Search
Recently, a brother from Hong Kong came to Taiwan to have fellowship with us. He wants to carry out a students’ work in Taiwan. Because this matter has involved a number of brothers, we feel that we should have serious fellowship with all the churches concerning the ground of the church and our attitude toward the work. We have written to the responsible brothers in the church in Hong Kong and also want to have thorough fellowship with all of you.
This brother came to Taiwan and told us that he is associated with an American group involved in a students’ work. He considers that the work of many groups among students is too superficial, lacks a foundation, and does not bear a strong testimony. He believes that this is the reason they are unable to fulfill the Lord’s desire. He feels that if we were able to raise up a “students’ fellowship” among the college students, it could bear a strong testimony for the Lord. Moreover, it would be the best students’ work. When he speaks of raising up a students’ fellowship, he is seeking our support in contacting and gaining students. He also said that the person who carries out this work needs to be genuinely one with the Lord and able to gather these students into an independent group not affiliated with any denomination.
In order for this matter to be accomplished in the Far East, he feels that it needs to be carried out in cooperation with those in the local church. According to his observation, in order to have a college work that is effective and that meets God’s requirement, the leading role would surely need to be taken by the saints in the local church. He feels that if the saints in the local church do not join in this work, it cannot be carried out in a solid way. According to his feeling, we are closest to God’s will, and he wants to do a work similar to ours. Therefore, he is very desirous to fellowship with us. I cannot repeat what he said word for word, but this is the essence of his words with me.
When he finished speaking, I asked him if he had spoken with other Christian groups regarding this matter and whether or not he was willing to work in alliance with them. He said that the burden and commission he senses is to work among the college students in alliance with Christians in general. Then he asked me how I felt concerning his burden and if the brothers would think that his work is wrong. This is the main purpose of his fellowship with me.
Today the matter of the church’s expression on earth is very complicated and difficult to make clear; hence, I shared only a few points with him.
First, I told him that according to the revelation in the Scriptures, the proper expression of the church, which God desires to gain in this age and in every place, is entirely different from the present condition of Christianity. In other words, the condition of Christianity is altogether not according to God’s intention. According to the biblical revelation, there is and can be only one expression of the church in each locality. This unique expression within a locality is the representation in that locality of the one universal church, and its purpose is to carry out the proper function of the Body of Christ. However, today the condition of Christianity is absolutely not according to God’s intention. Hence, we truly hope that we will be able to accomplish this matter for the Lord.
Second, we feel that God raised us up in the Far East, especially among the Chinese-speaking population, for the purpose of gaining the expression of the church that He desires. When we say this word, we are cautious and fearful, because we deeply sense that in uttering such a word, we may seem to be proud. Actually, we realize that we are so small and unworthy that we hardly dare to say such a word; nevertheless, based upon the desire in our heart and the truth, we feel that we must speak this word.
Third, because we have this feeling, for the past thirty years we have been in fear and trembling lest we neglect God’s intention. For this reason, although there are many things that other people like to do and have the boldness to do, we dare not do them. This is not due to a desire to show that we are different but because of a forbidding, fear, and uneasiness within us that causes us to be unable to adopt the same attitudes and actions as others. On our part, we should never care simply for doing things properly, while ignoring whether or not God even desires these things.
Fourth, in these years we have encountered one thing that strongly provokes us; that is, many in Christianity, including the so-called orthodox ones and those who are zealous for the gospel, focus on promoting alliances and cooperation among believers. In order to obtain these alliances and cooperation, they sacrifice the Lord’s truth and authority. Regarding this kind of action, we inwardly disagree and cannot praise these so-called alliances and cooperation. We do not value this kind of alliance and cooperation; we would rather sacrifice this kind of alliance and cooperation in order to maintain the testimony for which the Lord wants us to stand. It seems that when we say this, we are professing to be different and higher than others. Nevertheless, we have no alternative. It is not at all our intention to profess to be different or higher than others.
Fifth, we feel that what we are doing is not only for ourselves but for all Christians, for the entire Body of Christ. We deeply realize that in this age God needs some to take the lead to follow Him with all their heart so that He can present a testimony that is pure and of a high standard. We dare not say that we are able to do such a thing, but we truly feel that this burden is upon us, constraining us to carry it out. Whether or not we can accomplish this matter depends upon God’s mercy to us and whether we are faithful to Him.
Sixth, we are quite provoked by the past history and present condition of Christianity. Therefore, it is difficult for us to trust the works and activities of Christianity as well as the organization of its groups. The history of Christianity and the existing practices in Christianity cause us to lose faith in this kind of alliance. Although a good number of its works and activities, as well as the organization of its groups, may appear to be good and pure, if we investigate them further and look at them from other angles, we will see that these works and activities still involve a number of impure factors. As a result, because we believe that the Lord raised us up for the purpose of maintaining a high standard for His testimony, we should not be involved with such impure factors and lower the Lord’s standard.
Seventh, due to the above reasons we do not encourage the brothers and sisters to participate in any work or activity in Christianity or to be involved with any organized Christian group.
Eighth, we confess that our Lord is great and that He is sovereign. Under His sovereignty He can use many saints who have a ground that is different from ours to do a good work for Him. We acknowledge that the Lord uses many, even those in the Catholic Church. This fact is clearly proven by history, and no one can deny it. Even though we strongly criticize the Catholic Church, we do not deny what history has proven. The Lord is so great that even Nebuchadnezzar, a king of Babylon who greatly opposed Him, was His servant and was used by Him.
As those used by the Lord, we need to consider what category we are in. Not all whom the Lord uses are pleasing to Him, and not all their works are according to His will. Nevertheless, they are under the Lord’s sovereignty for His interest. Hence, although we do not approve of or encourage the brothers’ and sisters’ participation in any work or activity in Christianity or their involvement with any organized Christian group, we do not oppose these groups, because we are afraid that we will damage or hinder the sovereign work that God is doing for Himself.
Ninth, the brothers’ and sisters’ attitude toward the work and activity in Christianity, as well as its organized groups, is a matter that we leave entirely up to the brothers and sisters and the leading that they receive from the Lord. We do not approve, encourage, or interfere. We cannot and do not want to control anything.
Moreover, the main reason that we do not want to have any part in the work and activity of Christianity and its organized groups is that we fear to have improper involvement. Almost all the work and activity of Christianity and its organized groups are directly or indirectly connected to other matters. Incredibly, these matters have attracted many people, causing them to ignore the potential spiritual outcomes. This is what we cannot accept.
What we pay attention to is the intention in God’s heart, that is, the church — not only in its universal aspect but also in its local aspect. Hence, we emphasize the ground and consider that it is a necessary starting point for all our work. The local ground of the church presents people with a great and high demand. We deeply sense that we should maintain God’s high standard and not let anything lower this standard. There are many works, activities, and organizations in Christianity that we cannot participate in because we need to maintain a high standard.
