Search
We have already seen what the church is, the expression of the church, the oneness of the church, and the ground of the church. It is clear that there is only one church in the universe, and there is only one church in each locality. However, in today’s deformed Christianity there are “churches” everywhere, clearly indicating that the church is divided. Therefore, we must now look at the division of the church.
In brief, there are two causes for division: Satan’s damage and man’s fleshly preferences.
God’s intention is to build up His church locality by locality so that there would be a local church in every place as the expression of the Body of Christ in order to express Christ. God is wise in His intention. If there were only one church in each locality with no confusion or divisions, and if all the local churches were one in expressing Christ, preaching Christ, and leading people to know God on the earth, this would be glorious. The church in each locality as an expression of the Body of Christ is a foretaste of the coming New Jerusalem, the expression of God.
Satan does not want such an expression; thus, he tries his best to damage it. Satan damages the church through man’s preferences. When people appreciate a certain person, they establish a “church” based on that person; when they appreciate a certain truth, they establish a “church” according to that particular truth. All the different sects and denominations in Christianity today simply express man’s preferences. The Corinthian believers were an example of this. Some of them chose to be of Paul, others to be of Apollos, and still others to be of Cephas (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul says that they had preferences because they were of the flesh (3:4). These preferences were of the flesh. The situation of division in Christianity today also comes from the preferences of man’s flesh. Satan utilizes the preferences in man’s flesh to damage the work of the church. This is the true situation.
With any matter, there is a cause and there is an effect. With the division of the church, there is a cause and there is also an effect. The effect has two aspects.
The church as the Body of Christ is one both universally and locally. However, once the church is divided, the oneness of the Body of Christ is lost. The situation of division that is prevalent today causes the Body of Christ to be “cut into pieces.” Hence, instead of being one, the Body has been dismembered.
According to rough statistics, there are approximately two thousand sects in Christianity. In other words, there are approximately two thousand different kinds of “churches” on the earth today. This is truly a terrible result of the division of the church.
When I speak with people concerning the gospel, I am often asked, “If the Jesus whom you preach is the same as the One preached by Such-and-such Church, why are there so many different churches in your Christian religion?” This is a difficult question for new ones to answer. The division of the church is truly a shame to the Lord.
We must know the source of division. Divisions in China were brought in mainly by brothers from the West. We thank the Western brothers for bringing the gospel to China, and we are grateful to them for bringing us the Bible. Sadly, however, they brought their sects and denominations as well. We must acknowledge that bringing so many different denominations was a huge mistake. They should not have been divided into denominations, and they should have brought us only one church. How pleasant it would be if no one divided themselves into denominations, but everyone stood on one ground and took the same way. Regrettably, today’s Christianity is full of sects and denominations, whether in the West or in the East. They have been divided and set in their divisions for many years. These many sects and denominations are the result of the division of the church.
With every matter, there must be someone who bears the responsibility. Related to the division of the church, there must also be someone who bears the responsibility. We must be clear concerning this. A careful and logical examination will show that the responsibility of division should be borne completely by those who stand on the ground of the denominations, not by those standing on the local ground.
