Search
Scripture Reading: Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; Rev. 1:11
Acts 14:23 says that elders are ordained in every church, but Titus 1:5 says that elders are ordained in every city. This means that “in every city” is “in every church,” and “in every church” is equivalent to “in every city.” To ordain elders in every church is not to ordain elders in every home or in any other kind of place, but in every city.
Then Revelation 1:11 says, “What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” Have you noticed all the tos in this verse? The Lord tells John to write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches. Following this, he says, “To Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” To is repeated seven times. Therefore, to the seven churches is to the seven cities, and to the seven cities is to the seven churches.
To my realization the use of so many tos in this verse makes the composition rather awkward. There must be a reason for this repetition. “Write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches.” Then it says “to” the first place and “to” the second place and “to” the third place and “to” the fourth place and “to” the fifth place and “to” the sixth place and “to” the seventh place. Why did the Lord speak in this way? If it were written by me, I would simply say, Send it to the seven churches which are in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. I would not use so many tos.
I do not believe that anyone would write this verse as it is. Every one of us would probably put all seven names after one “to.” But the Lord did not do it in this way. He told John to send this book to the seven churches. Then He said to send it to this city and to that city. This clearly shows us that one church equals one city and represents that city.
When something was written and sent to the church in Ephesus, it was sent to the city of Ephesus, because the church in Ephesus represented that city in the eyes of the Lord. If we read Revelation 1:11 again, we will realize that this is what it means. This verse tells us clearly and definitely that a church in a place must be equal to the city in which the church is located, and it corresponds with Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. In these two verses we see that to ordain elders in every church is to ordain elders in every city, and to ordain elders in every city means to ordain elders in every church. This makes it abundantly clear that the sphere and limit of the church must be exactly the same as that of the city. In other words, the boundary, the jurisdiction, of the church is identical to that of the city.
We must believe that the wording used by the Lord in writing the Scriptures is exceedingly meaningful. Why would Acts 14:23 say to ordain elders in every church and then Titus 1:5 say to ordain elders in every city? Has the church something to do with the city? In a sense, the church has nothing to do with the city; but in the Lord’s way, the boundary, the jurisdiction, of a local church must be the same as the city. Then in Revelation 1:11 the Lord Jesus makes it extremely clear that a local church is equal to the city in which it is located.
Before 1828, the year in which the Brethren were raised up, the concept of the church being local had not been seen clearly by Christianity. But after 1828 the Brethren, under the leadership of John Nelson Darby, began to see that the church must be local. Thus, the Brethren began to have their local assemblies, and the term local assembly, or local church began to be used. But they were not clear regarding the limit, or the boundary, of the local church. Eventually, the Brethren, especially the so-called Open Brethren, had many local assemblies in one city. Six years ago in a certain city, I met one of their responsible brothers, who told me that there were four Brethren assemblies in that one city, and these four assemblies had nothing to do with each other. Everyone was a separate, independent assembly with a different administration. In other cities, they have even more assemblies. They have been too free. When some brothers in their assemblies have felt unhappy with others, they have left and started another meeting. Yet they would say that they were not divided from the others but were still one in the Lord. Some met on one street and others met on another street, but both claimed to meet in the name of the Lord. Thus, they were not assemblies of the cities but assemblies of the streets. They had responsible brothers not in every city but on certain streets. This was and still is due to the fact that the Brethren have never seen the limit, or the boundary, of the local church.
Beginning in 1922 many local gatherings were raised up by the Lord in China. By 1933 Brother Watchman Nee, realizing the confusion among the Brethren assemblies and being greatly concerned regarding the boundary, or limit, of a local church, read through the New Testament again in order to be clear concerning this matter. By so doing, he came to see that the boundary of a local church is the boundary of the city in which the church is located. That was a real deliverance to us. We became very clear that the church in Shanghai covered everything within the city limits of Shanghai.
From 1934 Brother Nee became more and more clear, not only concerning the boundary of the local church but also concerning the ground of the local church. Then in 1937 he delivered a number of messages to us regarding this matter, which are now contained in the book entitled The Normal Christian Church Life. The most emphasized point in these messages is the local ground of the church. From the boundary of the local church, Brother Nee went on to see the ground of the local church. It was by 1937 that this became clear to us all, and it was at this time that the term the ground of the church was first used. Not only is the city limit the boundary of the local church, but the city itself is the ground of the church. The ground of the church is the city in which the church stands. If a vase stands on a table, the table is the ground upon which the vase stands. A local church stands in a city, so the city in which it stands becomes its very ground.