After I spoke with the brother from Hong Kong, he said that it is good that we have such a principle, because it prevents our work from falling into error, becoming extreme, or producing a way that seeks only a result and does not care for the original purpose and desire of the work. However, he also told us that if we were willing to adjust our principle just a little in order to take part in his students’ work, we would surely obtain a good result. At this point I was clear within that we did not need to talk further.
This conversation caused me to have a deep realization that many who zealously love the Lord pay too much attention to work and not enough attention to spiritual reality. Even those who have much spiritual knowledge and who help people to be spiritual share this fault. It is pitiful that there is hardly anyone who wholeheartedly takes care of the Lord’s testimony. Nevertheless, the Lord has had mercy on us to raise us up for the sake of His testimony, not for the sake of a work.
I spoke for two hours with this brother on the morning of April 22. What I shared earlier is only a summary of that conversation. After my fellowship with him I discovered that he had already spent four hours the previous day talking about his students’ work with a brother who is a professor at National Taiwan University. His hope was that this brother would cooperate with him in this matter. After speaking with me, he also had a long talk with a brother co-working among us who has recently returned from the United States. The words he spoke with these two brothers in his contact with them required that I have open fellowship with him in order to clarify the entire situation. Therefore, I immediately requested that someone contact him and ask him to meet with me so that I could clarify this matter with him in a thorough way.
When he met with me the second time, I restated my former fellowship with him, telling him that the previous day I had shared with him that we do not encourage the brothers and sisters to participate in the work or activity of Christianity or any organized Christian group. I stated even more clearly that we do not believe that those things are right. Even though we do not think that they are right, we acknowledge the Lord’s sovereignty, and we do not want to interfere with or oppose these works. He did not disagree regarding this matter.
Then I continued to speak concerning our ground, saying that people in Protestantism, especially the missionaries, seem to have an unfair view. In their view Catholicism should be forsaken and isolated, but Protestantism should not be forsaken or isolated. However, we do not recognize the Catholic Church, and neither do we recognize the Protestant churches. In principle, according to our view, the Protestant churches are no different than the Catholic Church. Although they differ in degree, they are the same in principle. Therefore, in terms of principle, just as we do not want to have any part in Catholicism, we also do not want to have any part in Protestantism.
Today people in Protestantism do not want and will not have a part in Catholicism, but they blame us for not having a part in Protestantism. If people in Protestantism blame us for not participating in or uniting with Protestantism, we must ask them why they refuse to participate in or unite with Catholicism. It is the same in principle. The reason they do not participate in or unite with Catholicism is the very reason that we do not participate in or unite with Protestantism. We cannot do anything in regard to Catholicism, and we also cannot do anything in regard to Protestantism.
In conclusion, we should not interfere or debate over such matters. We can only humble ourselves willingly and walk before the Lord according to the calling and the commission that we have received in regard to the testimony that we feel the Lord wants us to bear. We do not want to interfere with others or intervene in their work; likewise, we hope that others will not interfere with us or intervene in our work.
My words caused this brother to speak many inaccurate things, using the same condemning words spoken concerning us by Western missionaries. His attitude and spirit were good, but the words he used were inaccurate. He said, “Are you the only church, and is no one else the church? Are you the best, and does no one else compare to you? If we fellowship with you, must we sever our ties with others?” I replied, “Your words make me feel that either my earlier speaking was not clear or that your understanding was not clear.” Hence, I needed to clarify a little more.
I explained to him that we have never said that only we are the church. Such words are naive and immature. However, we testify that only we are standing on the ground of the church. Then this brother asked, “What is the ground of the church?” He asked this question not because he had doubts concerning the ground or other intentions but because the ground was difficult for him to understand. I could tell that he was seeking understanding, so I gave him an explanation: “The church is universally one, but her local expressions are many. Nevertheless, there should be only one expression in each locality. The ground of this local expression is what we mean by the ground of the church.”
He still did not understand, so I explained by using a type in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament God redeemed the children of Israel to be His people. Moreover, He ordained that as His people they needed to meet in Jerusalem in the land of Canaan, a place that He had chosen as the dwelling place for His name. However, one day His people were taken captive to Babylon and lost the ground of God’s people, that is, the ground of Jerusalem. Once they left Jerusalem and were taken captive to Babylon, they lost the ground. Although they were still God’s people, they were not able to stand on the ground of God’s people. Only Jerusalem was the place, the ground, upon which they as God’s people could properly stand.
In the same principle, the church is universally one, but her expression is local. Just as Jerusalem was the proper ground for the Jews, locality is the proper ground for the church. Although the children of Israel were taken captive to Babylon and lost the proper ground, it did not mean that they were no longer Jews. They were taken captive and lost the ground of God’s people, but they did not lose their status as God’s people. To say that the Jews in Babylon were not God’s people would be immature, and those who believe in this kind of speaking are too naive. The Jews lost the ground, but they were still God’s people. They were still Jews.
When the seventy years of their captivity were fulfilled, some of the Jews might have said, “We are God’s people, so we should be in the place God ordained for us, that is, Jerusalem. It is wrong for God’s people to be in Babylon; we should go back to Jerusalem.” However, others among them might have said, “It is not necessary to do this. Since we are already God’s people, it does not matter whether we are in Babylon or in Jerusalem; all that matters is that we live before God.” This is to not care whether God’s people are in Babylon or Jerusalem. In New Testament terms, this can be compared to caring for being full of Christ but not caring for the ground. It is as if the only thing that matters is whether God’s people live in His presence. In other words, it does not matter whether the ground is right or wrong; all that matters is the presence of Christ and having some degree of spirituality.
Then I asked the brother, “Is it possible to justify such an attitude? Can you say that this is right?” He replied, “I have seen many brothers and sisters in many different groups living for the Lord fervently, serving the Lord wholeheartedly, and endeavoring to keep the Lord’s word. Can we say that they are wrong? Why can we not join them?” Our desire was to help this brother see that even if someone is as spiritual as Daniel, he still may have a problem in regard to the ground.
Perhaps some may say, “Daniel was so spiritual, yet he remained in Babylon. Why then do we need to go back to Jerusalem?” I do not believe that anyone can take spirituality as a cover or excuse. The fact that Daniel remained in Babylon was something of God’s sovereign arrangement for the interest of God’s people; moreover, when he was in Babylon, he prayed three times a day toward Jerusalem, praying desperately for God’s people to return to Jerusalem. This indicates that he also longed to return.
Some people have said, “Those who have returned to Jerusalem, that is, to the ground of the church, are not that spiritual or strong.” We absolutely acknowledge this. In the days of the return from the Babylonian captivity, the spiritual condition of those who went back to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel was very improper. Some married Gentile women, some were not in one accord, and some were timid. All these conditions were discouraging. Nevertheless, although their condition was poor, the ground they stood upon was right. They were in Jerusalem. Therefore, God could still deal with them and bless them.
