Search
In relation to knowing the church, we have covered five lessons on what the church is, the expression of the church, the oneness of the church, the ground of the church, and the division of the church. We have seen that the church is neither a lifeless building nor an organization of man’s intention. Rather, the church is an assembly of the called-out ones, the Body of Christ, and the house of the living God. Contrary to what most people believe, the church’s expression is not in heaven or in eternity. Undeniably, the nature of the church is heavenly and eternal, but its expression is on the earth and today. The church is neither abstract nor suspended in the air; rather, it is practical, real, concrete, and substantial. We can touch the church.
The expression of the church on earth is according to the principle of “one city, one church.” Just as there is one church in the universe, the expression of the church in a locality should also be one. The church is altogether a matter of oneness. The source, production, nature, principle, existence, administration, fellowship, and testimony of the church are all one. Through one faith and one baptism the church received one Spirit, one Lord, and one God, and thus became one Body and has one hope. Everything pertaining to the church is one; therefore, the church should not be divided. Apart from the ground of locality, the church should not have any other ground. As long as believers keep the ground of locality, the church will be one in practicality and will never be divided. These few points are clearly revealed in the Scriptures and were manifested in the condition of the early church.
However, the church has become deformed. The church today is in confusion. It is not in the condition that was initially expressed on earth. Since Christians cannot leave the church, what should our attitude be in the midst of this confusion? We must be clear that our taking the right way is not merely for us to grow in the Lord and to serve. It is also for those who come after us. We should clear a straight path so that those who come after us will have a way to go on. For this reason we will now consider our practice and attitude in relation to the church.
We must understand God’s attitude toward Christianity. The light and prophecies in the New Testament show how God feels about today’s Christianity. On the one hand, God is extremely dissatisfied with the desolate and deformed situation. Whether divisions, human organization, mixture with the world, or giving opportunity to Satan, all of these are condemned by God. On the other hand, although God condemns these things, He has no intention of eliminating or forbidding them; rather, He has an attitude of tolerance. Hence, today’s confusion will not only continue; it will even worsen. There will be more divisions in Christianity, and the worldly condition of Christianity will worsen as well.
Since this is God’s attitude, we should also adopt this attitude. We are merely a group of weak and feeble ones; thus, we do not have the strength to correct these many errors. However, we can love the Lord, follow Him, and be faithful in taking the way that pleases Him in the midst of such confusion. This should be our basic attitude. Concerning our practice, we will now cover a few points that need our attention.
The foremost thing regarding our practice is to abandon every improper ground. Whether it is the Roman Catholic Church or the different denominations and sects of Protestantism, we do not want it. We do not want the ground of Roman Catholicism, nor do we want the ground of any Protestant denomination or sect. We must completely abandon, fully depart from, and have nothing to do with these grounds. We should simply return to the ground of locality.
In lesson 16 the ground of locality was clearly presented. The ground of locality is the ground of oneness. The church is divided because the saints have left the ground of locality. If the saints would keep the ground of locality, the oneness of the church would be spontaneously preserved. Therefore, wherever we go, we should simply be Christians in that locality. If there is a group of brothers and sisters who meet on only the ground of locality, we must put ourselves in their midst and serve the Lord together with them. We do not want a sectarian ground; we should simply return to the local ground of oneness.
It is a very serious matter that in both the Old Testament and New Testament, God never allowed His people to have two grounds of service, two grounds of worship. He ordained that the children of Israel worship Him in the place where He chose to put His name, His habitation (Deut. 12:5-14; 14:22-26; 16:2, 11, 15-16). They were told not to worship God “in every place that you see” (12:13). Even though they later became corrupted and divided into two kingdoms — the kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah in the south — the place of their worship of God remained one. It remained in Jerusalem. God never allowed them to have a separate place, a separate ground, of worship. Although Jeroboam did his best to set up a center of worship in the kingdom of Israel and wanted the people to worship at the altar in Bethel, God never approved of this (1 Kings 12:26 — 13:5). God allowed Jeroboam to establish another kingdom, but He forbade him to set up another center of worship. This offended God to the uttermost.
