Search
Scripture Reading: Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:32; Rom. 15:5-6; 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27; 2:2; 4:2; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:15; Rev. 1:4-5a
The one accord is the base, the ground, for our present practice in the Lord’s move. Anything that we do, teach, or practice must be absolutely according to the holy Word, which is God’s completed revelation. The very great, particular characteristic in the Lord’s recovery is to do everything according to the Bible. The matter of being in one accord in the New Testament occupies a very crucial stand for the Lord’s move.
Many Christians have seen that in the Lord’s move the biggest factor is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, who is the biggest factor in the Lord’s move in the New Testament today, after the Lord’s ascension, is the consummated Spirit, the consummation of the processed and consummated Triune God. The Spirit poured out from the heavens upon the believers in Acts was not merely the Spirit of God, as He was in Genesis 1:2, or merely the Holy Spirit, as He was in Matthew 1:18 and 20. In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God brooded over the condemned and judged earth. Through His brooding, the creation in God’s plan was brought in. In the Old Testament the Spirit was very much involved with God’s old creation.
In the New Testament there is the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 1 this Holy Spirit got involved with something deeper. The Holy Spirit was involved not in the outward, objective creation but in the inward, subjective incarnation. This incarnation was the Triune God conceived in a human being, and the very element to carry this out was the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not only the means to carry out the incarnation but also the element and essence. To have any conception there is the need of two basic elements with two basic essences. Without these two essences, no conception could be carried out. To carry out the divine conception of Jesus there was the need of two essences — the divine essence and the human essence. The divine essence was the Holy Spirit.
The Lord Jesus, who was God incarnate, lived on this earth for thirty-three and a half years and died on the cross to accomplish a full and eternal redemption by dying an all-inclusive death with seven statuses. Then He passed through the tomb and descended into Hades (Acts 2:27). He was resurrected out of death and Hades, and in resurrection He became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45b). In the evening on the day of His resurrection, He breathed Himself into His disciples for them to receive the Holy Breath, the Holy Spirit. By that time the very Triune God had been wrought into the disciples.
After His resurrection He stayed with the disciples for forty days, and then He met the disciples on a mountain, telling them that all authority had been given to Him in heaven and on earth. He charged them to go and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the Triune God — the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:16-19). By that time, after His resurrection and His breathing of the Spirit into the disciples, He could tell the disciples to baptize the nations into the name, into the completed person, of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
The name of the Triune God — the Father, the Son, and the Spirit — implies a lot. We should not merely know the Triune God by a term in Matthew 28:19. We have to realize the full implication of this all-inclusive title — the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It implies God’s incarnation, Jesus’ conception and birth. It implies Jesus’ human living on this earth and His all-inclusive death on the cross. It also includes His being in the tomb, in Hades, and in death, and His coming back to the earth through resurrection to become a life-giving Spirit. After this He ascended to the heavens, fully accomplishing the very process for the Triune God to go through to be the consummated Spirit. He then poured out this Spirit, and this Spirit poured out of the Triune God from the heavens became the strongest factor, on the Lord’s side, of His move on this earth.
On one side God’s move depends upon Himself as the consummated Spirit. He needs us on the other side so that there could be the possibility of accomplishment. If we do not render Him any kind of cooperation or give Him any kind of response, nothing can happen, regardless of how powerful, dynamic, and mighty the Holy Spirit of the Triune God is. God could do the work of creation by Himself but not the work of the new creation. The new creation work must be carried out in the principle of incarnation, the principle of God being one with man, making one entity out of two elements with no third element produced. The Holy Spirit is the power, the means, and the factor for God’s move on this earth, but that is just on one side. There is the need of another side, the human side. There is the need of another factor — the one accord.
If there had been no one accord on the earth in Acts 1, the powerful and dynamic Spirit could have never been poured out. There would have been no vessels to take Him, receive Him, contain Him, and express Him. Thus, the one accord is critical. It is a response to God’s doing, a coordination or cooperation offered to God for His move. The Lord’s move on God’s side depends upon the consummated Spirit and on our side depends upon the one accord. Before the pouring out of the Spirit, there was a group of people praying together with one accord (v. 14). That one accord was a preparation for them to receive the pouring out of the Spirit. After this pouring out, they remained and continued in this one accord along with the three thousand saved on the day of Pentecost (2:46). This one accord was the basic factor of the Lord’s move through the entire book of Acts.