Although the condition of Daniel was good, we cannot say that the ground he stood on was right or that he should have stood there. He was not in Jerusalem but in Babylon, a ground God opposed and cursed. This shows clearly that spiritual condition and the ground are two entirely different matters. It is possible to have one and not the other. God’s intention is that we pay attention to both our condition and the ground.
Let us consider several people. The first example is Madame Guyon. I am afraid that hardly anyone among us loves the Lord more and has a greater measure of Christ than Madame Guyon. However, we cannot acknowledge that she stood on the proper ground. She was in the Catholic Church, on a ground that we oppose. Her case clearly shows that while a believer may be very spiritual, he may be on an improper ground. He may be right in his spirituality, but the ground on which he stands may be absolutely improper. Hence, we need to completely separate the matter of the ground from that of a believer’s condition. The second example is Andrew Murray. Many people throughout the years have said that he was very spiritual; nevertheless, he was still in organized Christianity.
At this point the brother from Hong Kong asked whether or not there was a church in Andrew Murray’s time. After I had spoken so much, he still asked such a silly question. In response, I stressed that the church existed, but it had lost the proper ground. Hence, it is not a question of whether there was a church but of whether there was the proper ground of the church. Madame Guyon had a strong and influential role in the church, but we must acknowledge that she did not stand on the ground of the church. She stood on the ground of the Roman Catholic Church, not on the proper ground of the church. In the same way, Andrew Murray was also a strong and influential saint, but he was in organized Christianity. His ground was organized Christianity, not the genuine church. He was not on the proper ground of the church. He was part of the church, but he did not stand on the ground of the church.
I then used the example of Dr. F. B. Meyer. He was renowned in recent church history, and even T. Austin-Sparks greatly commended him, yet he too was still in organized Christianity. It can be said that his spiritual condition was very proper, but the ground of the church on which he stood was absolutely wrong.
We should not ask people what they are but where they are. We are not saying that spirituality is unimportant. We confess that it is basic and important, but merely having this is inadequate. Rather than asking, “What are you?” we need to ask, “Where are you?” Let me use another illustration. A member of a family should live at home. If he goes anywhere else, whether to a place where he feeds hogs and eats carob pods or to a grand and luxurious palace, it is the wrong place. It is insufficient to be merely a member of a family; a member should also live at home.
The matter that I discussed with our dear brother is not a question of who we are but of where we are. It was not a question of whether we are the church but of what ground we are on. Are we on the ground of the Catholic Church or of the Protestant churches? Are we on the ground of the various denominations or on the ground of the church? In the case of the children of Israel, it was not a question of whether they were God’s people but of where they were. Were they in Babylon or Jerusalem? Were they in the wilderness of Arabia or in the land of Assyria or Samaria? I deeply sense that among those who stood up to speak for God in the past several centuries, too many knew only who they were. Hardly anyone who has stood up to speak for God has genuinely asked this one question on God’s behalf: “Where are you?”
Since the Lord has been merciful to us and led us into His recovery, we should always focus on this central question: “Where are we?” Throughout the ages God has recovered much, but there is still one matter that has yet to be recovered, that is, the matter of “Where are you?” The recovery of this matter began among us almost thirty years ago. Nevertheless, we must continue to ask, “Where are we?” It is not sufficient merely to do things correctly. We will be right only when we are in the proper place. Sadly, until today, those who are saved by God focus only on what they are, but they neglect, or even greatly oppose, the matter of the ground. Some who have much spiritual knowledge strongly oppose, blame, and condemn us concerning this matter. This is most grievous to our heart.
A subtle scheme of the enemy is to undermine the recovery through men who are very spiritual. This scheme of Satan is able to come in through almost anyone. No one is so spiritual that he cannot be used by Satan to damage the recovery. He is able to use any spiritual matter or any matter of faith as a covering. Today, at this critical juncture, we need to consider this matter clearly and carefully.
Although what we have encountered and heard may cause us to feel troubled, we cannot let ourselves be easily shaken. In the past thirty years we have paid a great price and suffered innumerable attacks. We have been slandered and reproached many times because of our desire to maintain the ground of the church.
We feel that we should not only refuse to accept any kind of erroneous influence; much more, we should even rise up and cry out concerning this matter. We should devote our whole being to this task until we go to be with the Lord. I have no desire to speak on any other topic than the ground of the church. The truth concerning the cross has been recovered and adequately preached, and the truth concerning resurrection has also been clearly and sufficiently preached. However, the matter of the ground of the church has not been adequately preached. What God is doing is practical and complete. Brother T. Austin-Sparks once said that since God was unable to get what He was after in the West, He came to the East. I truly say Amen and hope that Brother Austin-Sparks will also apply this principle to the matter of the ground of the church.
God raised up some people in the West who are willing to take the way of recovery; however, over the past six months the matter of the ground has been damaged by much action, work, and speaking. As a result, people in the West avoid speaking of this matter and consider it a shame to do so. If someone were to ask about it, he would be regarded as being the same as the Brethren. My point is that God has had no way in the West. As a result, He was merciful to us by coming to the East. For this reason, in the past thirty years it seems that we have not cared for any other matter. At the time of Martin Luther it seemed that he did not care about any matter other than justification by faith; however, we know that this is not true and that he did care about other matters. However, the reason people have an inaccurate impression is that Martin Luther emphasized the main point that God was recovering through him. Perhaps he could have discarded all other points, but God would not let him discard this one point.
Regarding the negative reactions to the matter of the ground of church, we should have some understanding and be watchful. In spiritual warfare the enemy continually attacks the place where there has been a “military deployment.” In the past thirty years people have not opposed us for the gospel. In the East the gospel preached in many places is based upon our gospel. Most are preaching the gospel that we have preached. Neither are we wrong in regard to the truth. Just as we boast of the gospel, we also boast concerning the many truths that have been revealed through us. We are not wrong in edifying the saints with the truth. Many Christians believe that we have drawn away the seeking ones from the denominations. Actually, we have made seeking ones out of those who formerly were not seeking. In addition, we have not received any financial support from other groups. Even if we have, it has been an insignificant amount. For the past thirty years we have been attacked fiercely, being accused and forsaken by other Christians. All this friction is due to the fact that we stand firmly on the ground of the church. In the past thirty years this has been the very item that the enemy has constantly sought to defeat. We are determined to guard this truth. We must guard it. Moreover, if the Lord is merciful to us, we need to further strengthen this matter.