If we apply this example today, God may tolerate another work for a period of time, but He will never tolerate setting up another ground for worship. Under normal circumstances, even the work should not be divided. A person’s preaching of the gospel in school originates from the church, and his laboring in the hospital also originates from the church. All the work should be one. There may be a time when the brothers are not one in the work because their condition is not good. God seemingly is willing to bear and permit this. But He condemns and cannot tolerate someone setting up another center of worship, another ground of service.
God allowed the Israelites to have only one center of worship in order to prevent division. Although they were outwardly divided into two kingdoms, they were still one in reality as long as the center of their worship was not divided. Similarly, if the ground of the church is not divided, it is a relatively light matter if the outward activities are somewhat divided. Strictly speaking, they are not divided in reality. However, we do not want any other ground, and we cannot be on any other ground. We can only be on the ground of the church, which is the ground of oneness, the ground of the expression of one church in a locality.
Concerning the ground, we need to add two points of explanation.
First, we must not remain on the ground of a denomination, the ground of organized Christianity. In typology, this is to come out of Babylon. All those who know the Scriptures cannot deny that in the eyes of God, the Roman Catholic Church is Babylon, a place of confusion. Although Protestantism divided from Roman Catholicism many years ago, the poison of Roman Catholicism has not yet been fully purged. Moreover, it seems that Protestantism is increasingly inclining toward and following Roman Catholicism. Hence, in God’s eyes, the Protestant churches are also Babylon. In the same way that Babylon was versus Jerusalem, the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches are versus the genuine church. Therefore, we cannot remain on any denominational ground, any ground of organized Christianity. This can be compared to the children of Israel in the Old Testament choosing to return from their captivity instead of remaining in Babylon. We must come out from Roman Catholicism as well as from Protestantism (Rev. 18:4). We should not remain in the organized Babylon of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
Second, we should not linger on small, scattered grounds. Today there are small, scattered grounds among Christians. Some are family groups, others are fellowship groups in schools, and still others are congregations or chapels on certain streets and alleys. There are meetings that are so-called nondenominational, and there are also meetings that are for free groups. In type, these small, scattered grounds are the scattered places between Babylon and Jerusalem.
There was a significant distance between Babylon and Jerusalem. When Ezra and those with him returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, the means of transportation was bad, and the journey was very long (Ezra 7:6-9; 8:21-23, 31-32). This difficult journey aptly typifies the situation of those coming out of organized Roman Catholicism and Christianity to return to the ground of the church today. Their return is not instantaneous; rather, it requires journeying a significant distance.
There may have been some Israelites who left Babylon but lingered on the way and did not reach Jerusalem because the journey was long and difficult. Their forefather Abraham also came out of Babylon and went to Canaan. Abraham’s coming out of Ur of the Chaldeans was equivalent to his descendants’ coming out of Babylon. Ur of the Chaldeans is the same location as Babylon, and Jerusalem is in Canaan. Abraham did not arrive in Canaan immediately after departing from Ur of the Chaldeans; rather, he stopped midway at Haran and later continued on to Canaan. During the return from captivity there may have been a good number of Israelites who lingered in some scattered places on the way and did not return to Jerusalem. According to typology, this signifies the many saints today who have seen the evil of denominations and abandoned them, not remaining in organized Christianity, but have not returned to the ground of oneness, that is, the ground of locality. They are groups that linger “halfway.” Some form student fellowship groups, and others form family gatherings. They claim that they are nondenominational, having seen the error of denominations. Realizing that the Lord condemns denominations, they have rejected and abandoned them. There are also those in free groups who reject organization. This means that they do not want chapels for worship or anything that relates to organization. On the negative side, this is correct, but on the positive side, they have not arrived at the ground on which God desires the church to stand. In terms of the Old Testament type, they have left Babylon but have not yet returned to Jerusalem. This is not adequate. By the Lord’s mercy we should not only leave the improper ground of the denominations, but we should also return to the proper ground of oneness. We are not on the ground of organized denominations, nor should we linger in any of the numerous scattered grounds in between. This is the first item of our practice.
There are twelve points included in this item of our practice.