Since then, the Bible, and especially the New Testament, has been opened to us in this matter. From that time until now, there has been no further improvement in this simply because it cannot be improved upon. It is exceedingly clear that the church ground is the city, the very locality in which the church stands.
Some say that we have learned concerning the local church ground from the Brethren. But the Brethren did not see this. If they had seen the unique ground of the church, they could not have many assemblies in one city.
Why is the church ground important and necessary, and why do we stress this matter so much? We must all realize that the church in the entire universe is one Body; thus, regarding the church, there is a real oneness. The church should not be divided. How could your body be divided? You can divide anything else, but you can never divide your body. As the Body of Christ, the church must be one.
This oneness of the church is expressed in many localities. It was expressed in Jerusalem, it was expressed in Antioch, and it was expressed in Corinth. But the many local expressions of the church do not mean that the church is divided. There is only one United States of America. But the United States has many expressions. In Toronto the United States has one consulate, or one expression; likewise, in Vancouver there is one, in Mexico City one, in Hong Kong one, in London one, in Tokyo one, and in Paris one. There are many expressions but only one United States. The many consulates of the United States throughout the world as her many expressions do not mean that she is divided. But there can never be more than one consulate of the United States in any one city. If in London today there were two consulates of the United States, it would mean that the United States is divided. Regardless of the size of a city, as long as a consulate of the United States is there, that consulate must be uniquely one. It may have many offices, but it must only be one consulate. Tokyo is the largest city on earth today, but it has only one American consulate. If there were more than one, it would mean division.
The church is one; she should not be divided. But the church must be expressed in many places. Therefore, in every city, if there is an expression of the church, that expression must be uniquely one. If it is otherwise, there is division, and that cannot be.
As an American citizen in Tokyo, would you need to choose to which American consulate you should go? Of course not; you have no choice in the matter, for there is only one American consulate in Tokyo. All you need to know is the address and how to get there.
The church today has been divided simply by many different kinds of expressions in one locality. After the Second World War, Christians became so free, especially in this country. They were dissatisfied with the denominations; so they left and formed many smaller groups. Formerly, the number of different kinds of expressions of the church was smaller, but now it has been greatly increased. I was told that in Southern California alone there are at least one thousand small Christian groups. Those who are in these smaller groups do not sense that they are divisive. They claim to be groups which are seeking the true way, but in fact they are many small divisions.
So many know that the large denominations are divisive and sectarian, but they simply do not realize the divisiveness of the small groups. If you point this out to them, they will say that they are all one in Christ. This sounds good, but it is just a kind of saying; in fact, they are not one, but divisive.
Suppose the United States were divided into three separate countries. What weakness would result! This is just the subtlety of the enemy with the church. He has divided the Body of Christ not only into parts but into many pieces. This is why the church today is so weak.
Another problem regarding divisions concerns those who only care for spirituality. If the meetings of the local church are not so spiritual, they will not go along. They will separate themselves to meet in a more spiritual way. They do not care for the unique ground of the church. It may be that they are not clear that the ground of the church does not depend upon the condition of the church. The condition may fluctuate, but the ground, the standing, never changes. Today we may be very spiritual, but after two months we may not be so spiritual; and after two years, we may be worse. But if today we are weak, can you say that after two years we will not be strong? This, however, is a matter of condition, which easily fluctuates; but the standing of the ground can never change.
Suppose we have a family called the Smiths. Their standing as the Smith family is something which can never be altered. But the condition of the Smith family may be good today and bad tomorrow. However, the members of the Smith family stay together as a family because they are one family. As one family, regardless of how good or bad it is, it is still the Smith family. This is their standing, their ground.
Suppose one of the members of the Smith family thinks that his family is quite poor; so he goes to another family, and that family is much better. But after two years that family becomes much poorer than the Smith family. Then what shall he do?
The problem today is that Christians have no standing, no ground. They only look at the spiritual condition. “This group is more spiritual. I would like to be with them.” But after two years I may be very unhappy with them, so I go to another place. If I am such a person, this means that I have no standing, no ground. I am always seeking a place according to the spiritual condition.
The condition fluctuates, but the ground remains the same. Who can change the site of a building? The building may be poor today, but after a few months it may be greatly improved. In three months the building may change in its condition, but the site, the ground, is forever the same.