Romans is a book on the principles of the Christian life and the church life, yet in 15:6 it charges us with the same thing — one accord. If there is no one accord, it is hard for the church to go on, and it is hard to have the church life. In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of the one accord again, telling the Corinthians to “speak the same thing” (1:10). In Philippians we are charged strongly and repeatedly that for the proper experience of Christ in the proper church life, the one accord surely is needed (1:27; 2:2; 4:2). The one accord means one mind and one will with one purpose, wrapped up with our soul and heart.
The matter of one accord controls the entire revelation concerning the Lord’s move on one side. If there were no Spirit on the Lord’s side, it would be impossible for the Lord to move on this earth at all. In the same principle, without the one accord on our side, God cannot move. We have to match God. He is now the consummated Spirit, and we have to say, “Lord, we are ready here as the very one accord. We want to not only render but are also ready to offer to You this one accord.” Immediately there is a kind of marriage, and a couple comes out. Then anything can be done.
If you expect to have one accord in any kind of society, group, or movement, you need the same kind of thinking that comes out of the same kind of knowledge. The Socialist party stresses socialism. Any political party has its own “ism.” They stress their “ism” in order to have a party, to have what we call the one accord. Without the one accord, no party could accomplish anything. Any society, group, or movement needs this one accord that comes out of the same kind of thought, the same kind of knowledge. Therefore, Acts tells us that, on the one hand, there was one accord among the disciples, and on the other hand, all those who were one in one accord were continuing in the teaching of the apostles (2:42). The teaching of the apostles was the very holding factor of the one accord. If there were more than one teaching, this would damage the holding factor.
Now let us look into the book of Acts, which is a record of the Lord’s people soon after His ascension. From the time that the Lord Jesus began His ministry in the heavens, His people acted on the earth. In the book of Acts there are two sections. Chapters 1 through 12 are the first section, and chapters 13 through 28 are the second section. In the first twelve chapters the Lord’s move with one accord was according to Peter’s teaching. At that time John was there also, but the teaching was not given through two persons. It was given through Peter. Even though John went with Peter and was with Peter much of the time, the mouthpiece was only one. There is no message recorded in Acts that was given by John. Acts 2:42 says, “They continued steadfastly in the teaching and the fellowship of the apostles.” In this verse apostles is plural, but we must realize that the mouthpiece in giving the teachings was one.
In the first section of Acts we see that Peter had his weaknesses and that he even made mistakes. Chapter 10 shows us that Peter was not that strong in God’s New Testament economy. He was still remaining, at least partially, in God’s Old Testament economy. When God showed him the unclean animals and told him to eat, Peter responded, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common and unclean” (v. 14). This response was something of God’s Old Testament economy. Although Peter was taught directly and personally by the Lord Jesus for three and a half years and was trained so much and used so much as the top speaker of God’s New Testament economy, he still remained in the old dispensation. This was his shortcoming and his weakness. Peter was greatly adjusted and corrected but not in full.
At the time of Galatians 2, Paul was a learner compared with Peter. Peter was a first generation apostle, and Paul was the second generation. While Peter was the top apostle, Paul as Saul of Tarsus was a young man persecuting the apostles, opposing the church, and trying to defeat the Lord’s move. Paul, a younger apostle, rebuked Peter to his face, pointing out Peter’s hypocrisy in remaining in the old dispensation (vv. 11-14). In Acts 10 Peter’s problem was concerning the matter of eating, and in Galatians 2 it was the same. When some Judaized believers came from James, a godly man always trying to compromise with the old economy of God, Peter took the lead to shrink back and separate himself from the Gentiles.
Before the men came down from James in Jerusalem, Peter, Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews were eating with the Gentiles because Peter had been adjusted by the Lord in Acts 10. Peter, though, took the lead to practice hypocrisy, and the rest of the Jews and Barnabas followed him. In Acts 10 Peter was short, but in Galatians 2 he was weak. To be short means that you do not have something. To be weak means that you have it, but you dare not keep it. As a result, Peter made a big mistake, nearly leading the entire church to go astray from God’s New Testament economy. In order to take care of the truth of the gospel, Paul did not tolerate the situation for one minute. Even though Peter was older than he, Paul rebuked him to his face. Peter made such a big mistake, though he was the mouthpiece in the first twelve chapters of Acts.