First, we are standing on the ground of the local church. This is a strong statement. We do not stand on the ground of any creed; we stand on the ground of locality, the ground of oneness of the local church.
Second, we are according to the principle of the local church. The principle of the local church is that the churches carry out their administration separately according to their locality, each being responsible to the Lord. The churches cannot form federations or have headquarters.
Third, we have the nature of the local church. Although the church is expressed locally, it is universal. Hence, even though the administration of the church is local and independent, the fellowship of the church is universal. The local church has fellowship with all the local gatherings that stand on the ground of the church. Hence, the nature of the local church is universal and is of the Body.
Fourth, we meet together. Our meeting together is by virtue of the nature of the fellowship of the church; hence, we emphasize meetings. Our worship, service, and work are carried out through meetings. Meetings can be regarded as our collective move and corporate living.
Fifth, we serve in coordination. We also emphasize coordinated service. We do not merely listen to sermons or conduct Sunday services; we also learn to serve. In the matter of service we do not approve of independence or agree with individualism. Since the church is an assembly, a Body, the saints should coordinate together and have a coordinated service, the service of the Body (Eph. 4:12, 16).
Sixth, we live the proper life of the Body of Christ. By the Lord’s grace, we desire to live out the proper life of the Body of Christ on the ground of the church in order that the Body of Christ may be manifested as a reality among the churches in all the localities (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:27).
Seventh, we express the life of Christ. When we live out the life of the Body of Christ, the life of Christ is spontaneously expressed and flows out. This not only causes Christ to be expressed but also causes man to receive the supply of life.
Eighth, we bear the testimony of the church. The totality of the preceding seven points is the testimony of the church. This testimony involves being a witness of Christ (Acts 1:8). The church is a vessel that bears the testimony of Christ. All our gatherings in various localities are vessels bearing the testimony of Christ. The testimony we bear is not of any particular truth but of the Christ who incorporates the truth.
Ninth, we are being built together. We do not only emphasize individual spirituality, but even more we emphasize the building of the church in life. We emphasize individual edification so that we can be built together (Eph. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:5). We believe that what God needs today is not many spiritual individuals but a built-up church. Therefore, it is only by being built together that we can meet God’s need.
Tenth, we are God’s dwelling place. God desires to gain a house on earth to be His dwelling place (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 2:22) so that He and all those who belong to Him can dwell in it. We are being built together in order to become God’s dwelling place so that God and His children can have a home, a dwelling place on earth.
Eleventh, we express God Himself. Our being built together in order to be God’s dwelling place not only affords God a place to dwell but also enables Him to express Himself. Our gatherings in every locality should express God and cause people to sense that God is among us (1 Cor. 14:25).
Twelfth, we are doing God’s will. We desire that God would grant us grace so that His will can be carried out in all the meetings of every locality (Matt. 6:10). We do not want human opinion to have any ground among us; our desire is to accomplish God’s will (Heb. 13:21).
I believe that we are all clear concerning these twelve points. These points cover the ground, the principle, the nature, the meeting, the coordination, the Body life, the expression of the life of Christ, the testimony of the church, the building, God’s dwelling place, God’s expression, and God’s will. We fully advocate these twelve points and emphasize them in a balanced way without bias or preference. Some in Christianity emphasize the matter of expressing Christ and living out the life of Christ but neglect the ground. Others emphasize the matter of the church having the Body life and the members not being independent or individualistic but neglect the principle and nature of the church. We do not want to be like this. The twelve points we have presented are comprehensive. We do not merely emphasize the ground while neglecting the expression of Christ, the testimony of the church, God’s will, and so forth. We should not and will not neglect these matters. If we have the ground but do not have the expression of Christ or the practical testimony of the church, we are no longer God’s dwelling place where He can be expressed and where His will can be accomplished. If this were so, our advocating would merely be empty, dead letters. Hence, we must have the Body life, the expression of Christ, and the testimony of the church. We must also be God’s dwelling place for His expression and the accomplishing of His will.
