Holy Spirit said.” Where is the fellowship? Or is there something else?
Answer: At the time of the apostles, the words of the Holy Spirit could come from the mouths of the prophets. Among those brothers there were prophets who rose up and said, “Set apart for Me now Barnabas and Saul.” Perhaps there was not only one person, but two or three, witnessing what the Holy Spirit was doing.
Question: Jerusalem and Antioch did not have much difference. In just over ten years, how could there already be two beginnings?
Answer: It was only a period of ten years. The Bible did record two beginnings. However, Philippians says that there were still many people preaching the gospel although their way was not proper. They clearly were not from Jerusalem or Antioch, but they were another group of people who initiated another beginning. By this we may know that there were many beginnings at that time.
I think that the record of the Holy Spirit in Acts and in Revelation 2 and 3 is the same. There were many churches in Asia, but only seven were selected to receive the epistles. Obviously, Ephesus and Colossae were both in Asia, but only Ephesus was mentioned, not Colossae. Clearly the condition of Colossae was better than that of Ephesus because Ephesus had already fallen to the extent of leaving the first love and Colossae had not. For the sake of applying the teaching, the Lord chose Ephesus. Because the Lord wanted to match the teaching with history, He chose seven. I believe that all the history in Acts is for teaching; therefore, many people were omitted. Hence, we are clear concerning Peter in Jerusalem and Paul in Antioch. There could have been many other beginnings. History shows us that a group of apostles went to Africa. According to the tradition of the church, Thomas went to India. Each way was separate, and the Bible did not bother to mention them at all. Therefore, we cannot say that in Acts there were only two centers; we can only say that the Holy Spirit only mentioned two centers.
This is also like the Holy Spirit only mentioning Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain. It does not mean that there were only four persons in the world at that time. What this means is that only what is useful to teaching is recorded, and what is not useful to teaching is not recorded. Philippians 1 shows us that many gospel preachers went out. Many of them may have had situations similar to Paul’s.