I told the brother from Hong Kong that when I began to serve the Lord over thirty years ago, I had doubts concerning Christianity. I saw in the Bible that the condition of Christianity was altogether improper. I also saw that the ground of Christianity was improper. The improper condition is an outward matter, but the improper ground is a deeper matter. Actually, it is the source of almost every problem in Christianity. The confusion and errors of Christianity are mostly due to the improper ground. For example, the church has become very worldly and very much according to the human will. Although this is a matter of condition, the condition is the result of an improper ground. The proper ground of the church is locality. If the believers all kept the ground of locality, the many denominations that exist today would no longer exist or be produced. The ground of locality requires that the believers pay the highest price, the price of being dealt with in their flesh and in their natural life.
Today there are many Christian groups because people are not willing to be restricted by locality. Many groups have appealing names, but these are only an expression of man’s desire. It may seem that these groups are only declaring that they love the Lord, are zealous for the Lord, preach the gospel, and are accomplishing a certain work. However, their organization becomes a support and a symbol of man acting according to his own will. If everyone saw that the expression of the church should be local and that it must be restricted by the local ground, all these groups would no longer exist. As a result, people would no longer only consider what satisfies their own desire but would act and walk in a proper way for the keeping of the oneness of the church.
I said this to the brother to show him that regardless of how proper his motive or how good his college work might be, he should not establish a students’ fellowship apart from the church. If his intention is to establish a students’ fellowship, he is intentionally seeking a kind of self-expression. To do so would indicate that he has not seen the ground of the church. If he saw the ground of the church, he would not dare to establish a students’ fellowship apart from such a ground.
A believer who has truly seen the ground and is willing to be restricted by this ground would never dare to do such a thing. Satan’s goal today is to annul the ground of locality in order to give people absolute freedom of action as a pretext to establish denominations. The only thing that can nullify this is the ground of the church. Once we speak concerning the ground of locality, no one has an excuse for doing whatever he desires. The ground of locality is a great restriction to our flesh, our private intentions, and our natural man.
Furthermore, I told the brother that our Lord’s table is absolutely open. We do not refuse any saved one who wants to break bread with us — regardless of his background, the ground he stands on, or his current involvements. We must receive and break bread with anyone whom God has received, that is, every believer, unless he has committed a gross sin that God condemns. Nevertheless, we feel that since the Lord has commissioned and raised us up to bear a particular testimony, we cannot open the responsibility for the ground to everyone. Only those who are willing to bear the same testimony can bear responsibility among us.
Suppose there is a big family that consists of twenty to thirty people. In such a family there may be a one-year-old as well as a thirty-year-old. Some members may be foolish, and some may be intelligent. Regardless of the condition of a family member, the family is always open to him and cannot cast him out. He may choose to stay or leave; that is his business. However, the responsibility for the family cannot be opened to everyone in the family. Being a family member is one thing, whereas bearing responsibility for the family is another thing. Likewise, partaking of the Lord’s table is one thing, whereas bearing responsibility within the church is another thing. If people condemn us, saying that we are an exclusive sect, because we do not allow others to bear responsibility for the church, this is a word of slander. However, since they already condemn us, what can we say? Anything we say will stir up a futile debate. Nevertheless, we cannot be so open in the matter of responsibility simply because of their words. If we were to open the responsibility, this would only cause things to become murky. As God’s servants, we seek only to please God, not men (Gal. 1:10; 1 Thes. 2:4).
Regardless of the kind of view a brother holds, he may come and break bread with us. If he wants to do any kind of work apart from us, we will not interfere, because it is his personal business. However, if another comes and breaks bread with us, while openly or secretly doing another kind of work among us, we cannot agree with that. We will tell him, “Brother, we have no control over what you do outside of us. You may come to break bread with us; nevertheless, if you come here to work and teach differently than we do, we will not agree.” In the church we do not quarrel; nevertheless, we sow only one kind of seed in our field. We do not allow two kinds of seed to be sown in our field (Deut. 22:9). Anyone is free to sow any kind of seed outside of our field. That is his business. However, if he wants to sow a different kind of seed in our field, we will not allow him to do so. This is our business, and we will interfere. Of course, we hope that people will not interfere with what we are doing and will give us this freedom.
As a result of our conversation, I feel that this brother is not bad and that he does not have an impure motive. He merely lacks light. He is similar to most believers who care only for the building of the universal church and not for the building of the local church. The work they do certainly results in some amount of building, but at the same time, their work also tears down. This brother’s student fellowship is the same. If one cares only for the work, he must admit that even the Catholic Church has done a considerable amount of work. The Catholic Church causes people to know the Lord’s name and believe in the Savior; we cannot deny this. However, the Catholic Church cares only for the work, not for the Lord’s testimony. This practice has also entered into Protestantism. This is not the Lord’s intention. We should not care only for the spread of the Lord’s work while neglecting the Lord’s testimony. The practice of today’s Christianity is to take care of spreading the Lord’s work, while it tears down His testimony. In contrast, it would be wonderful if Christian workers were willing to carry out their work while taking care of the Lord’s testimony.
The reason we have some amount of spread and success is that we have not departed from the Lord’s way, we stand firm for the Lord’s testimony, and we take care of the Lord’s work on the proper ground. If, like many Christian workers, we did not take care of the Lord’s way and the Lord’s testimony, caring only for the result of the work, we too would not have much spread. Sadly, those who commend us for our spread condemn the factor of our spread, that is, the ground of the church. Although they appreciate our achievement in regard to the spread, they attempt to tear down the factor of our spread.
This may be likened to appreciating and enjoying our tea, while attempting to break our teapot and teacups. These ones think that our tea is excellent, yet they believe that our teapot should be destroyed. If they believe in the Lord’s blessing, they should also take care of the Lord’s testimony as we do. If they do so, their work will spread in an unlimited way. However, whenever human opinions enter, truths are distorted and facts are twisted. This shows that man’s wisdom and opinion cannot compare to the Lord’s blessing and mercy. Men may try to grasp every opportunity to work for the Lord, but little do they know that they kill the opportunity for the Lord to bless them and to come in and show mercy. If men were willing to care only for the Lord’s testimony rather than the result of a work, I believe that the opportunity to work for the Lord would be unlimited; the result and blessing would be immeasurable and boundless.
By the Lord’s mercy we would rather have the foolishness of God than the wisdom of man (1 Cor. 1:25). Since we labor together, I will not hide anything from you. What would our condition and the result of our work be today, if, from the time the Lord’s recovery came to Taiwan, we had taken care of only the work and had joined ourselves with others in their practices? Would we have the blessing that we see today? I absolutely do not believe so. The results we have today are all due to our stressing the ground of the church and not yielding or compromising regarding this matter.
I increasingly feel that I must stress this matter in a solid way so that the co-workers and the brothers and sisters will have no confusion or doubt concerning it. The ground of the church is for the Lord’s step-by-step recovery today. The Lord’s recovery is continually advancing. Through Robert Pearsall Smith the Lord recovered the matter of consecration unto holiness. Following this, through Andrew Murray the Lord recovered the matter of fellowshipping by abiding in the Lord. Then through Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis He recovered the matter of identification with Christ’s crucifixion. Through T. Austin-Sparks the Lord continued and recovered the truth concerning His resurrection. He did not stop at the recovery of the truth concerning resurrection; rather, He advanced to recover the ground of the church. Because the Lord had no way to go on in the West, He was compelled to come to the East to recover this truth.