However, if we have a practical and proper desire for the Body life, the expression of Christ, the testimony of the church, and God’s dwelling place for His expression and the accomplishing of His will, the preceding points regarding the ground, the principle, the nature, the meeting, and the coordination of the church are indispensable. Without these preceding five points, it is difficult to have the subsequent seven points. We must have the proper ground upon which we gather; it must be in the principle of “one church, one city” with an independent, local administration; there must be the nature of the Body, the universal fellowship; and there must be the practice of meeting and coordination. When these five points are fulfilled, we can live the Body life by the Holy Spirit to express the life of Christ, bear the complete testimony of the church, and be God’s dwelling place, expressing God Himself and accomplishing His will. Thus, in our practice we must pay equal attention to these twelve points. What we practice in every locality is only these twelve points.
We will not form a unique sect. Although we differ from others, because of the ground we absolutely will not form a unique sect, establishing “our meetings” in different localities. Rather, we desire to meet and serve the Lord in various places on the ground of the oneness of the church, that is, the ground of locality, with all those who repudiate division and reject sectarianism.
Today in Christianity people have different views and interpretations of the Scriptures and hold different practices concerning the meetings and administration of the church. These can all be tolerated, provided that they do not damage the basic faith or the fundamental truth of salvation. Hence, although we practice baptism by immersion, if some want to be sprinkled because they feel at peace being sprinkled, we should tolerate it. Keeping the Lord’s Day is according to the truth in the Bible, but if some brothers hold to keeping the Sabbath, we should not contend with them. As long as these understandings or views do not damage the basic, fundamental faith, we should tolerate them.
The fundamental faith of salvation is the one faith in Ephesians 4. This one faith can never be shaken, nor can anything be added to or subtracted from it. Different understandings and views on such things as head covering, baptism by immersion or sprinkling, breaking bread once a week or daily, and practicing embracing one another or foot-washing at the bread-breaking meeting do not damage the fundamental faith of salvation. We cannot say that a sister is saved if her head is covered and not saved if her head is not covered. Neither can we say that a person is saved if he is baptized by immersion but not saved if he is sprinkled. These matters do not affect a person’s salvation; hence, we can tolerate them.
Brothers and sisters, we should not merely speak in this way, but we should have this attitude in our practice. If a brother is willing to return to the ground of oneness and meet with us but cannot drop the Sabbath and must break bread with a few brothers on the Sabbath, our attitude must be that we would not only let them break bread but would even break bread with them. Some may ask, “Would this not create disorder in the church and be improper?” We must bear in mind that being proper is a human concept. God sometimes tolerates things that are improper according to human concepts. In the New Testament the teaching of the apostles did not require the church to define each matter in a definite way. For example, concerning the matter of keeping days in Romans 14, the apostle did not mandate that a certain day must never be kept and another day must be kept. His attitude was that he who keeps that day, keeps it to the Lord, and he who does not keep that day, does not keep it to the Lord. The same also applies to eating. Paul does not mandate what we must eat and what we should not eat. Rather, he says, “He who eats, let him not despise him who does not eat; and he who does not eat, let him not judge him who eats” (v. 3). This shows that the apostle was general in his attitude toward these matters. Some may ask, “Is this not disorderly?” We must be assured that if we all learn to live before the Lord, any differences that we may initially have will gradually be eliminated.
Some brothers and sisters have truly misrepresented us in matters such as these. Someone once said that he wanted to break the bread with us, but another brother responded, “No, you may not break the bread with us because you were sprinkled and not baptized by immersion. The church will have baptisms a month from now. You can come and break the bread with us after you have been baptized.” There was also a seeking sister who wanted to break bread with us. When she saw many sisters with their heads covered, she asked a sister, “Should I also cover my head when I come to break the bread?” The sister carelessly replied, “Yes, you should cover your head; otherwise, you may not break the bread with us.” When things like these happen, they cause trouble. These misrepresentations give the impression that we are an “immersion sect” or a “head-covering sect.” While some may wait to be baptized by immersion before they break the bread, others may object and say, “Have I not been baptized? If I am not baptized by immersion, does this mean that I am not saved? Sprinkling was good enough for me. Why must I be immersed?” When things like this happen, they cause trouble. Although we have never advocated this, the ones who spoke these things misrepresented us.