The Catholic teaching is that Peter was the successor of Christ, and as His successor, he could never have made a mistake. The Catholic Church also maintains that it could never be mistaken. Their people are taught to listen to the church, but what they mean by the church is the pope. Whatever the pope says means everything to them. They say that the pope cannot make a mistake. To them all the popes are successors of Peter, and Peter was the successor of Christ. Actually, the popes have made many mistakes. One great mistake was a decree saying that Mary, the so-called “holy mother,” the “mother of God,” was sinless! What a great mistake! My point is this — do not think that any leader could not make a mistake. Only the Lord Jesus, the unique Leader, never made any mistake. It is absolutely impossible for Him to be mistaken. However, all of us, including Peter, have made many mistakes.
In the last section of Acts all the churches acted and moved according to Paul’s teaching. When Paul began his ministry, he was the youngest one among the apostles. Barnabas was the brother who brought Paul into practical fellowship with the disciples in Jerusalem (9:26-27) and who brought Paul into the ministry (11:22, 25-26). Paul owed Barnabas so much. Barnabas was a “senior,” and Paul was a “junior.” Eventually, both of them were sent from Antioch (13:2-4), and by being sent they became the apostles, the sent ones (14:4). At the initiation of their apostolic ministry, Barnabas’s name was mentioned first (13:2, 7). At a certain point, however, Saul’s name was changed to Paul, and he began to speak (v. 9). From that time Paul took the lead in the apostolic ministry all the way.
Paul was following the lead of Barnabas, but at a certain point there was the need for someone to speak. Probably while Barnabas was wondering what to say, Paul rose up and spoke. From that time Paul went on to speak a lot, and he took over the leadership. They were sent again from Antioch by the church to Jerusalem to solve the problem of circumcision (15:2). After returning to Antioch and encouraging the saints with the solution to this problem, they prepared to go out on their second journey. Barnabas proposed to bring his cousin Mark, but Paul would not agree, and there was a contention between them (v. 39). Who would you agree with? Barnabas was older than Paul, more qualified and experienced, and the one who brought Paul into the fellowship and the ministry. Which opinion would you have taken? Surely we would have taken the opinion from the one who was older, more experienced, and from the one who brought the other into the ministry.
After this contention between Barnabas and Paul, they separated from each other, and Barnabas no longer appears in the divine record in Acts of the Lord’s move in God’s New Testament economy. What was the reason for Barnabas’s making such an issue? The reason was that Barnabas was the initiator of Paul. But at a certain point the divine revelation went to Paul. Barnabas did not have the portion of God’s revelation that Paul did. The older and more experienced Barnabas, though, wanted to propose something for their second journey, not based upon the revelation, the vision, but based upon probably some kind of natural relationship. Barnabas decided to separate from Paul. He was taking the lead. While they were on their journey, though, God’s revelation went to the younger one. Barnabas, the older one, probably still thought that he was taking the lead. If he were not assuming the leadership, he surely would have listened to Paul. Barnabas assumed at least a part of the leadership, if not in full.
Aquila and Priscilla were very much for the Lord, but when they came in, they came into the flow of the Lord’s move under the one leadership, the leadership of Paul. At the beginning of Acts 18 we can see this (vv. 1-4).
But at the end of the same chapter another one came in by the name of Apollos (vv. 24-28). Apollos was a man who had a lot of Bible knowledge and who was gifted in expounding the Bible. Many people received help from his teaching of the Bible. According to my study of the holy Word, this man never got into the flow that was going on through Paul’s teaching, so he was never under the one leadership of Paul. This was the reason some in Corinth were able to say, “I am of Apollos” (1 Cor. 3:4). A kind of competition and rivalry was there. If Apollos had gotten into the flow of the Lord’s move under Paul’s teaching and under Paul’s leadership, I do not think that anyone would have put him into a rivalry with Paul. Peter was in the leadership in the first section of the Acts, and Paul was in another leadership in the second section of Acts. But there is no hint in the Bible that Apollos had any leadership.
In 1 Corinthians Paul is humble. He says, “What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Ministers through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to each one of them. I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth” (3:5-6). His illustration, however, still shows that he is in the leadership because he tells us that he is a planter. A waterer is much less important than a planter. Without a planter, there is no plant. Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 3 that he was a wise master builder who had laid a unique foundation, which no one else was able to lay (vv. 10-11). Apollos could water, but he could not lay the foundation. He might do a lot of building work on this foundation. One thousand Apolloses could do this, but the foundation was unique and was laid by a unique leader — Paul as the wise master builder.