After my return to Chefoo from Tientsin in 1937, a brother invited me to dinner. I can never forget that evening. Other older, well-known people from Christianity had also been invited. At dinner an elderly brother questioned me, saying, “Mr. Lee, you always say that the church is one and that it should not be divided, yet you have taken a group of people with you and separated yourself from us. In doing so, is not your group another division? We have a rare opportunity today to sit together, and we would like to hear from you.” I said, “Wonderful! I have also been looking for such an opportunity to clarify this matter, and this account should be settled clearly.” The older brother agreed and said, “Very good. Let’s settle this matter today.” I then said, “First, Paul condemned the Corinthian believers because they said that they were of Paul, of Apollos, or of Cephas. It was obvious that they should not have had such divisions. I would like to ask you all, is it correct for one to say, ‘I am of the Chinese Church of Christ, I am of the Baptist Church, or I am of the Presbyterian Church’?” He said, “Of course, this is not correct, there is no question about this.” I said, “Wonderful, we have settled the first point. Second, do you want me to belong to the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, the Chinese Church of Christ, or some other denomination?” He said, “We do not want you to belong to the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, the Chinese Church of Christ, or any other denomination.” I said, “Very good, this point is also settled. Third, may I ask, having received mercy and grace from the Lord, can I preach the gospel and bring people to the Lord?” He said, “Of course, you can preach the gospel.” Then I asked, “After I preach the gospel and some are saved, where should I bring these ones? If I myself do not go to a denomination, can I bring these ones to a denomination?” He said, “Of course not. If you yourself do not go there, you should not ask others to go there.” I then continued, “Then what should I do with these ones who are saved? Should they not meet?” He said, “Of course, they should meet.” I said, “Good. Since they should meet, where should they meet? If I bring them to the Baptist Church, we will be divided from the Presbyterian Church. If we go to the Chinese Church of Christ, we will be divided from the Presbyterian Church. Where should we meet?” At that point everyone became silent. I then continued, “As elderly ones, please consider this. Today we are meeting on Fourth Street (at the time the meeting place of the church in Chefoo was on Fourth Street). We desire that all of God’s children would be one. However, your stand in the denominations, which divides you from other Christians, has forced us to humbly rent a house on Fourth Street to meet there. We have not formed a division, but you are maintaining a division. The responsibility of division is not on us but on you. Because you are maintaining a division, we have been forced to find another place to meet. However, since you are all representatives of various denominations, let me ask, would you be willing to remove your denominational names — the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Chinese Church of Christ, the Inland Mission, and so on? If you would do this, I would immediately go back and ask the brothers to close the meeting on Fourth Street, because there would no longer be any divisions.” When they heard this request, they were shocked and replied, “We cannot do this!” I responded, “If this cannot be done, what else is there for us to say? Since you are set in your division, what else can we do? We have no choice but to meet in a place that does not belong to any denomination. Even though you say that we are divided from you, who bears the responsibility of this division?”
I believe this is clear; the responsibility for division is not with us but with those in the sects. It is impossible for us to go to the sects today, and it seems that by doing this, we are divided. However, the responsibility for this is not on us but on those in the sects.
All the Christians in Taipei today should meet as the church in Taipei. If we all take the locality of Taipei as the boundary and the ground, there would not be other “churches.” However, some say that they are the Baptist Church, others say that they are the Presbyterian Church, and still others say that they are the Methodist Church or another “church.” They have all drawn a small circle around themselves, leaving only a small number who are not within a circle. Who should bear the responsibility of this division? Obviously, those who are in the small circles should bear this responsibility. Those who have not drawn a circle around themselves should not bear the responsibility of division. Although we seem to be divided from others, this is not because we have drawn a circle around ourselves. If others were willing to remove their circles, there would be no divisions. If everyone met in the church in Taipei, there would be no division. Regrettably, within the boundary of Taipei, small circles have been added — the Baptist denomination, the Lutheran denomination, the Presbyterian denomination, and others. This has resulted in many small circles within the large circle of a locality. What should have been a simple, single circle has been filled with many circles; this has resulted in division. It is obvious that the responsibility of division rests on those who are in the many circles.
Therefore, we should not allow our conscience to be weakened by the wrong and unreasonable condemnation of others. I was young when I heard these accusations in 1933, and I felt that I could not lift up my head. Many condemned us, saying, “You want the church to be one, but you divide yourself from others.” At the time I also felt that what they said sounded right. However, as I went to the Lord and sought His shining, I was unveiled within to see that their word of accusation was a lie. It was not we who had formed a division, but they. They had left us in a position of division. They had drawn a circle around themselves and left us out of their circle. Hence, the responsibility of division was entirely on them.
Standing for the ground of the oneness of the church is a battle. For over thirty years many brothers and sisters have struggled. Even though there will be many hardships ahead of us as we stand on the ground of the church, we must be faithful in order for the Lord’s will to be accomplished and for our future generations to have a way to advance.