The Lord’s recovery is according to His purpose for the accomplishing of His economy. Justification by faith, revival, consecration, fellowship by abiding in Christ, identification with Christ’s crucifixion, and resurrection are gold, silver, and precious stones. Where should these valuable things be placed? Should they be in Jerusalem or in Babylon? The Lord has come to the East to recover the ground of the church in order to uphold the items of gold, silver, and precious stone. Simply put, where should we put all the gold, silver, and precious stones? If we say that they should be placed in the universal church, that is too abstract. The New Testament does not provide a location for the universal church, but it does show us churches in various localities, such as the church in Corinth. Not one Epistle in the New Testament was written to the universal church. Likewise, today we cannot speak a message directly to the universal church.
None of the apostles labored directly on the universal church, even though the result of their work was for the universal church. The apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth and to the churches in Galatia, but he never wrote a letter or gave an exhortation that was addressed to the universal church. The universal church is something that cannot be touched directly. It can be touched directly only by the Head, Christ, in the heavens, as shown in Matthew 16:18. In this verse He said, “Upon this rock I will build My church.” We, His humble slaves on earth, have no way to directly contact the universal church. As long as we are in our physical body, we will have no way to touch the universal church; however, we can touch the local churches. Our message, exhortation, and comfort can be addressed only to the local churches. It is nonsense to claim that we can speak directly to the universal church.
The order, the sequence, of the Lord’s work of creation is wonderful, and we believe that the order of His work of recovery is also wonderful. He first recovered justification by faith. If we look at His work of recovery, we will realize that justification by faith causes man to be revived. Once a person is revived, he needs fellowship, and this fellowship takes place by abiding in Christ. However, the reality of abiding in Christ is related to the Lord’s death on the cross and is followed by the resurrection of Christ. Then in resurrection the Body of Christ is produced. This Body needs to have a practical expression, an actual appearance, on earth. Where should this expression be? In other words, where should the gold, silver, and precious stones be placed? We cannot say that the gold, silver, and precious stones are the site; they are the building materials. On the day of Pentecost, God established the ground of locality. For example, Jerusalem is a city, and it was the ground of the church in Jerusalem. Moreover, the many cities in Galatia became the ground for the churches in Galatia. One who sees this light should immediately return to the ground ordained by God. We have been taken captive, and we need to come back to the site of our forefathers. For generations the ground of the church has been lost. This is what God seeks to recover today.
We accept all the gifts that God has given throughout the past two thousand years, but we reject anything improper related to these gifts. We receive the matter of loving the Lord and choosing the cross that was recovered through Madame Guyon, but we reject the things of Catholicism that she was involved in and the ground of the Catholic Church upon which she stood. Similarly, we receive the matter of fellowshipping with the Lord by abiding in Him, which was recovered through Andrew Murray. At the same time we reject his title of Reverend. We receive the matter of the believer’s co-death with the Lord that was recovered through Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, but we reject the ground upon which she stood. In the same way, we do not receive a ground that is only halfway, a ground that stops in the middle, and does not fully arrive at Jerusalem. Not only do we reject the ground of organized Christianity; we also reject any ground that has not fully come back to the local ground. Only one ground is right — Jerusalem. The grounds of Babylon, Assyria, and even neighboring Samaria were not right. Likewise, the ground of the Catholic Church and all the denominations are not right. All grounds other than the local ground are not right.
In regard to spirituality, Madame Guyon was spiritual. Even today there is no servant of God whose spiritual level exceeds hers; nevertheless, she was in the Catholic Church. If some want to take the ground of spirituality, they should go to the Catholic Church and fellowship with her. Yet they would not go to the Catholic Church. This proves that spirituality cannot be the criterion; spirituality and the ground are two different matters. Daniel was very spiritual, yet because Jerusalem was the ground on which God’s people should have stood, he prayed to God with his face toward Jerusalem, asking God to release His people to return to Jerusalem. Sadly, many have not seen this light; moreover, some even say, “Daniel was very spiritual, but he stayed in Babylon rather than go back to Jerusalem to be with those who were not spiritual. Today there are many who are as spiritual as Daniel and who love the Lord as much as he and his three friends; why can we not be in their company?” To say this is to care only for spirituality and not for the ground.
On our part, we care for the ground as well as for spiritual matters. Hence, we accept everything of the last two thousand years that is good and proper, and we will also accept everything in the future that is good and proper, regardless from whom these things come. However, we will say no to everything that is not good or proper related to these things. We want the spiritual things from Madame Guyon, but we refuse to take her ground, the ground of the Catholic Church. Likewise, from a spiritual person, we want only what is spiritual, not what is murky. We are not biased. We accept everything that is right and proper which has been recovered throughout the past two thousand years, regardless from whom it came.
We believe that today God is recovering the matter of the ground. However, quite a number of spiritual ones are not clear regarding this matter. I have come to the conclusion that only those who take the way of the Lord’s recovery can measure those who took the way before them. This is because the Lord has gone further in them. However, those who took the way earlier cannot measure those who come after them according to the standard of their age because such a measurement would be short. The Lord has never stopped with any one person but has advanced on to another. Mrs. Penn-Lewis could measure Andrew Murray, who was before her, in regard to identification with Christ’s death, which was recovered through her. However, she could not use what was recovered through her to measure T. Austin-Sparks, who came after her, because the Lord advanced further to recover the matter of resurrection through Brother Austin-Sparks. Likewise, while Brother Austin-Sparks can go back to measure Mrs. Penn-Lewis, he cannot measure those who come after him. We sense that after God recovered the truth of resurrection, He did a further work of recovery among us; that is, He showed us the matter of the ground of the church. Can we then say that all the other matters that have come to our attention during the past thirty years are meaningless, superfluous, slanted, extreme, or erroneous? I cannot and dare not believe this.
The matter of the ground is serious. If the children of Israel had built a temple in Babylon with the same materials that they used to build the temple in Jerusalem, they would have been completely wrong. Such a mistake would have been due not to the materials or the work but to the ground. This clearly proves that besides the matter of spirituality, there is still the matter of the ground. Today some people think that to pay attention to the ground of the church is to reduce Christ and the church, making Christ a small Christ, a local Christ, and to make the church a small church, a local church. I deeply feel that this word is illogical. We only say that we need to recover the church to the proper ground. How does this make Christ and the church smaller? Within the denominations there are many Christians who have Christ, yet how does not standing on the proper ground of the church make Christ larger? The ground of the church does not determine whether Christ is large or small, nor does it determine whether the church is large or small. Christ and the church are simply as large or as small as they are in themselves.
