Search
Scripture Reading: Eph. 1:16-17; 3:14; 1 Cor. 14:29b; Acts 2:42a; Eph. 4:14
In this term of training I have a deep consideration for all the trainees, especially the young ones. I also believe that what I am going to fellowship with you in this message will be a help to all the saints in the Lord’s recovery. I believe you have heard that beginning in September 1987 a group of brothers who had been among us for many years became very dissenting. In the past four years they have spoken and even written a number of things that are divisive and very misleading. During this time I adopted the attitude that I would not fight with them. Thus, I did not say much, but on the positive side, I received a burden from the Lord to put out more and more messages on the divine Word. Beginning in the summer of 1988, after they had begun their conspiracy, my speaking increased. First, in 1988 I put out the Life-study of Leviticus. Then from 1989 through 1991, I released, consecutively, the life-studies of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Daniel and Zechariah, and Jeremiah and Lamentations. Presently, I am ready to finish the life-study of the Old Testament Prophets by covering the Minor Prophets in the coming summer training. During the same period, besides all the life-studies on these books of the Old Testament, I have held a number of conferences in different cities, including Seattle, Cleveland, Atlanta, Pasadena, San Diego, Taipei, Berkeley, and Anaheim. In all these conferences I passed on some crucial messages for the recovery.
In this chapter and the next I would like to take the opportunity to make the present situation in the Lord’s recovery clear to all the saints. Then we will know where we are and will also know how to face the present situation. I say again that I have no intention to fight with anyone. For all the years of my ministry I have never done the Lord’s work in the way of stressing things on the negative side. On the contrary, I have always done the work by ministering things on the positive side. Therefore, in this message what I am going to say is not something negative but something very positive.
In the previous chapter we covered four points of the prerequisite of the practice of the church life according to the God-ordained way. In this chapter we will continue with the fifth and sixth points.
The fifth point of the prerequisite is to have a clear view concerning the present situation of the Lord’s recovery. Since we are in the recovery, we should know the present situation of the recovery. We should not be indifferent but should know the real situation. This requires that we get into the intrinsic nature of every problem.
According to God’s ordained principle in His creation, nothing can exist without two sides. Even a thin piece of paper has two sides. Not only so, but according to God’s ordination, for many things to exist, they need not only two sides but also an outer covering and an inner reality. A walnut is a kind of fruit, but its appearance is tough and rough. The external shell of the walnut is not the real walnut. The real walnut is not the shell but the kernel. When we eat a walnut, we do not eat the shell; we eat the kernel. The shell of the walnut and the kernel of the walnut are two different things.
The book of Jeremiah may be likened to a walnut. I misunderstood this book for many years. When I first read it, I did not appreciate it. Nevertheless, there were two verses in Jeremiah that I could never forget. The first is 17:9, which says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, / And it is incurable; / Who can know it?” From my youth I remembered that verse. It helped me not to trust any heart, including my heart, because man’s heart is deceitful. The second verse is 13:23, which says, “Can the Cushite change his skin, / Or the leopard his spots? / Then you also may be able to do good, / Who are accustomed to do evil.” This verse says that man’s sinful nature is unchangeable. Jeremiah likens man’s sinful nature to two things: the skin of the Cushite and the spots of the leopard. The fact that no one can change these two things indicates that man’s sinful nature is unchangeable. While I was writing the outlines for the 1991 winter training on Jeremiah, I was forced to get into the kernel of Jeremiah intrinsically. It was then that the Lord showed me the intrinsic contents of this book.
The way to have a clear view concerning the present situation of the Lord’s recovery is by thorough prayer (Eph. 1:16; 3:14). When you hear the things spoken by the dissenting ones, do not take them at face value. These sayings in themselves are only the “shell”; they are not the “kernel.” When you hear anything concerning the Lord’s recovery, you should not receive it immediately. Instead, you should bring it to the Lord in prayer. You should not pray only once but should pray again and again concerning what you have heard, until you have prayed thoroughly.
In order to have a clear view concerning the present situation, we need to have a spirit of wisdom and revelation. Paul desired to help the Ephesians to know God’s economy intrinsically. Concerning this, he prayed twice. In Ephesians 1:17 he prayed that we would have a spirit of wisdom and revelation. He did not pray concerning the mind or the emotion; he prayed concerning the spirit, and this spirit is not a spirit of knowledge and understanding but a spirit of wisdom and revelation. To know God’s economy intrinsically, we need more than knowledge and understanding; we need a spirit of wisdom and revelation.
