Date: 1934Place: Foochow
(Editor's Note: In 1934 there was a meeting in She-Er-Jen-Pai, a district in the city of Foochow. The meeting was not a part of any denomination, and it had knowledge of the church in Shanghai. The leaders of that meeting were a Miss Ding Shu-shin and John Wang. Brother K. H. Weigh as well as Watchman Nee's mother met with this assembly at one time. Miss Ding was opposed to the practice of head covering and later also sought for the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Brother Weigh did not agree with her stand of opposing the head covering. The following are records of Brother Nee's talk with Brother Weigh concerning the subject and Brother Nee's advice.)
Since its severance from the denominations, the meeting in She-Er-Jen-Pai has never stood clearly on the proper ground of the church. This is a historical fact. This puts it at a distance from the other assemblies. Its initial testimony was merely a testimony for the truth of salvation. Later, it advanced to stand for the truth of baptism and then for the truth of the Lord's table. But it was never clear about the church ministry. As far as church ministry is concerned, it should submit itself to the assemblies which have advanced further in this aspect of the truth. The late-comers should submit to the early-comers. For example, it is only proper for the newly raised assembly in Swatow to follow the practice of the church in Shanghai. (July 31)
This time my coming to Foochow is only for settling general questions. The local problems in Foochow should be settled by the local brothers themselves.
Our problem with the meeting in Tsing-Tao-Kuan is a moral issue. It is related to the setting up of the Lord's table meeting there. We cannot participate in the breaking of bread in that meeting. However, our problem with She-Er-Jen-Pai has to do with the truth, such as the truth concerning head covering.
We can only take one of two stands concerning the head covering (with respect to the forbidding of the head covering in She-Er-Jen-Pai). Either we go to the meeting and cover our head, or we do not go to the meeting at all. Both stands are correct (see 1 Cor. 11:3-15).
It is unreasonable for She-Er-Jen-Pai to demand that others take off their head covering. Miss Ding demanded that everyone take off their head covering while waiting to be clear about the Lord's will. She also said that since most people did not cover their head, the minority should go along with the majority and wait on the Lord's leading in this way. But why would she not ask those who have not covered their head to cover their head while waiting on the Lord? Suppose the majority of them covered their head. Would Miss Ding also cover her head to wait on the Lord?
Miss Ding said that humanity as a whole already has its head covered in the order of God's creation and that there is no need to have a physical sign. I would ask, "If we are dead in Christ already, why do we have to be baptized?"
Miss Ding left the denominations through the help of Hwa Wei-cheng's Bible teachings at Tien-An Chapel. You do not have to argue with her about her isolated issues one by one. [This probably refers to such issues as head covering.] All you have to do is to ask, "What right does a man have to express his opinion before God or to question God? (Rom. 9:19-21). Toward God's Word there is no need for us to ask why. As long as we know that it is God's Word, that is enough."
Those whose flesh is not thoroughly crucified often ask why. Even many preachers often try to study the "whys." But a spiritual man does not ask why; he only asks what.
Moreover, according to the teaching of the Bible, a woman does not have any place in teaching the truths (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12). We see no such thing in the Bible. Even if Miss Ding is opposed to the matter of head covering, she should not be teaching this as a teaching.
In the event that there is a division in She-Er-Jen-Pai, it will not be the result of a dispute concerning head covering. There have been a series of factors accumulating throughout the years, leading to the present outbreak. (July 25)
Of course, I have to say a word to you as well. You were wrong as well. If you were unhappy with the meeting in She-Er-Jen-Pai in any way, you should have discussed it with the responsible ones there and not have criticized them behind their backs. (August 2)
"Yesterday I was praying singlemindedly and searching my heart day and night. I felt that your attitude and motive were very questionable [referring to what John Wang did when he was in Shanghai]. From the few conversations I had with you, I felt that the difference between us still exists. From this night forward, the arguments between us should end right here. You can take your way. I guarantee you that I will not bother you anymore. Concerning the meeting in Foochow [in She-Er-Jen-Pai], I cannot render any help to the situation, and neither will I do anything to damage it. I admit that you have won your arguments. However, in your conversation with a certain sister last night about forcing others to take off their head covering, I am afraid that you overstepped in the matter of exercising your authority. Mr. Panton said that over-law is lawlessness. Your exercise of authority is for achieving your private end."
1. From tonight on, I will officially withdraw my declaration concerning the meeting in She-Er-Jen-Pai.
2. John Wang is playing with our feelings.
3. I have urged John to settle the issue of head covering with a certain sister, but John argued that the sister was being disobedient.
4. Some sisters who were dissatisfied with the meeting in She-Er-Jen-Pai urged John Wang to settle the issue of the head covering. John told my mother [Brother Nee's mother] that he was reluctant to get involved in the dispute. Yet at the same time that he said this, he also told the sisters to submit and take off their head coverings.
Brother Nee's answer: First, after you go down from the mountain here, you should talk the problem over with the brothers in She-Er-Jen-Pai just by yourself. Second, after attending one meeting, you should again ask them what attitude they will adopt. Third, you should stop attending their meeting temporarily if they will not answer. You can gather some people to meet with you on the Lord's Day or have prayer meetings or Bible study meetings. Fourth, you should write an open letter to all the brothers and sisters in She-Er-Jen-Pai and explain the whole story concerning the dispute with the matter of the head covering. Fifth, before you stop attending their meetings, you should write a letter to the responsible ones in She-Er-Jen-Pai. Tell them that you are waiting for them to settle the issue, that you feel that their attitude is wrong, and that they have abused their authority.
I was excommunicated in Foochow in 1924 for two reasons. First, I opposed inviting Mr. Woodberry from the Christian and Missionary Alliance to ordain some of us to be pastors. Second, I opposed putting up a sign that said "The Foochow Church." Later, the brothers tried to change the name to "The Chuan-Chien-Shan Church." [Chuan-Chien-Shan is the name of a district in the city of Foochow.] I opposed it because such names cannot include all the believers in Foochow. For example, there are various Chinese Associations in the city of San Francisco, each affiliated with a different province. There is constant fighting among them, sometimes even with firearms. Suppose a few Chinese among them put up another sign that just said "The Chinese Association." This sign would be torn down immediately. They can only claim to represent all the Chinese in San Francisco when all the Chinese in the different associations have become one in everything. Of course, under the present circumstance, a few of them who are of one mind can still bind themselves together and have an unofficial Chinese Association that does not bear an official name and which includes all Chinese. Such an association would be standing on the ground of the Chinese Association, but would not declare anything in an outward way. Our practice of the local church should be the same in principle. If there is absolutely no other denomination in a locality, an assembly can declare itself to be the local church in that locality. If any denomination comes afterward to set up another congregation, it is setting up a division. The one who is there first has the right of priority. In a place where there are existing denominations already, one can only say that his meeting is one that meets in the name of the Lord. The words church and assembly are the same in Greek, which is ekklesia.
When the above two issues were raised on one Lord's Day morning, I spoke on the subject of the way of the ark. In the Old Testament, after the ark was separated from the tabernacle, the center of worship followed the movement of the ark; the tabernacle became a useless form. The same is true in principle with our assembly today. What is crucial is not the outward tabernacle, which typifies formal Christianity. What counts is the testimony of Christ within, which is typified by the ark. We follow the ark, not the tabernacle. After the ark and the tabernacle were separated, God's eyes only rested on the ark, not on the tabernacle. Those who have acquired wisdom as Solomon did should run to the ark and no longer care for the tabernacle (1 Kings 3:4-15).