Recently, I heard that on a Lord’s Day evening four or five years ago, a believer came to a meeting hall of the church in Taipei to attend the bread-breaking meeting. When the ushering brother noticed that he did not have a nametag, he immediately stopped him and said, “You may not break the bread without a nametag.” The believer replied, “I also am a saved brother.” The ushering brother, however, would not permit him and eventually asked him to leave. Brothers and sisters, it would be awful if this had continued, for we would have become a strict “nametag-wearing sect.” There are things to consider when receiving brothers, but when someone comes to break bread, we should not interfere too much and cause his spirit to be damaged. We can allow him to break the bread and then check concerning the condition of his salvation and take care of receiving him after the meeting. This may include giving him a nametag.
Hence, I hope the responsible brothers in all the churches will be more cautious concerning these matters. Otherwise, a certain regulation may be established that would cause us to become a sect and thus damage the oneness of God’s children. In fact, all God’s children can break bread to remember the Lord with us as long as they are saved, and they are touched by the Lord to do so. Wearing nametags is merely a convenience for fellowship and to know one another. There is no need to wear a nametag if we are familiar with one another. Our nametags do not guard the Lord’s table. On the one hand, we should not casually allow people to break bread. We should know those who come to break bread with us. We should fellowship with them and introduce them. On the other hand, the nametag is not a checkpoint or a prerequisite; wearing a nametag is not a requirement. On these matters we must learn to be general and tolerant.
Suppose a sister does not feel to wear a black head covering but wants to wear a white head covering instead. We should be able to say, “I will wear a white head covering with you.” When a brother says, “I must be sprinkled and not immersed,” we should be able to say, “Thank the Lord. If you are sprinkled, we can still break bread together.” Although his practice does not seem to be ideal, it is not necessarily a problem. The problem lies in whether or not we insist. If we do not insist, the Holy Spirit Himself will work and gradually bring the brothers and sisters into oneness. Our experience proves this. I hope we will all see that these kinds of things are tolerable.
Suppose someone thinks that only one cup should be used in the bread-breaking meeting, and another thinks that it is all right to use many cups. While using one cup is more scriptural, if some insist on having many cups, we should be general and not be divided over this. The few places I visited abroad all used many cups in the bread-breaking meeting. I did not lose the peace, and I enjoyed breaking the bread with them. In New York City the brothers were recovering the practice of breaking the bread, and they were considering whether to use one large cup or many small cups. When they asked me concerning this, I said, “This is your church affair, and you should decide for yourselves. If you feel to use one large cup, then use one large cup, or if you feel to use many small cups, then use many small cups. You decide this matter by yourselves.” Eventually, they decided to use one large cup.
These illustrations show that there are no criteria in these matters. Although there is a standard, we should not insist, for example, that the Sabbath is wrong and the Lord’s Day is right. There is such a standard, but the apostle’s attitude was general and tolerant. Some may feel that keeping the Sabbath is not right and want to keep the Lord’s Day. Thank the Lord that they keep it to the Lord. Or they may feel that the Sabbath is right and keep the Sabbath. Thank the Lord that they keep it to the Lord. We should bear with all these and not criticize. Likewise, although baptism by immersion is scriptural, if someone wants to be sprinkled, he can be sprinkled. He can be saved without being immersed, and he can be spiritual without being immersed. We can tolerate all these things.
These words are not only for others but even more they are for us. We should never take these matters as our faith, our creed. We do not have a creed, and we have only the one faith spoken of in Ephesians 4. Only this one faith can never be shaken. One God, one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, one baptism, one Body, and one hope — these seven items are indispensable. This is the fundamental faith. Besides these, we may have some other things or we may not have them, and we may speak this way or we may speak that way. We should have a gracious heart and a noncontentious spirit to allow the Holy Spirit to work freely among us. If this is the case, the Holy Spirit will gradually bring us to a point where we are in one accord and practice according to the Lord’s word.