Then in Ephesians 3:14-19 Paul prayed for “this cause”: that we may know Christ in such a way that He will be able to make His home in our hearts. For this particular cause Paul did not pray lightly; rather, he prayed in an earnest and formal way, bowing his knees to the Father.
To have a clear view concerning the present situation of the Lord’s recovery, we must be without prejudice. We should not say anything out of prejudice. Rather, we should learn to be quiet and bring every problem to the Lord.
In order to have a clear view of the present situation, we must also be without partiality; that is, in any controversy we should not take sides.
We must also learn to view the situation without personal affection. We should learn not to express our personal likes or dislikes concerning anything. We need to know who we are. We are nothing. We are small slaves of the Lord, and in His great house we should not say that we like or dislike certain things. We should say, “If the Lord shows me so, I will take it.”
Finally, we must be without self-opinion but full of spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 14:29b). The English letters o, c, and e are sometimes difficult to distinguish. If we do not exercise discernment, we may read something wrongly. In the Chinese language a number of characters differ only slightly in form. For example, the character for heaven and that for monster are nearly the same. Thus, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them.
When we attempt to get into the intrinsic nature of the twenty “problems” raised by the dissenting ones, we can see that none of them is simple. Each one is very crucial. And these twenty items show clearly that there must have been a conspiracy among the dissenting brothers. Without a conspiracy no one could have put forth all these items. To enter into the intrinsic nature of all these items, we must not have any opinion but must be full of discernment.
Because of the rebellion in these past four and a half years, many negative things were spoken by the dissenting ones. A number of these things were distributed in writing, and some have even become slogans. In this chapter and the next, my intention is to fellowship with you concerning twenty “problems” raised by the dissenting ones.
The first problem is the problem of control; this problem comprises four items. The main thing for which the dissenters condemned me is that I and the Living Stream Ministry office control the churches.
The dissenting ones used the term “the centralization of control.” When their conspiracy began in September 1987, I was in Taiwan conducting a training for full-time serving ones. In December of that year I came back to the United States. Shortly thereafter, four of the dissenting ones came to speak with me. The first one to speak used this term “the centralization of control.” Prior to that time I had never heard such a term. While I was waiting to discover the meaning of this term, this brother expressed that my training center in Taipei was considered by them to be a center to control all the churches on the earth. He said that this control was to such an extent that all the churches on the earth had to report their meeting times to my training center in Taipei. I had never heard of such a thing. He said that this was my way to control all the churches. He then said that I trained the young people in my training center in Taipei, and eventually they were all instructed and charged to go back to their churches to control the churches for me. Then the fourth brother continued, saying strongly that the training in Taipei should be dismantled into pieces.
The dissenting brothers also accused me of controlling the churches by my trainings, conferences, messages, tapes, etc. On March 19, 1989, in a word spoken to the church in Anaheim upon his resignation from the eldership, one of the dissenters said, “There has been a pervasive control exercised over the church...The control has not been exercised so much directly, but very much indirectly, through videos, conferences, trainings, and elders’ meetings.” This word implies that whatever I do in my ministry—teaching, training, publishing, and distributing audiotapes and videotapes—is all for the purpose of controlling the churches.
In a very positive sense, I would say that my ministry does “control” people. If you are going to take drugs, my trainings will “control” you. If you are going to lose your temper with your wife, my books will “control” you. It is true that my trainings, conferences, publications, and tapes exercise a considerable “control” over thousands of people around the globe. Without such “control,” many people might have done certain things that would have damaged themselves and their families. In this sense, it is true that my ministry “controls” people.
Any kind of edification exercises some amount of “control.” All the schools, classes, teachers, and professors “control” their students. Although the “control” exercised by my ministry over the saints and the churches is very positive, the dissenting ones speak of control in a very negative way to undermine my ministry. This is why I say that when you hear these things, you should not merely react to the outward appearance, to the “shell.” You must bring what you hear to the Lord; then the Lord will lead you to see what the intrinsic thing is within the shell.
