Search
1. The word of the Lord to one church is the word spoken by the Spirit to all the churches — Rev. 2:1, 7 (seven times).
2. The solution made at Jerusalem was the decree for all the churches to keep — Acts 15:1-2, 13, 19-23, 25-31; 16:4-5.
3. The apostle’s letter to the Colossians was to be read by the Laodiceans, and the letter to the Laodiceans was to be read by the Colossians — Col. 4:16.
4. The Gentile churches became imitators of the churches in Judea — 1 Thes. 2:14a.
The points listed above are not my teaching but the teaching of the Bible in the New Testament, the teaching of God’s New Testament economy. My fellowship with you all is constituted with four things: (1) a lifelong study of the Bible for over sixty-one years; (2) a lifelong study of the biographies of spiritual giants that the Lord has raised up through all the centuries; (3) the history of the church, including the raising up and the founders of different denominations, including the Orthodox churches, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant churches — the state churches, the private churches, and the free groups; and (4) my observation of the situation in the Lord’s recovery, in which I have been for over fifty-four years.
I would eventually like to fellowship four things with you that have been on my heart for a long time: the home gatherings, the full-timers, the truth lessons, and the spreading of the gospel in the unique, harmonious way (see Book 8 in this series). Without the fellowship in this book as a base, however, I would not like anyone to take my fellowship concerning these four things. My fellowship on these matters is based on my fellowship in this book. I do not want to be imitated by anyone who is not according to this fellowship. If you do not agree with any point of this fellowship, please stop copying anything that I have done and will do in Taiwan.
I want to see the genuine, the proper, the up-to-date, and the most scriptural recovery. I have dedicated my whole life for this. I feel charged by the Lord to make a clear situation in His recovery. The Lord’s up-to-date recovery has been somewhat polluted by different opinions and practices during the past fifteen years, which we never agreed with from the very beginning. The only thing we exercised was toleration and patience with much hope and expectation that the ones who practice differently may have some improvement. We are not practicing Brethrenism, to cut off people. That is not our way. We will not cut off anyone, but we have the full right and position to say something about our practice. If you do not want to take one hundred percent of what I practice, please do not copy it.
When I entered into the recovery and was asked by Brother Nee, the leader in the Lord’s recovery, to join the work, I spent much time to consider whether I should enter into the work. Eventually, I was clear that it was of the Lord, so I entered into the recovery and participated in the work for the recovery. From that day until now I have not had any change, nor will I have any change. Since I came out of mainland China over thirty-seven years ago, I have never changed my tone. I did not change at all in my teaching, even though I have passed through many trials. Many of you who have been under my ministry for years can testify that nothing has ever changed my attitude, my standing, my practice, my way, and my teaching.
Let us all be faithful to one another. By the Lord’s mercy and grace I have the position to let you know my standing. If you feel that this is the way, please stay with us honestly. I do not want to see a repetition of degraded Christianity in the Lord’s recovery. I feel very burdened that the Lord must have a new start. I called for elders’ trainings in 1984 and 1985 in urgency and under much consideration. I called these gatherings, truthfully speaking, not for all of you but for some of you. In those two elders’ trainings every message was given for you. I also have called this elders’ training for certain dear brothers for whom I am greatly concerned. By your dissenting you may damage your future and damage the Lord’s recovery. In 1959 in Taiwan I warned some dissenting ones that they had the freedom to take their way, but that in so doing they would damage their future and be divided endlessly. Whatever I said to them has become history. They damaged their spiritual future, damaged many others, and experienced endless divisions.
We agree that there are only one God, one Spirit, one Lord, one church, one recovery, and one testimony. If this is the Lord’s recovery, it is unique. Regardless of who we are, if we would not take this way, we have no other way to go on. After those dissenting ones left the recovery, they were wandering. Consider objectively what other way there is for them to take. Is the church more than one? Is the testimony of the Lord more than one? Is God more than one? Is the Spirit more than one? Is the Lord more than one? Some left the recovery as gentlemen because they felt that they could not take this way and made it clear that they wanted to take another way. They are gentlemen. I respect them and their ethics. Even these dear ones who left the recovery in a gentlemanly way had their spiritual future damaged. There has been no exception to this over the years.