We have seen that the Greek word for master builder is architeckton, which really means “architect.” An architect is the one who gives the design and who superintends the building work. He is the real leader. Neither the contractor nor the foreman is the real leader. The architect is the one who directs, and his word is the word that counts. The Bible likens God’s move in this universe to a building. God is the very Builder, but he needs an architect. The one who takes the leadership in God’s move should be one who can give the design and do the superintending work to give the proper instructions. Regardless of how much humility Paul exercised in writing 1 Corinthians, he still stated the facts. He was a planter, and Apollos was not; and he was the unique wise architect who gave the design and who superintended the building work.
Paul’s leadership goes through the second section of Acts to the end of Hebrews. His leadership was altogether based upon his divine revelation because in the divine revelation the design can be seen. In other words, the divine revelation is the blueprint, the design. Regardless of how much Barnabas could do or Apollos could teach, they never put out a design, a blueprint. We cannot read one chapter of Barnabas’s or Apollos’s writings in the Bible. But Paul has fourteen Epistles in the Scriptures. His blueprint is perfect, completed, and finished in all details. We do not have another blueprint. If there were two blueprints and two designers in the building work, this would create trouble and confusion. Some would build, and others would tear down. While the building is going on, there would be fighting.
Paul’s leadership was based upon his divine revelation, which is the real design of God’s building. The designer’s instructions concerning the building are according to his blueprint. In the Lord’s move on this earth from Acts through Hebrews, there was one teaching and one leadership based upon this one teaching. In the first twelve chapters of Acts there was the teaching given by Peter, and the leadership was based upon his teaching. Thus, the leadership was with Peter. In the last sixteen chapters of Acts there was the teaching and the revelation of Paul, and the leadership was based upon his teaching. Thus, the leadership was with Paul.
In both of these leaderships, there was the practice of taking the word of the leadership. Paul told Timothy to go somewhere, and he went (1 Cor. 4:17). Paul told another one to stay in a certain place, and he stayed (Titus 1:5). Today’s practice is that the one taking the lead would not dare to say, “Brother So-and-so, go to that place.” Today’s leaders would not do this. Everybody pretends to be so spiritual.
A brother in the leadership may tell another brother, “In these days I have been very much with the Lord concerning your future. I feel that you need to go to the Lord and see what He will tell you concerning going to Greece.” Then the brother may respond that he is not clear, so he will go to the Lord and pray. Actually, this brother has already decided that he would never go to Greece. Greece was not his choice, but he was pretending to be very spiritual. He would not say that he did not like Greece. Instead, he would say, “I will bring this matter to the Lord. I will pray and seek the Lord’s leading.” Deep in his being, though, he has already made the decision not to go. He may wait for a whole week before he would let the brother who is taking the lead know what his decision is. When he comes back, he might say, “I have been praying desperately day after day, and I was made clear that the Lord does not want me to go to Greece.” This is very “spiritual.” The leader is “spiritual,” and the follower is “spiritual,” but there is no spirituality. Then who goes to Greece? Maybe only a brother who could not do anything would feel burdened to go. This is today’s poor situation.
From 1932 to 1949 in mainland China I had no thought about being in the leadership, and I never wanted to be a leader. In this matter of sending others, not only did others pretend to be spiritual, but I did also. I may have been so sure that a certain brother should go to Greece, but I did not want to be considered as a dictator or be misunderstood as being a pope who gives decrees to others. I may have said to a brother, “Do you realize that in Greece there is some need? Would you please pray about this and pray to the Lord to see if you are the right person to go?” Actually, within me, the brother I was talking to was the right person already. I confess that I was timid because I was quite concerned about being designated as a dictator or controller.
I can boast that no church in the United States has ever received a letter from me telling them what to do. The leading ones in the churches can testify this for me. Whenever the brothers came to me, I always told them to go back to the Lord and pray. Some have said that there is no need to go to Brother Lee because he always answers the same way — “Go to the Lord and pray.” Seemingly I was “spiritual,” yet there was some pretense.
I must confess that none among us, including me, dared to practice the truth in the genuineness of the proper way. In Acts and the Epistles Paul told Timothy and his other co-workers to go to certain places, to remain in other places, and to come to him (Acts 17:14-15; 19:22; Phil. 2:19, 25; Col. 4:7-8; 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:9, 11-12, 21; Titus 1:5; 3:12). He gave the orders. There was not one among his co-workers who received an order from him that would say, “Let me pray for a couple of days, and I will let you know.” Their practice was absolutely different from our present practice because they all honored the same leadership based upon the same divine revelation.