Third, one of the dissenters said that among us there is the problem of “a king.” He also said that there is the problem of “the philosophy of a king” (see The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion). This means that in their conspiracy the dissenting ones wanted to put down the philosophy of a king. In using the term the philosophy of a king, the dissenters mean that in the recovery there is a strong teaching concerning a definite leader among us. The word philosophy here means “logic” or “teaching,” and the king here refers to a leader.
In the New Testament, in one sense, there is the philosophy, or teaching, of a definite leader among God’s people, and in another sense, there is not such a teaching. Of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament, fourteen were written by the apostle Paul. In his Epistles he is very strong to emphasize the leadership. In 1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; and Philippians 3:17, Paul entreats the saints to imitate him because he imitated Christ. In Hebrews 13:17 he charges the believers to “obey the ones leading you and submit to them.” Verses such as these indicate that there is teaching in the New Testament concerning the leadership. However, neither the New Testament nor my ministry teaches anyone to be a king. Although the apostle Paul teaches strongly concerning leadership, in 2 Corinthians 4:5 he says that the apostles preached Christ Jesus as Lord, and themselves as the believers’ slaves for Jesus’ sake. This indicates that we are not kings but are slaves to serve the saints.
In speaking of “a king,” no doubt the dissenting ones are referring to me. I have been with the saints and the churches in the United States for more than thirty years. To whom have I been a king? Such a statement concerning me is a reviling, not merely a defamation.
Fourth, the dissenters have accused the Living Stream Ministry office of controlling the churches. But I would ask, which church has the office controlled? They say that the office gave orders to the churches, commanding the churches to do certain things. However, this kind of accusation is false. The Living Stream Ministry office serves hundreds of churches. The office does not give orders to the churches, but it does ask the churches to coordinate with the office. For instance, in printing our books, it is difficult to decide how many copies we should print. In the initial years we did not have a proper way to make this decision; consequently, we printed more copies of some of the books than were needed. Eventually, the office asked the churches to submit standing orders for books and tapes. This has been a great help to the office. Sometimes, when a church has not submitted its standing order, the office asks the church to turn in its order. This is not the issuing of a command to that church but merely an asking of that church for its cooperation. The ministry office has also had to coordinate among the churches the procedure for the distribution and viewing of the videotapes of the semiannual trainings. It is mainly concerning these kinds of things that the office has communicated with the churches to coordinate with them. Besides these things, I cannot find any evidence that the Living Stream office controls any church. After hearing such an accusation, I asked any church that felt that they were under the control of the office to inform me of this, but to this date no church has confirmed this accusation.
After I returned to Anaheim from Taipei in December 1987, a letter from one of the dissenting ones was waiting for me in my home. In this long letter the writer rebuked me, saying that the nature of the Lord’s recovery had changed and that he had no alternative but to withdraw from the work. In a second letter to me he accused me of building up a hierarchy to subdue and control the churches (see The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion). At the end of December I went to Irving to take care of the winter training there. During the training, on a Lord’s Day I invited this brother to my apartment. In the presence of approximately six or seven brothers I said to him, “Brother..., in your letter to me (of December 16, 1987) you blamed my office for building up a hierarchy. Please point out to me a real case. Where is such a real hierarchy? I would be the first one to tear it down.” He hesitated for a while and did not speak. Then he answered, “There is the tendency” (see The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion). In his letter he did not say, “There is the tendency.” He said emphatically that a hierarchy had been built up. Now he changed and said that there is the tendency. There is a tendency on the earth for everything. I have not died yet, but there is the tendency that I will die. This is the way that the rebellion was going on, without any ethical standard.
Today outside mainland China there are approximately twelve hundred churches around the globe. I would ask all the churches: If you are a church that is under a hierarchy built up by me or by my office, please tell me. Thus far, no one has pointed out such a thing to me.
The dissenters have also said that the ministry is a system, and all the churches have been systematized into this entity. The church in Rosemead declared that they would not be in the “system” of Witness Lee. The hall in Rosemead was built with funds from the sale of Elden hall in Los Angeles, which was bought through my hand. In addition, the Living Stream Ministry gave the church in Rosemead $100,000 as a gift. Eventually, the rebellious ones in Rosemead took over the meeting hall and evicted in writing the two bona fide elders, Francis Ball and John Kwan. These two brothers were properly appointed elders who had been accepted by the saints, but at the time that the rebellious ones were going to take over the hall, they wrote letters to the two elders, telling them that they could no longer set foot on the premises of the church in Rosemead and that if they attempted to do so, they would be forcefully evicted (see The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion).