In today’s divided situation where sects and denominations are rampant, Christians must have the discernment to know what is proper and what should rightly remain. We must have this discernment because Christians must have a church; we cannot be without a church. A person in the world needs to be saved and become a Christian; after becoming a Christian, he needs the church. However, there are too many “churches” today; not only is there the Roman Catholic Church, but there are also numerous sects and denominations in Protestantism that call themselves “churches.” Which one should he choose? Which one should he be in? This truly is a problem. Therefore, we must have the discernment; we cannot say that it is sufficient as long as there is a “church.” We should not say this! We should not be in the Roman Catholic Church, and neither should we be in the numerous sects and denominations in Protestantism. We must exercise discernment regarding all these so-called churches. There are three principles that should be applied in our discernment.
When we discern a “church,” we should not take spirituality as a basis. We should not say that a church is proper simply because its spiritual condition is good. Brother Andrew Murray was considered to be a spiritual person in the nineteenth century. The spiritual books he wrote have rendered us much help. However, the church that he was in was not proper because he was still in organized Christianity. He was a pastor and kept the title of a pastor. According to spiritual condition, the church that he was in might have been acceptable, but it was a part of organized Christianity. Madame Guyon, whom everyone agrees was very spiritual, was in the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, Dr. F. B. Meyer from England was very spiritual, and the books he wrote have benefited many, but he was also in organized Christianity. This proves that spiritual condition cannot be taken as the basis in discerning whether or not a church is proper.
Since every person has his own preference, he also has his own taste. If our discernment is according to our preference and taste, it will be difficult to make a proper judgment. Those who prefer quietness will find a group that is quiet. Those who prefer solemnity will find a place with high cathedral ceilings, stained glass, and subdued lighting in order to have a feeling of solemnity when they enter. Those who prefer stories will find a place with superficial sermons. Those who prefer attention will find a place where they can preach and be a leader. If one “church” will not allow them to preach or be a leader, they will go somewhere else. These are all matters of man’s taste. It is terrible to discern a church according to personal taste. There are as many different tastes in Christianity as there are different kinds of restaurants and menus. Tastes that are according to our personal preference are not necessarily proper. They may be contrary to God’s will and the truth in the Bible. Therefore, under no circumstance should we discern a church according to our personal taste.
When discerning a “church” in the confused and divided condition of the church today, we should not consider whether it is good; rather, we must consider whether it is proper. Being proper is different from being good. Being good is a matter of condition, but being proper is a matter of the ground. Knowing how to differentiate between being proper and being good will give us a solid understanding of the church. Of course, the condition of a church should be good, but having a good condition does not mean that it is a proper church. We need to see its ground.
For example, the Lee family may be quite good. The husband and wife love each other, the children are obedient, and no one ever quarrels. This family, however, is not the Chang family. Even though this is a good family, it is not the Chang family. In the Chang family the condition may not be good. Everyone always quarrels, and the condition is not good, but the family has the name Chang. What should be our basis in determining which family is the Chang family? Obviously, our basis should be only the ground, not the condition. It would be foolishness for us to determine who is the Chang family according to a good or bad condition.
There is a difference between the ground of the church and the condition of the church. Some people come and meet with us either because our condition is good or because our speaking helps and supplies them, not because our ground is proper. They care only for the condition of the church, not the ground. But we must focus on the ground of the church, because whether a “church” is proper or not depends on its ground.
The church has a definite ground. We must discern according to the ground of the church. This is the only basis. We should not carelessly discern on the basis of human opinions and views. In the previous lessons we covered what the church is, the expression of the church, the oneness of the church, and the ground of the church. These are all equivalent to the constitution of the church. Our determination of whether a church is proper must be according to the truths covered in these lessons. A city can have only one city government. It should never have more than one city government. The only city government that can be considered legal and proper is established according to the law of that country. The authenticity of such a city government cannot be denied even if its administration is poor. Despite its poor administration, its ground is still proper. This is the same with the church. A proper church is one with the proper ground. Therefore, in determining whether or not a church is proper, our only basis should be its ground.