We have not practiced in this way because of the strong background and heavy surrounding of Christianity. On the one hand, control is practiced along with hierarchy, especially in Catholicism with the pope as the highest authority. Then there is the so-called “freedom,” which is actually a kind of scattering or dispersion. This kind of so-called freedom, which is actually a dispersion or scattering, is worse than controlling because it does more damage to the church, the Body of Christ. To some extent controlling is always hated. But the dispersion or scattering under the cloak of freedom is somewhat welcomed. In Protestantism both control and dispersion can be seen. A capable minister, a strong and knowledgeable teacher, might exercise control. Others would not go along with this kind of control. They want to stay in a kind of dispersed freedom.
The Lord raised up His recovery in mainland China in 1922 with Brother Nee, and I joined him in 1932. We two stayed and worked together for about eighteen years, from 1932 to 1949. He was an “umbrella” that I was under. No rain dropped upon me, and no arrows, no attacks, were directed at me. I saw how Brother Nee was attacked and how much he suffered. I also saw his intrinsic suffering. Many co-workers, responsible ones, and leaders, most of whom were not appointed by anyone but self-appointed, all claimed that they accepted Brother Nee’s ministry. Actually, if they had not accepted Brother Nee’s ministry, they would have had nothing to accept. His ministry was the unique ministry of the New Testament. If they had not accepted his ministry, they would have had to go to the teachings of the denominations, and they were tired of that. They claimed that they took Brother Nee’s teachings, that they received Brother Nee’s ministry, yet in actuality or in practicality none cared for Brother Nee. Everyone acted on his own for the recovery, receiving the one, unique ministry of Brother Nee. This was Brother Nee’s intrinsic suffering.
The recovery in mainland China from 1922 to 1949 was very prevailing in teaching, in the divine revelation, but not so prevailing in practice. As far as practice goes, it was rather weak. Shanghai and Chefoo were the only two churches that had over two hundred members. What has always been the factor that puts down the recovery? It is the lack of the one accord. The churches in mainland China accepted the same ministry and received the same kind of teaching, yet in practice they were all different. Some of them were proud of their difference to some extent. They received the teaching from the Brethren telling them that the local churches should be different. The Brethren taught this based upon the fact that the seven epistles to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 are all different. They did not see the light that the seven churches were different not in their testimony but in their degradation. The poor situation of the degraded churches was different, but the lampstands are identical.
Brother Nee stayed away from his ministry until the revival that started in Chefoo in 1940 was brought over to Shanghai in 1947. In 1948 a revival broke out in Shanghai, which laid the foundation for Brother Nee to come back. He came back, not on his own but through the change of the situation. Many repented. During the six years of Brother Nee’s absence, there was nothing in the recovery. Every place was nearly starved to death except for Chefoo where there was a revival. The entire recovery was in a famine. The dissenting ones realized that they had nothing, that they could do nothing, and that they could not go on.
In 1948 I went to visit Brother Nee’s hometown since I was invited by the church there. I spent three weeks with the church, and a revival was brought in. Many were baptized within this period of time. Brother Nee’s home was in a suburb. I made an appointment with him, asking him to give me and my two other co-workers a time with him after my stay with the church for three weeks. He was happy to give me this appointment.
About thirty to forty co-workers and leading ones from nearby cities were attending the meetings of the revival. After the last meeting I thought that they would all leave. When I came to the meeting place, though, many of them were lingering there and talking. I asked them why they were still there. They said smiling that they had heard I was going to have a time with Brother Nee. I told them that this time was for me and my two co-workers, but they insisted on joining our fellowship with Brother Nee. They told me that they had no way to talk to Brother Nee, so they were waiting for me to do something for them. They took me as a mediator for them to get access to Brother Nee. When I went to Brother Nee and told him their request, he said no. They still insisted and asked me to go back again to Brother Nee to tell him that they would not go and that they begged permission to join our fellowship.
Eventually, Brother Nee agreed to let them come to that fellowship. In his home there was a large living room with a big opening leading to the dining room. Brother Nee said that he would fellowship with us three and would also invite Brother K. H. Weigh from Hong Kong to join us. He said that he would fellowship with the four of us in the very inner corner of his living room. He asked me to tell the others who were begging for permission to fellowship with him to sit outside the living room far away in the dining room in a corner somewhat separated by a half partition. He wanted me to charge them not to go out to say a word after listening to what he said, and he said that they had to promise me this. He also wanted me to assure him that I would bear the responsibility for all of them in this matter. This shows you that Brother Nee stopped his function because of the different talk, the different speakings. I went back to the brothers with this charge, and they assured me that they would not say anything, so Brother Nee permitted them to come.