Although this is similar to the previous item, it means that we are not afraid of people having opinions, but we are afraid of people being divisive. As long as they are willing to not be divisive and are willing to abolish any existing division, any opinion or view can be accepted. We do not require other believers to drop their views before meeting with us, but we require them to abolish their divisions. We can tolerate anything, but not division. Whether immersion or sprinkling, large cups or small cups, leavened bread or unleavened bread, head covering or no head covering — all these are not a problem. We can tolerate all such things. However, there is one thing we cannot tolerate; we can never tolerate division, because once there is division, the ground of the oneness of the church is lost.
We receive all believers, regardless of their views. As long as they are saved, we are willing to receive them. However, we cannot accept any believer who meets the conditions for removal from fellowship.
There are only two categories of believers that meet the conditions for removal from fellowship. In the first category, referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:11, are sinful men who are extremely filthy and who insult the Lord’s name, such as fornicators, coveters, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, and the rapacious. In the second category, referred to in 2 John 7-11, are those who go beyond the teaching of Christ, speaking heresies that Christ is not God, that He did not become flesh, that His death did not bear our sins, that His blood cannot redeem us from our sins, and that He did not resurrect from the dead. Such heresies can be seen in today’s so-called Modernism, which promotes the belief of the antichrists, who are an unbelieving sect. Those who accept this heresy claim that they believe in Christ but in fact resist Christ. This is a pernicious sin. We cannot receive anyone who is related to either of these two categories of sins, even if he is a Christian in name. If he has already been received, he must be removed. Apart from these, we would receive anyone who is saved, regardless of his views or opinions.
We are willing to fellowship with all the brothers and sisters in the Lord, regardless of the sects they are in, even if they are in the Roman Catholic Church. We are willing to have fellowship with them, but we absolutely do not want to have a part in the denominations to which they belong. Brothers and sisters as individuals are one thing, but the denominations and sects that they are in are another. We must differentiate between the two. Sometimes when we forsake the denominations and sects, we forsake the brothers and sisters who are in them. At other times we do just the opposite. As we receive the brothers and sisters from the denominations, the denominations to which they belong are also brought with them. This is because we have not differentiated between individuals and organizations.
This can be compared to eating fish. When we eat the flesh, we must spew out the bones. We should not spew out the flesh because we do not want the bones, nor should we swallow the bones because we want to eat the flesh. We should be able to distinguish between the two: the brothers and sisters belong to us, and we want them, but the denominations and sects do not belong to us, and we refuse them. We want neither the Protestant churches nor the Roman Catholic Church. We want all the saved brothers and sisters in them. We should have fellowship and contact with them.
The degree of fellowship and contact we have with them depends on the relationship, effect, and consequence that this kind of fellowship brings to the denominations and sects. If the fellowship causes the denominations and sects to be built up or the testimony of the local church to suffer loss, it should not be carried out. Therefore, no one can predetermine the degree of contact and fellowship that should occur. It must be carefully considered before the Lord for the sake of the Lord.
Although we receive brothers and sisters with different views, we cannot commit any responsibility in the service to them. This prevents problems in the service. Receiving is one thing, but bearing responsibility in the service is another.
We feel that in raising us up the Lord has commissioned us, and we should be faithful and responsible to His commission. Therefore, although the Lord’s table is open to all God’s children and every believer can partake of it, we cannot be so open related to responsibility in the service. Only brothers and sisters with the same view should join in and bear the burden together. If those who do not have the same view bear responsibilities, neither they nor we will profit from it. We should be able to make this distinction. Being unable to bear responsibility in the service should not prevent one from being received, nor does being received mean that he can bear responsibility in the service. This matter is not so simple.
For example, we should not refuse a brother who emphasizes sprinkling and wants to break bread with us, even though we practice immersion. We should still receive him. However, after receiving him, there will be problems if we ask him to immediately take up responsibility in the service. He will bring in his ideas and opinions and contend and argue with others. As a result, neither he nor others will benefit. Hence, we need to exercise wisdom in these matters. There is no problem with breaking bread and fellowshipping with this brother, but giving him responsibility in the service should not be done quickly. This does not mean that we will never give him responsibility but that this needs to be done slowly. We need to find opportunities to have thorough fellowship with him. Perhaps our views are wrong, and we should be adjusted; or his views are wrong, and he can be gradually subdued. In any case, we must have the same view in order to bear the same responsibility.