Thus, regarding the knowledge of the church, the primary thing is to know the ground of the church. Once we are clear concerning the ground, we can pay attention to condition. Whereas the ground is a matter of being proper or improper, the condition is a matter of good or bad. Today many people focus only on the condition of the church and neglect the ground of the church. Those who pay attention to the condition and neglect the ground cannot discern whether a church is proper or not. They will also be unable to stand the test of time even if they happen to be meeting on the proper ground. Experience proves that all those who take this way because of the good condition of the church are eventually unable to stand the test of time. They may stay for ten years, but in the eleventh year they will leave if they think that our condition is no longer good. Only those who recognize the ground will never sway or change. We must take this way when the condition is good, and we must take this way when the condition is bad, because this is the proper way. Although our condition may not be good, our way is proper.
I thank the Lord that I have met many faithful companions over the past thirty years. Throughout these years we have passed through many difficulties. Sometimes the condition of the church was not so good, and the meetings were not so enjoyable, but the brothers and sisters who knew the ground nevertheless walked on this way even with tears of inward pain. They knew that although the condition was poor, this was still their home. When the condition is good, it is their home, and when the condition is bad, it is still their home. Hence, they cannot deny, leave, or forsake this home. On the contrary, by the grace of God, they strive and struggle to turn the abnormal condition around.
Hence, new believers must see that we take the way of the church not because of a good condition but because the ground of the church is proper. Only this can prevent us from being shaken and enable us to walk this way our entire life.
I was in northern China in 1935 when a missionary spoke with me concerning the ground of the church. I told her that all of God’s people should leave Babylon and come back to Jerusalem. She asked me, “Where is Jerusalem today?” I replied, “Jerusalem is where the temple is built. Although the temple was torn down, its base, the site, is still there. Although today the church is desolate, the ground that the church has had from the beginning is still present. We should come back to this ground.” Several years later I heard that after returning to her country, she left the mission. She left organized Christianity and went to many places preaching and teaching people. She did a great amount of work. However, a person who does not recognize the ground of the church is not secure in his path. After laboring in this way for approximately twenty years, she returned to the Anglican Church, went through a reconfirmation ceremony administered by the clergy, and was accepted to take Holy Communion. This is strong proof that those who have not seen the ground of the church are not stable and that the path they take is not secure. The condition of our meetings may be good today but poor tomorrow. The messages we give today may help and supply people, but they may not be helpful and supplying tomorrow. Choosing a church based on condition is unwise. The church has a ground, and its ground is definite. For example, although the temple was destroyed and not one stone was left on top of another, the site of the temple is still there. The site cannot be changed. Whether a certain place is Jerusalem does not depend on whether a temple is there but on whether the site for the temple is there. When the temple is there and the glory of God fills it, it is Jerusalem. However, even if the temple becomes desolate and is destroyed, the place is still Jerusalem because the site of the temple has not changed. It is the same with the ground of the church.
In this desolate, confused, and unstable condition of the church today, our discernment of a “church” cannot be based on its spiritual condition or the so-called measure of the stature of Christ. These factors cause people to be unstable because they are changeable. Our discernment must be based on the ground. We should ask only whether a certain church is meeting on the ground of the local church and not concerning its condition. This does not mean that we should not pay attention to the condition of the church. The condition of the church should be good, spiritual, and full of the stature of Christ. It is best if the ground of the church is proper, and the condition is good, spiritual, and full of the stature of Christ. However, whether a church is proper does not depend on its condition but on its ground. Hence, our basis for determining whether a church is proper must be the ground. We should inquire only concerning the ground, not the condition. When determining whether a certain place is Jerusalem, we should not consider the condition of the temple. There may be temples being built in Babylon, but we must reject them because their ground is wrong. Even though the temple in Jerusalem has been completely destroyed, we still go to Jerusalem because this is where God’s people should be, and this is the proper ground. May the Lord have mercy on us that we would have the ability to discern the confusing situation of the church today.