After the first morning of fellowship, a sister took the lead to say, “Brother Nee, since we heard this, why don’t we practice it?” Then I asked, “Why wouldn’t we practice this, Brother Nee?” Brother Nee looked at me and said that if these dear ones wanted to practice this, they would have to deliver themselves up, to hand themselves over, to the ministry. When everyone heard this, they said Amen. This was an indication that Brother Nee was very much troubled and bothered by the different talks. Everybody had the freedom to do whatever was right in his own eyes. Brother Nee was tired of this, so he told the co-workers and leading ones that if they wanted a new start, they would have to hand themselves over to the ministry. Otherwise, he would not take the lead or say anything to them.
We need to realize that if the one accord is absent, everything is gone. There was a time when the real one accord was among the eight hundred saints in my hometown of Chefoo. This issued in a revival there. This revival was brought over not in full but partially to Shanghai. When I went to Taiwan, I had learned from our past what was useful and what was not prevailing. I dropped what was not useful or prevailing, and we had a marvelous beginning in Taiwan. Anyone who was there in those first six years can testify of the one accord, the morale, and the impact. Within this period of time our number increased from about four hundred to forty thousand, a hundredfold increase. Ninety percent of the new believers among us did not turn this way from Christianity but were typical Gentiles. The impact was with us.
Then the thought and the seeking after so-called spirituality came in among the leading ones. As a result, Brother T. Austin-Sparks was invited to come, and that brought in the beginning of the dissension. Since that time the one accord never came back to Taiwan. The intrinsic reason that I left Taiwan and came to this country was this matter. About ten young co-workers, some of whom were brought to the Lord and trained by me, were influenced by T. Austin-Sparks’s concept to tear down, to overthrow, the church ground. They became dissenting to my teaching, and this made the situation in Taiwan no longer pleasant to me. Once a wife commits fornication, the marriage can be recovered, but the pleasant feeling is gone. There is no sweetness in the marriage. That was my feeling.
After I came to the United States, in the first ten years in Los Angeles there was the morale. About 1970, though, some came in with ambition. This brought in a real damage. Because of this, the one accord was lost among us in the United States. Even up to today the one accord has not come back.
By October of 1984 I was clear about the situation of the Lord’s recovery in the United States and even more clear about the situation on the island of Taiwan. I felt led by the Lord to go back to the source of the Lord’s recovery outside of the mainland of China and to clear up that sulphur source. When I went there, I made it clear that we had to drop all our old practices and that we had to have a new start.
The Lord did something in Taiwan, and the news came to the United States. While I was doing something in Taiwan for the Lord’s recovery, I had no intention to spread or push it in the United States. My thought was to first raise up a model in Taiwan. Then we would have something as a base and as a pattern to follow. Because today the globe is so small, some brothers went to Taiwan, and the news came back to the United States. Many of the churches, especially in Orange County, California, began to do the same thing. According to my observation, that was merely a kind of copying. I knew that to merely copy something would not work, so this caused me great concern. The source of the Lord’s blessing in His move is the matter of being in one accord.
I hope that you would take care of the following fellowship because it is very, very crucial. I feel led to practice the Lord’s up-to-date move by dropping all our practices in the past. We have to reconsider our way to go on in the Lord’s recovery, and we must have a new start. We could not have any new vision, new revelation, new teaching. The earth was made by God, and no one can change it. But the way to travel around the globe should be improved again and again. Man has improved from walking to the use of wheels, from the mule wagon to the train and automobile, and from the single engine airplane to the 747. In like manner, we have to improve the way to carry out the Lord’s recovery. The way we had was too old. It was like traveling from the East Coast to the West Coast by mule wagon. This old practice should not be here today. What we need first in this new practice is to recover the one accord.