Some who are still not clear concerning this may think that we are being too narrow. I would simply ask, “Can every believer be an elder?” Of course not. Even though every saved person is a brother and can come to break bread, not everyone can come here and be an elder. This is because breaking bread is a matter of salvation, but the eldership involves a commission of responsibility that can be assumed only when a person arrives at a certain level in spiritual condition. Here is another illustration: While we all have equal opportunity to serve, not everyone can give a message. Everyone can break bread, but not everyone can stand up to minister the Word. This is because ministering the Word is a matter of commission, a matter of responsibility. It is impossible for an eighty-year-old grandfather, a fifty-year-old father, and an eight-year-old child to bear the same responsibility in a family. At mealtime there is no distinction between the three at the dinner table. However, in relation to bearing responsibility for the family, no responsibility would be given to an eight-year-old or even to someone who is eighteen years old. This is because they are not matured. Giving them responsibility for the family can only cause problems. It is all right to let the children do some daily, trivial tasks, but when weighty matters arise in the family, only the father, the mother, and the older brothers and sisters can participate.
We must see that although the Lord’s table is open, responsibility in service is restricted. It is not wrong for brothers with different views to invite people and accompany them to gospel meetings, but the responsibilities of the church cannot be committed to them. Responsibility can be given only to those who are more experienced and mature. I hope that all the leading ones in the churches can understand this and will not give responsibility to someone simply because he has been received or not receive a person because he is unable to bear any responsibility. We must be able to discern between receiving someone and committing responsibilities to him.
Whenever we go to a place, we should first find out if there is a meeting that is on the ground of the church in that locality. If there is a meeting on the ground of the church that is proper in nature, not belonging to a sect or denomination, we must meet and serve with them, regardless of whether we knew of or fellowshipped with them previously. We must not set up another meeting. If we set up another meeting that is apart from them in that locality, we are creating a sect; we are dividing the church.
If such a meeting cannot be found, we need to be faithful and not fear the hardship. On one hand, we should not take part in a denomination that may be there, and on the other hand, we should endeavor to preach the gospel to lead people to be saved, to know the church, and to have a clear understanding of the ground and the way of the church so that a proper meeting on the ground of the church can be established with them.
Now we come to our attitude, which is our declaration.
Just as we do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be proper, we also do not consider the Protestant churches to be proper. They have both forsaken the proper ground of the church. Hence, we do not want to be in the Roman Catholic Church, nor do we want to be in the Protestant churches. We are neither the Roman Catholic Church nor a Protestant church. Just as we do not recognize the Roman Catholic Church, we also do not recognize the Protestant churches.
The Brethren were raised up over the past one hundred years. We are not the Brethren. We are neither the exclusive Brethren nor the open Brethren.
We believe that it is not adequate to merely depart from the Catholic Church or the Protestant churches yet still not return to the ground of the church. Therefore, we are not small free groups that do not have a definite ground. Our meetings stand on the definite ground of the church, that is, the ground of locality.
Some brothers have said that only the saints meeting with us are the local church. This kind of speaking is too much. We should say only that the believers meeting with us are a part of the local church. Although according to the ground, principle, and nature there is no question that we are the local church, according to quantity we are only a part of the local church. For example, the local church in Taipei, in principle, includes all the believers in Taipei; however, because of the division of the church, many believers are segregated in denominations. They have departed from the ground of the local church and left us, the minority, to stand on the ground of the local church. Hence, in reality we are only part of the local church in Taipei. If all the believers would return to the local ground, the church in Taipei would include all the believers in the local church.
Today there are saved ones in every sect and denomination, including the Catholic Church. We acknowledge that they are our brothers and sisters and are members of the Body of Christ, yet they have lost the ground of the church and no longer stand on the ground of the church. They can be compared to family members who have left home and have gone to other places.