The matter at issue is this: If you claim that you are the church, you should return to the ground of the church. If you do not return to the ground of the church, you still have a ground, but it is not the proper ground, not the ground upon which you should stand. If some people say that we have made Christ and the church smaller by returning to the ground of the church, we simply cannot accept their word, because it is illogical.
We have come into contact with some people in the West who exceed us in regard to their spirituality, gifts, and abilities. They also have better ones upon whom to labor and a better environment in which to labor. However, their work has had no result. The reason they commend us is that we have worked out many things in practicality. There are obviously many talented ones in the West, and it can be said that they have a good environment, abound in gifts, and far surpass us in many aspects. Compared to them, what are we? What do we have? What do we know? We are far too inferior. However, the results they have in the West are not like the results we have in the East. They lack results because they have neglected and even forsaken the ground of locality. This is why God has had mercy upon us. In many aspects we cannot compare to others, but this point, the ground of locality, is our honor. They say that keeping the ground is our error; however, if we did not pay attention to the ground, how could we obtain the positive results that we have experienced in every place? Apart from this, we have nothing superior to others.
In every locality the Lord has blessed us because of three factors: first, we emphasize spirituality; second, we pay attention to the ground of the church; third, we emphasize coordination. The second item, the ground of the church, entirely upholds the first and the third items. If we were to take away the ground of the church, I am afraid that we would not have any blessing. Without the ground, we may be spiritual, but our spirituality will not serve any practical purpose. Also, without the ground there can be no practical expression of coordination. I would ask those who pay much attention to spirituality: how much coordination do you have in reality? Messages that are accurate and spiritual are given repeatedly, but there is not much result. This can be likened to a person who draws water from a well but does not have a vessel to contain the water; hence, it continually pours out upon the ground. The reason the water cannot be preserved but ends up on the ground is that there is no vessel to contain it.
People commend us for our success, but the reason for our success is that we have a ground to retain the small amount of blessing God has given us. If we were to break our “teapot,” the “tea” within would completely escape. Why is it that people drink our “tea,” appreciate it, and then, when they have the opportunity, attempt to break our “teapot”? This is entirely unreasonable.
Some have said emphatically that one cannot focus merely on one certain truth. The reason they teach this is that they have seen how much we emphasize the local ground. Of course, their realization is correct, but conversely, we also need to tell them that they should never abandon any truth. If the ground of the church is a truth, they should not abandon it but should keep it in a balanced way. For instance, the fullness of Christ is a central truth, but we should not focus merely on the fullness of Christ and give up all other truths. We should not avoid speaking concerning the truth of the ground of the church simply because we fear that people will not understand and may even despise this truth.
The teaching of the New Testament shows that the Lord Jesus and His disciples’ attitude and preaching were definite and clear and that they never avoided speaking something for fear of men’s lack of understanding or disagreement. In the same way, we should vindicate what is right and condemn what is wrong. For example, when Paul saw Peter’s hypocrisy, he was afraid that this would bring confusion into the gospel and thus opposed Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11-14). Our environment is very similar to that of Paul. Because the truth of the ground of the church is not sufficiently clear, there is confusion today. While other people can ignore this truth, we cannot. We have no choice but to disregard the feeling of others, even if it hurts their feelings, in order to speak this truth.
We should never speak ambiguously in order to please people or consider that if they do not understand or accept the truth, we should speak the truth only behind closed doors. We should not be like this. Rather, we need to specifically underscore the truth that believers most urgently need to see today, that is, that the expression of the church is local and that any work apart from the local ground tears down God’s building.
The Lord Jesus preached the word whether or not people understood it, listened to it, were happy about it, or accepted it. In the same principle, the more people misunderstand the truth, the more we should speak it clearly and strongly. Should we sacrifice God’s truth and bury God’s word because of man’s misunderstanding and ignorance? Should we stop speaking of the ground of the church or be ashamed of repeating this truth merely because the Brethren have already touched upon it? Instead, we should ask ourselves: Is the ground of the church the truth? Is it what God’s people need? If it is, we should speak this truth with boldness.
No truth is detached from Christ. Paying attention to the local ground does not detach us from Christ. On the contrary, paying attention to this ground makes Christ as our center a reality. The truth concerning Christ being our center must be matched by the church ground.
Some people criticize us, saying, “You think that you are special and that others cannot compare to you. By so doing, you have a narrow view that limits the Lord’s move. This is similar to Peter before he went to the house of Cornelius. At that time he was limited by his Jewish concept. Today you say that everyone must come to the local church. This limits the Lord’s work.” However, in reality, paying attention to the ground of the church does not limit the Lord’s work; rather, it becomes a great limitation to man’s naturalness and flesh. Any kind of correction is a great restriction and limitation to man. The truth concerning the ground of the church strongly corrects the various situations within Christianity today. We deeply sense that this truth advances God’s work while greatly restricting the move carried out by man’s naturalness and flesh.
We do not agree that the ground of the church limits the work. If all of God’s children came to the local ground, what kind of a spread would God’s work have? We do not mean that God works only on the ground of locality. Rather, as we have said repeatedly, God works on many different grounds. He has carried out a considerable amount of work even in the Catholic Church, whose ground is full of fornication and idolatry. When we read the history of the Catholic Church, we see that a great deal of God’s work has been carried out by it. Even today the piety found in the Catholic Church is something rarely found in today’s Protestant churches. God does work in their midst. People must acknowledge that God works in the midst of the Catholic Church.
The reason we speak of returning to the local ground is that we want people to see God’s desire to gain a ground on the earth for a pure testimony. This is a matter not of control but of preservation. Whom does this ground control? God’s people stayed in Babylon not because they wanted to but because they were taken captive. Today, now that the time of captivity has been fulfilled, everyone should return. Sadly, few desire to return to Jerusalem, the ground of locality. It would not be considered a matter of control for someone to have said, “Brothers, since we are God’s people, we should return to Jerusalem.” To regard such a declaration as control is either a misunderstanding or a matter of prejudice.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our brothers are scattered onto all kinds of different grounds. Hence, some people have asked, “According to the truth you preach, if we return to the local ground of the church in order to worship and serve together, should we have absolutely no contact or fellowship with those on other grounds and no union with them in their work?” With regard to this question, we need to answer it according to two aspects. The first aspect is concerning fellowship. If you fellowship in the Lord with individual saints, it is absolutely proper and acceptable; however, if you have any involvement with a work or organization that is not on the ground, we believe that such involvement is wrong. This is because the difference in grounds will eventually create great problems, even unto the tearing down of God’s building.