The opposers also say that the churches that follow the ministry are “ministry churches” and are no longer local churches. The leading ones of the church in Raleigh, North Carolina, came to contact me. They came with a number of books in which they had underlined certain paragraphs. One section they had underlined was in Brother Nee’s book The Normal Christian Church Life. There Brother Nee said that the missionaries who went to China built up mission churches instead of local churches. Every mission built up churches under its own name. Brother Nee said that it was right for the missionaries to go to China to preach the gospel, but it was wrong for them to build up their denominational churches. They should preach the gospel and build up only local churches (see The Normal Christian Church Life, chs. 7—9). Then the leading ones from Raleigh applied this to me, saying that I do not build up the local churches but churches to my ministry. They should not “take the hat from a condemned one and put it on my head.”
I have never built up any “ministry church.” I have been in the recovery for sixty years, laboring continually. I was also with Brother Nee for twenty years. Neither Brother Nee nor I ever built up a church to ourselves. The churches built up through the Lord’s ministry are not “ministry churches.” Although Paul’s ministry built up a number of churches, it is not right to call any of these churches “Pauline churches.” Some of the Corinthians said, “I am of Paul,” others said, “I of Apollos,” and others, “I of Cephas” (1 Cor. 1:12), but eventually Paul said that he, Apollos, and Cephas were of the Corinthians, for all were theirs (3:21-22). The missionaries went to China and built up their mission churches, but our ministry has built up not “ministry churches” but local churches. Today it is difficult to find any local church on the earth that has not been built up by our ministry. Therefore, their accusing of me is not fair.
From the spring of 1988 the dissenting ones began to teach the autonomy of the local churches. Their teaching was based on G. H. Lang’s book The Churches of God. They even purchased copies of this book and distributed them to the saints.
The teaching of the autonomy of the local churches is surely erroneous. The church cannot be absolutely autonomous. The United States is a federal country with fifty states. In a sense each state, having its own state government, is an autonomy. Even so, it is not altogether autonomous. All the fifty states have one ministry for the national defense, one ministry of foreign affairs, one constitutional law upheld by the Supreme Court (a federal court), one currency, one postal practice, and a federal highway system that runs through them all. In many things it is impossible for the fifty states to be autonomous.
It is ridiculous to say that the local churches could be absolutely autonomous. All the churches are the one Body of Christ (Eph. 4:4a). Can the parts of our physical body be autonomous? Could the hand be a small autonomy, the shoulder a large autonomy, and the thigh an even larger autonomy? If so, this would kill the body. All the parts of the body have only one circulation of blood. Thus, it is impossible for the Body of Christ to be autonomous. Beginning in the summer of 1988 and continuing through the remainder of that year, I spoke a number of messages exposing the fallacy of the teaching of autonomy (see A Timely Word, ch. 2; The Body of Christ, ch. 2; A Timely Trumpeting and the Present Need, ch. 3; The Building Up of the Body of Christ, ch. 2; and Further Light concerning the Building Up of the Body of Christ, ch. 2). After that, I did not hear much of this wrong teaching out of the dissenters’ mouths. This may indicate they have realized that they do not have the truth.
The dissenting brothers also said that after appointing the elders, the apostles should keep their hands off the local churches. However, after the apostle Paul appointed the elders in Ephesus, he did not keep his hands off the church there. Rather, he went back again and again to contact the church, and he also wrote the church an Epistle. At one point he remained in Ephesus for three years (Acts 19; 20:31). When he was journeying to Jerusalem in Acts 20, he passed through the region that was close to Ephesus, and he called for the elders from Ephesus to come to him at Miletus (vv. 17-38). There he told the elders that while he was in Asia he was with them all the time and did not withhold from them anything that was profitable, but for three years he declared to them and taught them publicly and from house to house, admonishing them with tears (vv. 18, 20, 31). After appointing the elders in Ephesus, Paul certainly did not keep his hands off the church in Ephesus.