In order to discern, we must know how a division is formed, because once a division is formed, the ground of the church is lost, and it becomes a condemnable sect. Therefore, to discern whether a church is proper, we must know how divisions in the church are formed, which is also how sects are constituted.
There are six conditions involved in the formation of a division. This does not mean that all six conditions must be present in order for a division or sect to be constituted. Any one of these six conditions will result in a division or a sect.
The church is something unique in the universe. The name of the church is the church. Hence, when a church is expressed in a certain locality, it is called the church in that place, such as the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), the church in Antioch (13:1), and the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2). There can be no other name for the church. However, many Protestant groups today have special names. Some are named after people, such as the Lutheran Church and the Wesleyan Church; some are named after nations, such as the Anglican Church and the Chinese Church of Christ; some are named after an item of the truth, such as the Church of Justification by Faith and the Holiness Church; some are named after a system, such as the Presbyterian Church (a system of elders administrating the church) and the Congregational Church (a system advocating rules by a governing body of the congregation); and some are named after a ritual, such as the Baptist Church. There are many other names, such as the Charismatic Church, the Church of the Apostolic Faith, and the Pentecostal Church. Whenever specific names are used, small circles are drawn within the boundary of a locality. These small circles become different grounds. Once a Christian group has this kind of ground, it loses the ground of the church and thus becomes a sect, a denomination. Hence, these Christians are not building up the church in their locality. They are building up their denominations, their sects. When those from the Baptist Church come to Taipei, they do not come to build up the church in Taipei but to build a Baptist Church. When those from the Lutheran Church come to Taipei, they also do not come to build up the church in Taipei but to build a Lutheran Church. This is mainly because they have special names. Their special names are their ground, making them sects or denominations.
We should never think that having a special name is a small matter. This is something that greatly offends the Lord. Names are a serious matter. All that we have is in the Lord’s name. We are saved in the Lord’s name (Acts 4:12), we are baptized into His name and called by His name (19:5; Matt. 28:19; Acts 15:17), we meet in His name (Matt. 18:20), and we pray in His name (John 14:14). The apostle beseeched us to be one through the name of the Lord (1 Cor. 1:10). The Lord praised the church in Philadelphia for not denying His name (Rev. 3:8). The matter of a name definitely touches the Lord’s heart. According to church history, the Lord’s word of praise to the church in Philadelphia was practically and richly fulfilled when the Brethren were raised up approximately one hundred years ago. They put away all names other than the Lord’s. This is proper. We should take only the name of Jesus Christ, not any other name. We should be only of Christ, not of Luther, Wesley, or England. We should not take any name other than the name of the Lord. As soon as a Christian group takes a special name other than the Lord’s name, divisions, that is, sects, will be formed.
In the lesson on the oneness of the church, we saw that only the seven ones in Ephesians 4 — one Body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God — are our basic faith. Apart from this basic faith, we should not have any other special beliefs or creeds. Today, however, every denomination has its own creed. In the Apostles’ Creed of the Episcopalian Church one of the lines reads, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” One may believe in the Holy Catholic Church, but another may not. Believing in the Holy Catholic Church does not add to salvation, and not believing does not take away from salvation. The Seventh-day Adventists’ Church has a statement in their creed that says that they believe the seventh day is the Sabbath. If a person does not believe in that statement, he will not be accepted as their church member. These are examples of special creeds. Once there are special beliefs, there is division, and a sect is formed.
Some people are careless and have misrepresented us, thinking that baptism by immersion is an item of our creed. They tell people that anyone who comes to break bread with us must be baptized by immersion. However, I am happy to say that some brothers who have been breaking bread with us have not yet been baptized by immersion. Some sisters who do not have an adequate understanding say that head covering is part of our creed and that if a sister does not cover her head, she cannot break bread with us. However, we thank the Lord that there are sisters who do not cover their head yet still meet with us. Baptism by immersion is not our creed and neither is head covering. We do not have a creed; we only have the faith. Our faith is the seven ones in Ephesians 4. Whoever holds these seven ones, whether he is baptized by immersion or sprinkling, practices head covering, or has left his denomination or still remains in it, may break bread with us if he so desires. We are willing to have fellowship with him at the Lord’s table. Besides these seven ones of the fundamental faith, we do not have any creed. If there is a creed, there is division, which results in a sect.