The second aspect is concerning the work. We have had much consideration regarding whether or not we should work or preach on a different ground. Both Daniel and Ezekiel were prophets in the land of captivity. They were not in Jerusalem but in the land of captivity; nevertheless, both had a ministry raised up by God. Hence, we need to ask, “What was their ministry?” As prophets doing the work of God, they told the people that Babylon was not the proper place and that, as God’s people, they should return to Jerusalem. According to this principle, when we go to preach on a different ground, our basic attitude should be, “I come here to speak Christ and the word of God to you, but you are on a ground that is not proper and is condemned by God. You should return to Jerusalem.” If your preaching is a different kind of preaching that strengthens and solidifies their ground, not only will we say that this is not right, but everyone else will also say that this is not right.
In the end, we can only say that the matter of serving on a different ground is something that should be decided by each person according to his own conscience; this is altogether a matter of a person’s enlightenment. Some people have a conscience enlightened to the extent that they dare not and cannot do a work on a different ground. As an illustration, when a person comes to another’s house for a meal, he may not dare to eat the food after seeing the mess in the kitchen. This is because he has received a strong light regarding hygiene. In contrast, other people simply do not care. Hence, we do not want to control; rather, each one should live before the Lord with a pure conscience according to the light that he has received.
In seeking fellowship, no one should have a definite opinion or preconception, claiming that our refusal to interact and work with other Christian groups is sectarian and wrong. This kind of speaking is wild and rough. If a person has the heart to seek oneness, we should ask him to forsake this kind of rude speaking and arrogant attitude. He should only seek the Lord with a pure conscience in regard to whether or not he should do a certain thing. He should not give us an opinionated answer with rough, wild words.
All the above points were included in a letter sent to the responsible brothers in Hong Kong. The reason I wrote to Hong Kong in such a lengthy manner is that this brother was from Hong Kong. This follows the principle in Acts 15. When some from Jerusalem went to Antioch to teach different things, Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to solve the problem. Because it is inconvenient to get in and out of the country at present, I wrote the leading brothers a letter. I hope that this matter will be completely solved in Hong Kong and that we will all be clear in our concept. I hope that the brothers and sisters will not casually mention this matter again.
If they sense the peace to do so, I ask that the responsible ones read this letter to the elders and the full-time serving ones. I feel that I have a responsibility before the Lord but that I should do only this much. The remainder is others’ responsibility, not mine. Concerning this matter, we will have more in-depth fellowship at a later date.
After listening to this word of fellowship, the brothers and sisters should realize that this matter is not simple. It is most foolish for a person to make a hasty judgment concerning this matter. In the past thirty years a number of us, especially the serving ones, have been learning a serious lesson. Hence, I would like to fellowship with you regarding what we have learned and the help that we have received. While we have been laboring, we have also been studying the things in Christianity. This study is based upon the light of firm principles.
It may seem to some that Brother Watchman Nee did not have much contact with Christianity, but the truth is that every day he paid attention to what was going on in Christianity. He always watched objectively and wrote critiques. He was always observing and critiquing. For example, when a revival meeting occurred in a certain place, he would comment regarding who the speaker was at that meeting, what method was used, what the results were, what things God did therein, what the quality of preaching was, and what the fruit of the labor was. He studied very seriously, and nearly every valuable Christian publication was in his hand. If a person were to walk into Brother Nee’s room, he would see books lying everywhere and not in an orderly manner. Brother Nee read all the books. When he spoke on a certain truth, such as Matthew 5, he did not speak carelessly but checked all the expositions concerning Matthew 5 throughout the past two thousand years, keeping what was scriptural and dropping what was not scriptural. Today the great blessing he has left us with is that we accept everything that is proper, regardless of the sect from which it came. Now all these proper matters have become ours.
However, in Christianity the Baptists accept only the things of the Baptist denomination and reject everything else, the Presbyterians take only the things of the Presbyterian denomination and reject everything else, and the Lutherans care only for the things of the Lutheran denomination and reject everything else. Throughout the past two thousand years, only those people under the leading of Brother Nee have accepted everything proper. We are not proud, but it is the fact that all the good matters of the past two thousand years can be found among us.
When Brother T. Austin-Sparks came to visit us and heard us praying aloud all at the same time, he could not stand it. Nevertheless, when we study the book of Acts, we can see that the church in its initial stage also had such a practice. Chapter 4 says that the saints lifted up their voice in prayer and spoke the word of God with boldness (vv. 24, 31). This is undeniable. However, today some people cannot stand it when others pray aloud simultaneously. Neither can they tolerate it when people say Amen too frequently. A certain chapel in America set apart a section and called it the “amen corner.” When someone prayed, those sitting in the amen corner would say Amen together. Most of those in the congregation did not like to lift up their voice with one accord to say Amen, but at least some of them practiced this together. This cannot be manufactured, and it depends entirely upon people being moved by God. Hence, from the human perspective no one can limit others as to how they practice as long as there is a basis for it in the Scriptures.
In 1932 I visited a summer camp of the Baptist denomination and saw everyone sitting in deadness, praying with their heads bowed and their eyes closed. That was truly unbearable to me. Later, I fellowshipped about this with Brother Nee. He told me, “We cannot give God’s children a set way to pray. Who can say that it is right to pray while standing and that it is wrong to pray while sitting? Who can say that it is right to pray aloud and that it is wrong to pray silently?” In the same manner, today is it right to pray one by one but wrong to pray all at the same time? No one can say that it is right to preach one by one but that it is wrong to speak with one accord loudly. We will not be fully clear regarding these matters until the day we see the Lord.
Church history has shown that for the past two thousand years everyone has had certain limits and prejudices. Brother T. Austin-Sparks can be in the heavens while preaching, but when he hears the saints praying with one voice, he can no longer be in the heavens. Moreover, whenever the Brethren are mentioned, he cannot tolerate it. One day he asked us why we receive his ministry and also receive the books of those who oppose him. The fact is that we do not care who a person is. As long as he has something of value, we will receive it from him, including from those whom we condemn very much. As long as someone has something positive, we will receive it. For this reason some have said that we are like the Pentecostals. What are we? We are all-inclusive in our receiving. We should not have an attitude that if some oppose and condemn us, we will reject everything they have. If we have this kind of attitude, we must ask, “Did not the Bible become fully recognized through the Catholic Church? If we reject the Catholic Church, do we also reject the Bible?”
Do not think that we have the intention to oppose Brother T. Austin-Sparks. We should not make such a simple distinction. Even if the apostle Paul were to come today, we would still need to discern what he preached. If it were not so, Paul would not have needed to quote the Scriptures. The reason he quoted the Scriptures was to gain man’s trust and to prove that his ministry was of God. Not only do we need to quote the Bible today, but Paul also needed to quote the Bible in his day. To exercise proper discernment is not that simple. We need to weigh every person, including the apostle Paul. The standard of our weighing is not merely in regard to whether or not a person is spiritual but in regard to whether or not he is according to God’s will.