Once a married female has a divorce, her entire human life has been damaged. Some people in America remarry four or five times, but we know that in the eyes of God and even in the eyes of ethical persons, divorce is not the way of the proper human life. Once a female gets married, she is committed for her life. If she divorces her husband, her human life is damaged. There is no other way for her to take. In like manner, if you leave the recovery, no one will curse you, but you will damage the way of your spiritual life. You will have no way to go on according to God’s New Testament economy. In God’s ordination a woman should have only one husband. The Lord is our Husband, and His way is our Husband’s way. If a woman does not take her husband’s way, she complicates the way of her human life. This is my word of love, advice, and warning.
In the last chapter we saw from the holy Word that all the churches should be one in teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. There is no loophole for any argument on these points unless you do not believe the Bible. All the Bible references for these points indicate that this is not my view, teaching, or opinion but simply my quotation from the divine Word. I want to honor you with my honesty in telling you the truth according to God from His holy Word. The Bible is our common ground, and my burden is to present to you the points of the divine Word.
The word of the Lord to one church is the word spoken by the Spirit to all the churches (Rev. 2:1, 7). “The word of the Lord” is the word spoken by Him in Revelation 2 and 3. At the very beginning of His epistle to each church, the Lord tells us His status. After declaring what He is, He speaks; but at the end of His speaking, the Word says, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). This word is repeated seven times. The fact that the word of the Lord to one church is the word spoken by the Spirit indicates not only that He and the Spirit are one but also that His word spoken to one church is the word spoken by the Spirit to all the churches.
Suppose that the Lord spoke something to the church in Ephesus, but the church in Laodicea felt that their situation was different from Ephesus. They felt that they should pray to seek the Lord’s leading as to whether they should take the fellowship to Ephesus entirely or take it only partially to fit into their situation. Of course, there was not such a thing in Revelation 2 and 3, but I heard such a thing among us in today’s recovery. This is dissension with a nice cloak. Some say, “We receive the ministry, yet we would consider and pray to see how much the Lord will lead us to take of the ministry and how much it will fit in with our local situation.”
A wife could say to her husband, “I love you and I take you as my husband, but whatever you say I have to bring to the Lord to see if it is really His leading for me. I need to pray to find out whether I should take your word wholly or in part and whether it fits in with my situation.” If a wife had this attitude, how would her husband feel? Her attitude is a kind of subtle dissension, and her husband would not be able to tolerate it forever. I have been tolerating such an attitude from some, though, for the past fifteen years, but my toleration has ended.
We must see, I say again, that the word of the Lord to one church is the word spoken by the Spirit to all the churches. The best church was Philadelphia, but even Philadelphia did not consider that she had to pray to seek the Lord’s leading as to whether she should take the Lord’s word to the other churches wholly or partially and as to whether it fit into her local situation. There was not such a thing. We all need to stand in front of the mirror to see our face. As we look, we may also see something of Christianity. Can the Lord’s recovery be like this? Can the poor history of degraded Christianity be repeated in the Lord’s recovery? Should we not all throw the stone on any kind of subtle divorce?