Many denominations have a special fellowship. When I was young, before every holy communion in the Baptist Church, the pastor would stand up and announce, “Those who are not our church members, please leave.” This is a special fellowship. Whenever there is a special fellowship, there is division, which results in a sect.
I knew a German brother in Beijing and a British brother in Shanghai who both belonged to the Brethren assembly, but they did not break bread or fellowship together. I found out that they did not fellowship with each other because they had different views concerning the truth. Any fellowship that requires the same view concerning different items of the truth is a special fellowship. We should be able to fellowship even though there are different views concerning the truth. Are we not in Christ? Do we not have Christ as life? Are we not redeemed by the precious blood of the Lord? Since we are the same in these matters, we should be able to fellowship. Being the same in these items and still needing to share the same views concerning items of the truth before we can fellowship is to have a special fellowship. Consequently, division and sects will be formed.
Some people say that they do not have any of the above conditions and that they are nonsectarian and nondenominational. They do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship. However, we still need to know whether their fellowship is isolated rather than universal. Over the past thirty years quite a number of people have seen the error of sects and left the denominations. Because they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they think that they are nonsectarian and nondenominational. But there may still be a problem. Although they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they have an isolated local fellowship, not a universal fellowship. They do not fellowship with all the saints on the earth. As a result, they become a local sect. According to lesson 14, even though the churches are expressed in different localities, they are still the Body of Christ, and their fellowship is universal. Therefore, if a Christian fellowship is limited to its locality and has lost its universality and the nature of the Body of Christ, it will be a local sect and will result in a division in the church.
Acts 14:23 says, “Appointed elders for them in every church,” and Titus 1:5 says, “Appoint elders in every city.” This proves that an elder in a church is an elder in the city. This also proves that the church can have only one administration in a locality because there can be only one church and one group of elders in a locality. If there are separate administrations of the church in the same locality, this constitutes a division. For example, there is a group in Taipei standing on the ground of locality and meeting to serve the Lord. Later, another group of believers rises up and claims that they have left the sects and have no special name, special beliefs, or special fellowship; however, they are unwilling to join with the first group. There may be fellowship between groups, but there are separate administrations. In this situation the second group has produced a division and become a sect. Because there should be only one church in a locality, the ground and administration of the local church should also be one. Since the second group came out of a sect, they should join themselves to the brothers who left the sects earlier so that there will be only one administration. Having a separate administration from the first group proves that they are still a sect. This is very important, because only in this way can the principle of one church in one locality be preserved.
Some groups seemingly do not have a special name, special belief, or special fellowship, and they present themselves as being nondenominational. However, upon further investigation we find that they are actually still connected to a Christian organization. This can be compared to a kite that is flying freely in the air but still under the control of the person holding the string. The one holding the string may be in the United States or England; hence, if we are not careful, we will be deceived.
Therefore, even though a group may pass the above five points, we still need to examine whether there is an organizational connection behind the scenes. Special fellowship between a certain group in a locality and another group in another locality is not an organizational connection. However, if a group’s connection to another group is organizational, it will eventually become a divisive sect because there is an organization in the background.
These six points are the basis for discerning whether a Christian group will become a sect and result in division. The first three points — having special names, special beliefs, and special fellowships — are obvious and easy to detect. The last three points — having an isolated local fellowship, having separate administrations in the same locality, and having an organizational connection — are rather hidden and not as easy to detect. If a group can pass all these six points without any problem, it is meeting on the local ground and is pure, without any factor of division or element of sectarianism. Only this kind of church, this way of meeting, can be considered proper. Hence, we can participate in the meetings of such a Christian group. Any other groups must be rejected. May the Lord bless us to have a clear understanding concerning this matter.