Your being a local church does not depend upon whether or not you take this new way. This is not a movement, and this is not a term or condition for a church to be recognized as a local church. Whether or not you take this way, as long as you are standing on the church ground, recognizing not only your church but also all the other churches in the recovery as local churches, you are a local church. If a local church did not take this new way and we stopped recognizing it as a local church, this would be sectarian. This is not the practice of the Lord’s recovery with the all-inclusive church life. In the Lord’s recovery, as the all-inclusive church, we do not cut off anyone. When I was in the church in Los Angeles, we never cut off anyone who spoke in tongues. We do not cut off any believers in the practice of the all-inclusive church life.
However, for the Lord’s move to have an impact, we need the recovery of the one accord. To be citizens of the United States is one thing, but for these citizens to be formed into an army to fight the battle for the United States is another thing. This does not mean that if you are not in the army, you are no longer a United States citizen. You are still a citizen, but you are not fighting for the country. In the Old Testament there was a judge whose name was Gideon, and he took only three hundred to form an army to fight the battle. The Lord even told him not to have too many (Judg. 7:3-7). We are not burdened to stir up a kind of movement. What we are burdened to do is to sound a trumpet, letting the children of God know what the Lord is doing today. The Lord is calling His dear saints, the ones who would be willing to be brought back to the one accord, to fight the battle.
What should we do? Everyone who would take this new way must be a full-timer. Full-timers are of two kinds — job-dropping full-timers and money-making full-timers. All must be full-timers. Either you drop your job to preach, to teach, to visit people, and to work for the church full time, or you remain in your job to make money for the Lord’s move. Even if you earn two million dollars a year, you should not spend more than what is required for the need of your actual living. Suppose that you and your family only need two thousand five hundred dollars a month, or thirty thousand dollars a year, for your proper, actual living expenses. Then you should only spend that much and give the rest to the Lord’s move. This is not a regulation, and no one would regulate you. With your pure conscience and the indwelling Spirit you should regulate yourself to be a money-making full-timer. Even a mother of six children has to be a full-timer. She must do her best to help her husband, to take care of the family, to make more money, and to spend every cent besides the needs of her family for the Lord’s recovery.
All those who take this call to be full-timers have to learn how to be in one accord. This one accord could only come into being under the one leadership, and the one, unique leadership is altogether based upon the unique teaching, the divine revelation. We must admit according to the biblical truth that God is one, the Lord is one, the Spirit is one, and Christ’s Body is one, which means that the church is one universally and that the testimony is one. Also, the work of the Lord is one, the teaching is one, and the leadership is one. Based upon all these “ones,” we surely have the one accord.
Whoever feels burdened and willing to take this new way — let us go on together. I want to stir up myself, and I want to stir up all of you. Wake up! Sleepers, rise up (Eph. 5:14)! Let us go the way of “ones” — one God, one Lord, one Spirit, one Christ, one Body, one church, one testimony, one work, one teaching, one leadership, and the one accord. Do not push others to go this way. Just go this way according to your burden by yourself.
I am prepared to meet a situation in which some in the Lord’s recovery will not go this way. This will not surprise me. You and I should not consider these ones as strangers and should not cut them off from the recovery. We should still love them, respect them, and not despise them a bit. Do not consider them as another kind of people. Although they have not joined the army, they are still proper citizens.
To those who would not take this way, I would give a word of love, advice, and warning. Do not criticize, do not attack, and do not oppose. If you do, you will suffer the loss. This would mean that you would betray the recovery. You would become a betrayer, a traitor. Some may feel that they are not betrayers or traitors but protectors. According to their concept, they do not want to see that I am the unique leader to control the entire recovery. This is a very good cloak for them to put on. I have been with the recovery for fifty-five years, since 1932. In all these years I have not controlled anyone. I do not have the intention to control anyone or to exercise any control, but we need a proper leadership.
If anyone of you could rise up to render the Lord’s recovery the proper leadership, I would be the first to follow you, to take your leadership. But what kind of direction can you give us? How much truth do you know? Could you open up the entire New Testament from Matthew to Revelation in a detailed way to bring the churches into the depths of God’s New Testament economy? If I am boasting, I am forced to be a fool like the apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:11).
There is no hint in the New Testament telling us that in the Lord’s move there could or should be more than one leadership. No one can deny this truth. Even the devil, Satan, has to admit that two plus two is four. If you are going to express your opinion, you must annul the truth that I put out. Do not express your opinion; express your knowledge of the truth. We all need to take the revelation in the holy Word and according to the pure Word. Do not twist the Word, but cut straight the word of the truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Paul charged Timothy to cut the word as a carpenter in carpentry. Do not cut the word in a crooked way with some biases. Do not fight, oppose, attack, or criticize anything that is according to the divine truth. You must first go to the Word. You also must study a person’s background, his history, his doings, and his teachings to discern his qualifications for taking the lead. My point is this — since the revelation is here, the teaching is here, the leadership must be here. But the tragedy among today’s Christians is that they only like to take the teaching, not the leadership. Sometimes they even would give up the teaching.