If, after setting up the churches and appointing the elders, the apostles keep their hands off the churches, eventually the apostles will have nothing to do. But Ephesians 4:12 says that the apostles are for the perfecting of the saints. To support their teaching, the dissenting ones used Brother Nee’s writing in chapter 3 of The Normal Christian Church Life: “Once a church was established, all responsibility was handed over to the local elders, and from that day the apostles exercised no control whatever in its affairs [italics added].” Later, in another book, Church Affairs, Brother Nee corrects this misuse of his words. In chapter 1 Brother Nee dwells on this one thing: he tells his co-workers that after they appointed elders in a local church, they had to stay there to teach the elders, to train the elders, to show the elders, how to care for the church (see A Timely Word, ch. 2; and A Timely Trumpeting and the Present Need, ch. 1).
The church in Shanghai was raised up in 1926, not by Brother Nee. The following year Brother Nee went to Shanghai to strengthen and establish the church in Shanghai. From that year, 1927, he never left Shanghai; he stayed there for twenty-five years, until 1952, when he was put into prison. All that time the church in Shanghai was under his hand.
The dissenting ones also said that during the apostles’ time there were only twelve apostles: the eleven appointed by the Lord Jesus (not including Matthias), and the twelfth, Paul. Then I began to speak that this was an old teaching put out by the Brethren. Brother Nee adjusts this teaching in The Normal Christian Church Life. In that book Brother Nee gives a long word concerning the apostleship (see ch. 1, “The Apostles”). Then the dissenters adjusted their speaking, saying that according to God’s Word, the apostles are always plural in number. One of them said that there are many apostles today and that he could give the names of a number of these apostles. Later, he gave the names of certain brothers to one of the saints. After I heard this kind of speaking, I went to Taipei, and there I gave a message entitled “The Different Kinds of Apostles and the Relationships between Them” (see A Timely Trumpeting and the Present Need, ch. 2). In that message I pointed out that in the Bible there are only three kinds of apostles: (1) those appointed directly by the Lord and those constituted directly through the Lord’s revelation, such as Peter, John, and Paul; (2) those perfected by others, such as Apollos; and (3) those produced by the Lord’s directly appointed apostles, such as Timothy, Silas, and Titus. I also pointed out that according to the Bible the apostles of the third kind, those produced by the Lord’s directly appointed apostles, are led and directed by those who produced them. Timothy, Silas, and Titus were not apostles of the first kind but were apostles of the third kind. Likewise, those brothers named by the dissenting one as today’s apostles are all my students. Thus, they too are not apostles raised up and appointed directly by the Lord. Eventually, the dissenters changed their speaking again, saying that today there are no apostles.
The dissenting ones also said that since 1984 the ministry has changed from life and life supply to budgets, numbers, activities, and other practices, and this change has affected the nature of the recovery. This kind of word was sounded out the most strongly in Europe. They told people that before 1984 Witness Lee was right, but after 1984 he is wrong because he does not teach anything concerning life. Then, at the end of 1988, one of the four leaders of the conspiracy spoke the same words to a group of brothers in San Diego. Those who have heard my speaking since 1984 can testify what a lie this is. Such a lie was part of the strategy of the dissenting ones.
The dissenting brothers also raised a problem concerning the teaching of the ministry. In Acts 2:42 Luke, the writer of that book, uses the expression the teaching of the apostles. Our interpretation of this expression is that the teaching of the apostles comprises the four Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, and the book of Revelation; that is, the entire New Testament is the teaching of the apostles. Whatever we teach must be according to the New Testament, which is the teaching of the apostles. If so, our teaching also is the apostles’ teaching. However, the dissenting ones said that the teaching of the apostles mentioned in Acts 2:42 refers only to the four Gospels, to what the Lord Jesus taught the twelve apostles and charged them to teach to the future new believers. My response to this is that the teaching of the Lord Jesus in the four Gospels is a part of the teaching of the apostles, but it is not the totality of that teaching. In John 16, at one point while the Lord Jesus was teaching the disciples, He said that He had yet many things to say to them, but they were not able to bear them at that time; but when the Spirit of reality came, He would disclose these things to them (vv. 12-15). This indicates that the Lord had many things to teach Peter and the others, but that was not the proper time. The Lord waited until the Spirit came to disclose the deeper things to some of the disciples. To whom were these deeper things disclosed? Surely they must have been disclosed mainly to the apostle Paul. In Colossians 1:25 Paul says that his ministry was to complete the word of God. God’s plan, God’s economy, was not revealed mainly to Peter. It was revealed mainly to the apostle Paul and recorded in his fourteen Epistles.