When some brothers and sisters who love the Lord see that the denominations are wrong, they endeavor to change or eliminate them. However, the revelation in the Scriptures reveals that neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Protestant denominations will be changed or abolished. Therefore, we should not expect them to change, because this expectation will never be realized. We can only hope that individuals will depart from them and return to the ground of the church (Rev. 18:4). For example, not one denomination in China has changed in the last thirty years. The Presbyterian Church has not changed, the Baptist Church has not changed, and the Methodist Church has not changed; no denomination has ever changed. Although some of them admit that they are wrong, they remain unchanged and have not been abolished. On the contrary, they have become stronger, and their condition has worsened. Thus, there is no need for us to hope that they will change. Frankly speaking, all such hopes are wild and false hopes that will only disappoint. All effort to change the denominations is a futile waste of energy. It is clearly shown in Revelation that the church in Thyatira (2:25), the church in Sardis (3:3), and the church in Laodicea will remain until the Lord comes. This means that the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant denominations and sects, and even the lukewarm Brethren will remain until the Lord comes. They are all deeply rooted, and there is no way to change them. Hence, we can only hope that some, like Martin Luther, will come out of the Roman Catholic Church, and others, like the brothers and sisters throughout the generations, will come out of the various organizations of Protestantism and return to the ground of the oneness of the church.
In today’s Christianity denominations and sects are reluctant to forsake their ground but desire to be united with one another. They either organize joint evangelistic meetings and joint choirs, or they exchange ideas concerning their work. The pastor of one congregation may preach in a second congregation, and the pastor of the second congregation may lead the first congregation. It seems as if everyone is united in the Lord and not divided, yet in fact, this is a kind of “shaking hands over the fence.” Apparently, they are shaking hands and communicating, but in fact, there is a tall fence between them. Although they are standing on either side of the fence, they are joined by shaking hands over the fence. They are willing to shake hands, but they are not willing to tear down the fence. This kind of union that divides while uniting is totally unprofitable to the testimony of the church and is even harmful. This is not an absolute union. It seems to be a union, but it is not actually a union. We should not participate or approve of this kind of union; we should strictly condemn it.
This kind of union brings in confusion and damages the principle of being “according to their kind” as spoken of in the Bible (Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25). This is an obscure situation, a condition of being divided yet united and united yet divided, a condition of being neither black nor white. They might as well be what they are — divided and not united. God’s law ordains that everything should be according to its kind. If they are divided, they should be divided; if they are united, they should be united. Being divided while seeking unity and promoting unity when they are divided is confusion. This is sin upon sin. If unity is desired, why is there division? Unity should condemn the sin of division. If being divided is right, why is there a need for unity? The desire to unite after being divided proves that division is wrong. Since division is wrong, it should be dealt with thoroughly. However, having no desire to deal with it thoroughly, they attempt to be united. This can be compared to a woman who marries someone she should not have married and later wants to marry someone she should have married; yet she is reluctant to leave the first. On the one hand, she is reluctant to leave the first, and on the other hand, she wants to unite with the one she should have married. This is sin upon sin. But this is the situation in today’s Christianity. The situation of being divided yet wanting to be united is a great confusion in God’s eyes. We dare not have any part in it.
In the sphere of today’s Christianity much work is being done outside of the church that does not result in the building up of the local churches. Concerning God’s plan for the church, we feel that this work is a contradiction and damage; hence, we do not wish to have any part in it.
We acknowledge that although there is much work that is not carried out in the church and is not for the building up of the local church, there are still some who have received some blessings from God. Because God is gracious and merciful in this age of grace, wherever there is an opening, an opportunity, God’s grace will flow, just as water seeps through the cracks. We cannot, however, approve of such works based solely on this supply, concluding that God fully delights in such works and workers. In the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar was a Gentile king who worshipped idols. We cannot say that God delighted in him, but God used him to accomplish His will. The book of Job shows that God can use even His enemy, Satan. Oh, the Lord is great! He can use all kinds of people, even those whom He dislikes quite much. Thus, it is one thing to be used by the Lord, and it is another thing to be well pleasing to and approved of by the Lord. We cannot approve of a work based on God’s use of it. Nevertheless, because the Lord is great, even though we do not approve of these works or wish to take part in them, we should not interfere with them. We want only to serve the Lord in lowliness, with a pure conscience, and according to His shining and pleasure in order to bear the testimony that He has committed to us.