It is only by the unique ground of locality that the church can be kept one. Without this ground she will be spontaneously divided. The church is one, so the expression of the church must also be one. Regardless of how big or how small a city may be, the church must be uniquely one in that city. We should never be divided. Wherever we are, we are one, and wherever we go, we are one. If I go to San Francisco, I must go to the church in San Francisco. If I go to London, I must go to the church in London. If I come to Los Angeles, I must come to the church in Los Angeles.
The church is the same in boundary as the city. How many churches should there be in San Francisco? There should be only one, because in every city the expression of the church must be uniquely one. If we go to San Francisco, we must find where the church is and go to it. It is very simple. It is just like going to Tokyo or London to find the American consulate. The American consulate is our consulate because we are citizens of America. We need not ask to which American consulate we must go. We need only ask as Americans citizens, “Where is my consulate?” It is the same when we as Christians go to San Francisco. As Christians we should ask, “Where is the church?” and go to it.
But in fact, sometimes it is not so. For instance, a brother finds the church in San Francisco and goes to the meeting. First he looks at the brothers and then at the sisters. Then he sees the way they have their meeting and attempts to discern how spiritual they are. After this, he returns home to consider the whole situation and eventually decides that he will not go there anymore. He stays home to pray: “Lord, You know that I love You, and You know my heart. O Lord, You know how much I seek after You, and You know the situation in that church. Lord, You know how I cannot go along with that kind of people.” The more he prays, the more he is clear that he must start a meeting in his home, intending that it will be a more spiritual meeting than the church meeting he attended. Thus, he begins to meet with others in his home with a very pure intention. They meet in the name of the Lord, and they can even give testimony of how the Lord has heard their prayers and is guiding them. They have even brought some people to the Lord.
But regardless of how pure, how spiritual, and how full of Christ his group is, it is divisive, and regardless of how poor and how weak and how short of Christ the church in San Francisco is, that is the unique church according to the ground. No one has the right to start another meeting. This is the only way for us to keep the oneness. We can never keep the oneness of the church by the spiritual condition.
Let me illustrate in another way. Suppose two Americans go to Tokyo and visit the American consulate. But from the American consulate they receive very poor service. These two are offended by such a poor consulate in Tokyo; therefore, one of them suggests that they start another American consulate in their home there. They will give the best service, they say.
Later, another American comes to Tokyo and goes to the American consulate, and he also is offended by the poor service. Then he meets the two Americans who started another consulate in their home, and they ask him to come and see how good their American consulate is. Thus, he goes to their house and finds that their American consulate just fits his taste.
You may think that this is ridiculous, but have you ever realized that this is exactly the situation of today’s Christianity? Everyone is so free to start another “church” at any time and any place. But is it the proper church? It may be more spiritual, but the ground is wrong.
We know that at least thirteen million Hebrew people exist on the earth today, but only about two million have gone back to the Holy Land. In New York City alone there are at least three million Hebrews now. Are not all these just as much Hebrews as those in the Holy Land? Surely they are. But who constitutes the nation of Israel? Only those who are on the ground of the nation of Israel. Even though the number of Hebrews in New York is larger, they are still not the nation of Israel. They are Hebrews, but they are not the nation of Israel, because they are not on the proper ground. Only those who have gone back and are standing there in the Holy Land are the nation of Israel, because they are on the proper ground of their nation.
Without the Holy Land, how could the people of Israel be a nation? They simply would not have the ground. The same is true with the church. Without the proper and unique ground, how can we practice the church life? It is impossible. Therefore, in order to practice the church life, we must have the proper ground.
The Hebrews who live in New York may be fine people, very religious, and high-class people. On the other hand, those who have returned to the Holy Land may be poor and of a lower class. But if you wanted to be in the nation of Israel, would you remain in New York or return to the Holy Land? Of course, you would go to the country of Israel.
Those Hebrews who have returned to the right ground may not be so fine and so well cultured as those in New York, but I have full assurance that only with those who have gone to the Holy Land is it possible for the Lord’s purpose to be fulfilled for the Hebrew nation. Regardless of how good those in New York are, they can never fulfill the Lord’s purpose, for they are not on the ground of their nation.
Oh, how we need to see the importance of the ground! It is only by the ground that the oneness of the church can be kept, and it is only by the ground that we can learn the lessons we need in order to experience the reality and practicality of the church life. Without the ground it is impossible to have the proper church life.