In 2 Timothy 1:15 Paul says, “All who are in Asia turned away from me.” Asia was a province of the Roman Empire in Asia Minor, far away from Rome where Paul, who was in prison, was writing his Epistle to Timothy. When Paul said that all who were in Asia turned away from him, this does not indicate that they turned away from the person of Paul, because the person of Paul was far away from them. This verse indicates that they all turned away from Paul’s ministry. Among the churches in Asia was the church in Ephesus, which was fully established by Paul’s ministry as recorded in Acts 19. They received the gospel, the teaching, the edification, and the establishment from the ministry of the apostle Paul. But by the time Paul was imprisoned in Rome, they had all turned away from his ministry.
Paul’s second Epistle to Timothy was written about A.D. 67. About thirty years later, the Lord used John to continue His divine revelation. The Lord came back to all the churches in Asia who had turned away from Paul. Because they turned away from Paul’s ministry, the churches in Asia declined into a situation full of degradation. The degradation of the churches in Asia as recorded in Revelation 2 and 3 was due to their turning away from the proper ministry. This degradation began with their losing of the first love toward the Lord, which transpired at Ephesus (2:4), and ended with lukewarmness (3:16), Christlessness. The Lord as the Head of the church is standing outside the degraded church, knocking at her door (v. 20).
In these seven epistles in Revelation 2 and 3, the striking point of the churches’ degradation was three kinds of teachings: the teaching of Balaam, a Gentile prophet (2:14); the teaching of the Nicolaitans to build the hierarchy (v. 15); and the teaching of the woman, the so-called prophetess, Jezebel, full of heresies and fornication (v. 20). These three kinds of teachings crept in because the churches left the teaching of the apostle. Why has Christianity become degraded? Because they turned away from the apostle’s teaching. Thus, all the different teachings came in.
In 1 Timothy 1:3 and 6:3 Paul warns not to teach differently. The saints should teach according to Paul’s teaching. Those in Asia definitely turned away from Paul’s teaching, and the result of this turning away was that they received three kinds of heretical teachings. The teaching of Balaam to worship the idols, the teaching of the Nicolaitans to build up the hierarchy, even the papal system, and the teaching of Jezebel to bring the leaven of evil, heretical, and pagan things into the fine flour of Christ (Matt. 13:33) came in because the proper teaching was rejected. Within thirty years after Paul’s final Epistle to Timothy, these churches had reached such a point of degradation. It is dangerous to leave or turn away from the apostle’s teaching, from the apostle’s proper revelation.
The Lord came in these seven epistles to judge those degraded churches. His eyes were like a flame of fire (Rev. 1:14) to observe, search, and enlighten, and out of His mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword (v. 16), which is His discerning, judging, and slaying word (Heb. 4:12; Eph. 6:17). They turned away from the right word, so the Lord came with this word to judge them. The Lord’s feet were like shining bronze, as having been fired in a furnace (Rev. 1:15). Bronze signifies divine judgment (Exo. 27:1-6). The Lord’s coming to the churches in such a way fit in with their turning away from the apostle’s teaching and their picking up of different teachings.
One church was unique, and was highly appraised by the Lord — the church in Philadelphia. The Lord highly appraised them and even appreciated them because they kept the word (Rev. 3:8). This means that they did not turn away from the apostle’s proper teaching. Although they were weak, the Lord still appraised them highly, telling them that they had a little power and that they had kept His word.
To turn away from the proper teaching is a terrible thing that will result in degradation and in picking up other teachings. I say this as a warning to those dear ones who would not take the new way. To reject the proper revelation, the proper teaching, of the leaders among you is a dangerous thing. You will open the door for other teachings to come in and suffer degradation. I hope that all the church people in the recovery would not be followers of those in Asia who turned away from Paul’s ministry. Rather, I hope that we would follow the pattern of the church in Philadelphia — keeping the Lord’s word even though we only have a little strength. Let us keep the word of the Lord, which is to remain in the teachings of the apostle, to remain in the healthy words, to remain in the unique revelation from the Lord with the proper leadership. Then we are safe.