If the four Gospels are the teaching of the apostles, all the Epistles should also be the teaching of the apostles. This is the proper interpretation of the Bible. Now, if whatever we speak is according to the New Testament, our teaching also is the apostles’ teaching; it is not our teaching. If it is our own teaching, then it is something other than the apostles’ teaching. In 1 Timothy 1:3-4 Paul tells Timothy to remain in Ephesus to charge certain ones not to teach different things, things that are different from God’s economy. In their deviating speaking concerning the teaching of the ministry, the intention of the dissenters is nothing else than to put my ministry aside.
The dissenting ones also raised questions concerning the matter of leadership. In 1986 I gave a series of messages that were misunderstood and misused by them (see Elders’ Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lord’s Move). They thought that I meant that I am the leader in the Lord’s recovery. Then, in the 1987 summer training I gave additional messages to point out that, actually, the New Testament leadership is not a person but is the teaching of the apostles (see The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy, ch. 19, especially “The Leadership in Actuality”). Paul’s teaching, the teaching of the New Testament, not Paul himself, was the actual leadership. Today among us the teaching of those who teach the New Testament apostles’ teaching is the leading. The leadership in the Lord’s recovery is actually not according to anyone’s teaching but according to the apostles’ teaching, which is the teaching of the New Testament.
Today the saints in the recovery should not follow me; they should follow my teaching if my teaching is according to the apostles’ teaching. In 1934 Brother Nee encountered much opposition in his ministry, and I went to see him. I said to him, “Brother Nee, from the first day that we began to have contact, there was no personal affection between you and me. Nevertheless, I have followed you absolutely, and I do have the assurance that I am following the right way because you have the Lord’s revelation. The revelation that you pass on is according to the New Testament. Actually, I am not following you personally; I follow the revelation that you have released.” Then I said, “Brother Nee, even if from today you would give up the way of the Lord’s recovery, I would remain in this way.”
Do you believe that you are in the Lord’s recovery following a man? One of the dissenting ones repented to the uttermost that he listened to only one man. He said that in doing so he had committed a great sin before God. I would like to ask you all: Do you listen to one man’s word? Actually, you do not listen to one man; you listen to the teaching of the apostles. I have the assurance that since I began to speak for the Lord, I did not speak anything that was not according to the New Testament principles. Therefore, to follow the ministry is absolutely right; it is not wrong.
The Lord’s recovery was raised up in China through Brother Nee’s teaching for exactly thirty years, from 1922 through 1952. In those thirty years there was no one else who put out the New Testament teaching. In the 1950s I was sent to Taiwan. Because of his imprisonment in 1952, from that time Brother Nee’s speaking ceased. I had no intention to stand up to replace him. I only knew to labor. I put out teaching after teaching, but I did not have the intention that I would be the only one who would teach the churches. After we moved into the hall in Anaheim, I gathered the leading co-workers in the country to have a writers’ conference. I encouraged all the co-workers to write something, and they all took my charge to go back to write. Eventually, I found out that very little writing came out of them directly. Nearly all of their writing was a reprinting of my messages. Several localities put out magazines, but most of the messages in those publications were a reprinting of my teaching, with some being a repeating of Brother Nee’s teaching. Realizing that this was the situation, in 1986 I encouraged all the brothers to stop this kind of repetition, and they all complied. Speaking honestly, in the forty years from 1950 through 1990, whose teaching has been available to raise up the church, to build up the church, to feed the saints, and so forth? Of course, the foundation was laid by Brother Nee’s teaching, but by whose teaching has the building up been carried out?
In my home I still have a book published by the top theological school in Taiwan. In that book, which encourages people to study the Bible and teaches people how to study the Bible, there is a brief word that says that for the past forty years, counting from 1949, among the Chinese Christians the expounding of the Bible could never go beyond the realm of the teaching of the “Assembly Hall people,” that is, the teaching in the Lord’s recovery. If we were to take away Brother Nee’s teaching and my teaching, where would the church be today? By this we can see the enemy’s subtlety, which is just to smear the ministry.