The solution made at Jerusalem was the decree for all the churches to keep (Acts 15:1-2, 13, 19-23, 25-31; 16:4-5). Decree is a strong word. The text in Acts 16:4 uses the word decrees. A decree is something more than a solution, instruction, teaching, or direction. Acts 15:1-2 shows us that there was a big problem, a big disturbance involving the Judaic practice of circumcision. This stirred up trouble among the churches, especially between the churches in the Gentile world and the churches in Judea. Even though the apostle Paul was so much for the truth concerning the Gentiles, he still considered that the problem should not be settled in Antioch but with the church in Jerusalem. He did not make the decision to forget about Jerusalem or for the Gentile churches to put aside the Judaic practices regardless of the way the church in Jerusalem felt. If Paul would have practiced this way, he would have been sectarian. This would have meant that he practiced two bodies of Christ on this earth — one body in the Gentile world and another body in Judea, which he did not care for. Paul, however, realized that this was not the right way, so he, Barnabas, and certain others went to Jerusalem. It was not because Jerusalem was the headquarters of God’s move or because Jerusalem was the head church controlling other churches that Paul, Barnabas, and certain others went to Jerusalem. It was because Jerusalem was the source from which the heretical teaching concerning circumcision came.
The conference held in Jerusalem was not merely a conference of the apostles and the elders. Acts 15:22 says, “It then seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church.” Not only were the apostles and elders there, but also the whole church was there. It was not a conference of the so-called top ones, but it was “with the whole church.” Paul practiced the principle of the Body. This problem was not a matter of a certain region but a matter of the entire Body of Christ. Therefore, Paul went to Jerusalem to have a conference with all the concerned parties — the apostles, the elders, and the church in Jerusalem. Paul was practicing a Body principle. He was not sectarian to say that the churches in the Gentile world would have nothing to do with those in Judea. He did not say, “Let them take their way, and let us take our way.” He went to Jerusalem to keep the Body principle, and then a solution was made.
In the Life-study of Acts, I pointed out that the solution to Paul was not so satisfactory, but in order to keep the principle of the Body he took it. My basis for saying that the solution was not an absolutely satisfactory one is the content of James’s concluding word in Acts 15:19-21 — “Therefore I judge that we do not harass those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from the contaminations of idols and fornication and what is strangled and blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who proclaim him in the synagogues, he being read every Sabbath.” In James’s concluding word he took care of three main items of Judaism — the law of Moses, the synagogue, and the Sabbath. By these verses in Acts 15, we can understand why James in Acts 21 was compromising with Judaism (vv. 18-26). Paul realized that in the new man there cannot be any room for Jews, for Greeks, or for any natural person, yet James gave a final word that included one point that is absolutely against the principle of the new man (15:21). Paul tolerated the decision, and this toleration somewhat issued in the situation in Acts 21. By that time the Lord would not tolerate it any longer. Just at the time when the Nazarite vows of Paul and four others were to be concluded, God allowed an uproar to rise up against him, and what they intended to accomplish was blown away (v. 27).
The decision in Acts 15 was written in a way of a decree, charging all the churches to take it. Fairly speaking, I would like to have such a conference with all those who are somewhat dissenting. We all need to have a conference in the way that Paul and Barnabas did with those in Jerusalem. Then we have to make a decision and write something to all the churches on the globe. Let all the churches keep our decree. This decree is up to the discernment of the saints according to what God says. Someone in one place said something last year that has caused people to realize that today in the Lord’s recovery there are two lines, and this has caused them to be very much concerned.
I said already that I do not like to cut anyone off. My ministry is to serve people, to minister Christ to people, to minister the Word to you. Many of you know how much love and patience I have been exercising over you to help you, to preserve you, and to lead you to the right way. The negative things that I heard caused me to call the elders’ training in February of 1984, in September of 1985, and also this third one. Although I feel that my toleration has to be terminated, I want to do it in the Body principle. Let us arrive at a solution and pass on the solution to all the churches on the globe.
It is altogether not right to have a different practice in the Lord’s recovery, to have different lines for the saints to go on. If there were two lines in the recovery, which line should the saints follow? If you marry one daughter to two husbands, it will be hard for the daughter to practice her human life. You may train the saints in your locality with two lines, but are you sure they will remain in your locality forever? If they go to other places, they may become a factor of trouble. The churches in the United States and Taiwan do not like to have two lines and cannot take two lines.
Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem and had a good conference with the brothers. Then James gave the final word. James agreed that it was not right for those Judaizers to promote their way of circumcision. That had to be terminated. In this point James was right, but in his decision he took care of Moses, the synagogue, and the Sabbath. This was a compromising, but the main factor of the trouble got solved. After this decree was passed on to the churches, Acts 16:5 says, “So the churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in number daily.” Those churches were strengthened in their faith. We should realize and see that the different kinds of practices really weakened the saints. But after such a decree the believers were strengthened in the faith. The practice of circumcision weakened the believers’ faith in Christ. They probably doubted and wondered whether circumcision or the faith in Christ was right or whether they should have faith in two things — in the law of Moses and in the salvation of Christ. After this decree the saints were strengthened.
Acts 15:31 tells us that when the decree was read by the church in Antioch, “they rejoiced at the encouragement.” The saints in Antioch were bothered by this kind of different practice in the Lord’s church. They lost their joy and were suffering, so there are the two words rejoiced and encouragement. I want to let the brothers who are involved in this kind of trouble relating to another line, another practice, know that some saints got bothered and troubled and were much concerned that people would wonder which line they should take. We need to make a decision as a solution to be passed on to all the churches. Let the saints be strengthened. Let them rejoice. Let them be encouraged. I cannot tolerate the disease that has been spreading to weaken the Body. We need to make a solution to this problem.
The ones who are involved in the problems, whom I love to the uttermost, know that I have done my best. The Lord is going to have a new start, and I do not want to see any different practices brought into the new start. This is why I am so strong to say that if you do not agree with the fellowship in this book, please do not copy anything of what I am doing.
The apostle’s letter to the Colossians was to be read by the Laodiceans, and the letter to the Laodiceans was to be read by the Colossians (Col. 4:16). The local situations and conditions of these two places might have been different in some aspects. But the apostle says that the Colossians needed to pass the letter to them on to the Laodiceans and that the letter to the Laodiceans needed to be read by the Colossians. The Laodiceans could have said to Paul that the letter to the Colossians applied to the condition and situation in Colossae but not to their condition. They could have felt not to read Paul’s letter to Colossae but could have been happy to receive Paul’s letter to them. The Colossians could have said the same thing, that is, that they appreciated Paul’s writing to them but that they did not think his writing to the Laodiceans would fit into their local situation and condition.
To say that we do not like to reject the ministry but that we will have to pray to see how the Lord leads us sounds very spiritual, but this is the best cloak to cover the subtle dissension. With Paul’s charge to Colossae and Laodicea, however, there were no conditions or terms. Whatever Paul wrote was not only for a certain church or for two churches but for all the churches. We cannot tolerate anything contrary to this principle any longer.
The Gentile churches became imitators of the churches in Judea (1 Thes. 2:14a). To say that the church where you are should be different from the other churches is dissenting. To follow a Jewish church is not a glory in New Testament terms. It is not a glory to be Jewish, but Paul was so happy and encouraged that the church in Thessalonica took the lead to become an imitator of the churches in Judea. Suppose the churches in Brazil would imitate and follow the churches in the United States. Some may feel that this is wrong. They may feel that the churches in Brazil should remain different from the churches in the United States. In today’s blinded situation they may think that this is spiritual and that every local church is free to take the leading of the Spirit. This sounds very good, but it is actually subtly dissenting and a real poison.
I must declare that in the recovery of the Lord I know what I have been doing and teaching. I do not have any regrets, and I have never changed my tone. The only thing that I have been practicing is toleration upon toleration and patience upon patience. From all the verses that we have covered in this chapter, there is no hint left in the Bible that anyone can find to justify the erroneous teaching that the local churches could be different from one another. This teaching and practice is something subtle and does not have any base at all in the New Testament. The need in the Lord’s recovery today is for all the churches to be identical.