Brother Nee once told me, “Brother Lee, I dare not claim that I have something, but there is one thing particular about me: I am good at critiquing. By means of a little analysis I can discern what is best.” Brother Nee learned this lesson over a period of thirty years, and he taught us to do the same. Hence, we too have learned this lesson. This is why, through a little analysis, we are able to discern whether or not a person is right. Because of this we are able to select the best things, while making it very difficult for the erroneous things to come in. For example, when Brother T. Austin-Sparks came to visit us this last time, he made up his mind to bring up the matter of brothers wearing military hats in the meeting hall. He felt that when the brothers in the military service put their hats on before stepping out of the meeting hall, they were lacking a spirit of respect. When a brother tried to explain the Chinese custom to him and show him that we did not violate the teaching in the Bible, Brother Austin-Sparks said, “The teachings in the Bible are above national customs.” He tried to use that one sentence to suppress us.
After hearing this word, I did not say anything, but neither could I accept it. Our eyes were very sharp, and our sense was very keen concerning biblical teachings. We could not believe that Brother Austin-Sparks’s word was within the boundary of biblical teaching. It seemed that although the teaching in the Bible required “one meter,” his requirement was “one meter plus three centimeters.” Our judgment concerning such matters is exceedingly precise. The Bible says that a brother should not have his head covered when he prays and worships. However, since we had already announced that the meeting had ended, we had met the biblical requirement. The Bible does not have a requirement saying that brothers should not wear their hats after a meeting has been dismissed, or that they must wait until they step outside the meeting hall. Brother Austin-Sparks claimed that the biblical teaching was for a brother to wear his hat only after he steps outside the meeting hall.
Concerning the truth in the Bible, we have learned to not deviate at all. The Bible requires only that brothers not cover their heads while praying or preaching, and we obey it. The Bible does not have requirements concerning where brothers may or may not wear their hats. Hence, we have freedom in this respect. I am not condemning Brother Austin-Sparks. Even if the archangel Michael were to come and preach a message, we would still need to test him. I say strongly that even if Brother Nee were to say something, we would still need to seriously examine it. A person should correct another only according to the teaching in the Bible, not according to his feelings. If Brother Austin-Sparks were objective, he would have confessed, “Perhaps this is their custom and my personal feeling. It may not be the feeling of the East, and it is not the teaching in the Bible.” This is the right kind of attitude. However, he claimed that he made such a comment based upon the teaching in the Bible. This is absolutely inaccurate.
I use this matter as an illustration in order to demonstrate that our acceptance or rejection of certain matters is not that simple. Before we discussed a matter with Brother Austin-Sparks, we first analyzed the matter a great deal among ourselves. On the podium one morning, Brother Austin-Sparks said that we have made Christ a small Christ and the church a small church. He said such a word because we insist on the ground of the church. We questioned him in a serious way, saying, “The prophet Daniel and Madame Guyon were very spiritual, but where were they?” He was not able to give an answer. His spiritual ministry was very high, and we truly need the supply of this high ministry. However, his spiritual ministry and ours do not match. On that same day I said to him, “Brother, we have had much fellowship with you, but there is one matter we cannot get through.” Brother Austin-Sparks asked humbly, “What is this one matter?” I said, “We insist on the ground of the church, but you reject it.” He said, “You and I have the same view.” Please forgive me for saying this, but his answer was not straightforward; however, neither can it be compared to the hypocrisy of Peter and Barnabas.
In the past thirty years we have learned a serious lesson, that is, to have strict judgment concerning matters. We do not speak about a matter unless we are clear; hence, once we speak about a matter, we must be certain that there is no error. The more we discuss whether a matter is right or wrong, good or bad, the more we win the case.
There was no wall in the garden of Eden, but in the New Jerusalem there is a great and high wall. This wall is a separation. Today there is a need for separation in every city. This is according to God’s principle. What came out of the first creation did not have a separation, because there was no lawlessness. In the second creation there needs to be a separation because there is lawlessness. In the New Testament, once a believer is saved, he becomes the materials for the building of the New Jerusalem; however, not every church may have a wall, because the wall is built up through the believers’ transformation. According to the record in the Old Testament, the work that the enemy does, as shown in typology, is to tear down the wall of the holy city. When God’s people were recovered and returned from captivity, they needed to rebuild the wall of the city. Hence, their enemies attempted to frustrate the building of the wall of the city.
The truth we have spoken of regarding the ground of the church is a matter of building up the wall of the city, the main function of which is separation. One of the functions of the wall is to protect the things of God and keep out the things that are not of God. The work of the church on the earth today must produce a result, and that result is the building up of a wall. What is natural zeal? What is God’s abode in man? There must be a wall built up to separate these two matters. Otherwise, when people are on fire for the Lord, they will love the Lord fervently while at the same time burn down His building. If someone gives ten thousand dollars to help the church, we should not immediately say, “Thank and praise the Lord”; rather, we must exercise some discernment.
A lady living in America wanted to offer us twenty thousand dollars. She had a friend who was a sister, and this sister had some fellowship with us. She told us that her friend wanted to give us a gospel van. After much careful consideration and analysis before the Lord, the co-workers wrote the sister a letter, stating that we never directly accept donations from men but would only accept, on God’s behalf, men’s offerings. Therefore, we told her that we would not accept the gospel van right away but would first consider whether or not her friend had consecrated herself to the Lord. We told her that this is our spiritual exercise and asked her to forgive us.
Later, the same sister wanted to give us some money. I said that everyone should give only before God and that if she wanted to give, she should put the money into the offering box. These situations displeased her greatly. Her friend came back from America, and after some transaction with this sister, she decided to donate the money to a certain denomination. Now she has become one of the executive committee members in that denomination. If we had not considered this matter in the beginning, I am afraid that it would have become a problem among us. It is not a sin to receive people’s donations, but man’s natural zeal tears down God’s building.
We should not quarrel with people while we work for the Lord and release the Lord’s truths. When we begin to work for the Lord in a serious way, we need to always be cautious and guard ourselves by building up the wall; we cannot receive everyone or speak loosely. To invite the brother from Hong Kong to give a message on the Lord’s Day might seem to be a small thing, but in principle it is a serious mistake. This brother and his wife are meek, have a heart for others, and pay attention to the work among the students. They are pure, and they themselves believe that they are pure. However, even though he has been delivered from certain things on the negative side, there has been no building on the positive side. The first time he came to Taiwan, he wanted to gain something from us, but the brothers did not allow it. Later, he contacted a certain brother and told him that his students’ work was nondenominational. However, based on our standing, we can never give our support to what he is doing. This is the destructive work of the enemy.
We should always pay attention to the building up of the local churches for God’s building. On the positive side, we should accept everything that is necessary for the building, and on the negative side, we should be in fear and trembling to maintain the separation, lest things come in that God does not desire.
