Search
Scripture Reading: Eph. 1:16-17; 3:14; 1 Cor. 14:29b; Acts 2:42a; Eph. 4:14
In the previous chapter we saw that we need to have a clear view concerning the present situation of the Lord’s recovery to discern the present problems raised up by the dissenting ones. In this chapter we want to address more of the items raised up by these ones.
Can we be in one accord if we have differences? The answer to this question is yes. We must be in one accord in spite of the differences. Both in the Gospels and in Acts, we are taught to be in one accord (Matt. 18:19; Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 15:25; cf. Rom. 15:6). Some would say that we must get rid of all the differences among the believers in order to be in one accord, but this is only to make everything uniform.
In the New Testament churches there were many differences. In Romans 14 Paul says that we must receive both those who regard a certain day and those who do not (vv. 1, 5-6a). Paul says that we must receive the believers who may differ from us in their doctrinal concepts or religious practices, because God and Christ have received them (v. 3; 15:7). Since both God and Christ have received them, how can we not receive them? Paul says that some ate only vegetables, but others ate all things (14:2-3). We must receive both because God and Christ have received them. In receiving the believers, Paul was very broad and liberal. He was not narrow-minded.
More than twenty-five years ago there was a sister among us who was Jewish. One day she told me that even when the dishes and forks used for eating pork were washed with detergent, she could still smell the pork on them. There are all kinds of people in the church. We all have been saved, yet we have many differences. Some practice foot-washing or head covering. Some baptize by immersing one time, and others baptize by immersing three times. If all these different believers were among us, could we have the one accord? I would love to see church meetings of believers in one accord with all kinds of differences. That would be marvelous!
In 1963 in the church in Los Angeles, there were at least four different groups meeting together. In the previous year I held the first conference in the Lord’s recovery in the United States, and I spoke from Deuteronomy 8 concerning the all-inclusive Christ. These messages attracted many people. When others heard about these messages, they invited me to hold conferences in their places. Therefore, when the first conference ended on December 31, the next day I went to Whittier, California, and spoke to a group that was composed mainly of Brethren believers. Eventually, they asked me to go to speak to another group in Las Vegas. The group there was an independent Bible church. I visited them on about four different occasions. Eventually, that whole congregation decided to move to Los Angeles in order to join the church there.
This group and at least three other groups came to Los Angeles. One day they all agreed to come together. In the place where we met jointly in Los Angeles in 1963, I put up two banners. The first banner read, Unity versus Uniformity, and the second banner read, Unity with Variety. At the beginning in Los Angeles this was our situation. We had much variety, but we also had the unity.
Later, I went away to New York. In my absence the slogans on the banners did not work. During a meeting one of the young sisters began to play the tambourine. One of the brothers from the Brethren group told the sister to stop playing it. I received a phone call about this incident while in New York. When I arrived back in Los Angeles, I spoke with the brother from the Brethren group. I asked him to compare the tambourine with the piano, and he said that he preferred the piano. I said, “Brother, in the eyes of God, what is the difference between these two musical instruments?” He agreed that there was no difference in the eyes of God. I continued by saying, “Since these two instruments are the same in the eyes of God, they should also be the same in our eyes.” The brother responded by saying that he could not take the playing of the tambourine. I said, “Brother, since you cannot take the playing of the tambourine, you are unable to live the church life.”
The church life must be of unity with variety. To be in one accord does not mean to get rid of all the differences. If this were the case, we could never have the one accord in this age. We must be exercised to such an extent that we keep the unity without caring to have uniformity. We should be happy to see a meeting full of differences yet without any discord.
In the early days in Los Angeles, some tongue-speakers came into one of the meetings. When they began to speak in tongues in the meeting, some of the brothers looked at me to see what I would do. Eventually, the brothers motioned to me that I should stop them when these ones began to interpret their tongue-speaking. But I said quietly to the brothers that we should let them go ahead. We can take such differences.
A number of years ago some brothers took the way of the Lord’s recovery, but they would not practice the Lord’s table. When this matter was referred to me, I said that there was no problem. Whether they liked to have the Lord’s table or not, they had been received by the Lord, so we had to receive them. The church in their locality kept this practice of not having the Lord’s table for a good number of years. In spite of this, the saints there were really one with the saints in the other localities. There was one accord in spite of the differences. Gradually, the brothers and sisters who did not practice the Lord’s table heard about it and wanted to practice it. Today they have the Lord’s table regularly. This is an example of keeping the unity with variety.
The extract of the definition of the church ground is to keep the oneness of the Spirit inwardly and to take the differences outwardly, not allowing anything but the locality in which we live to separate us into local churches. Ephesians 4:3 says, “Being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” Keeping the oneness of the Spirit is inward, whereas the differences are outward. If one brother is a Sabbath keeper and another brother practices meeting on the Lord’s Day, the differences between them are outward. We have to keep the oneness of the Spirit inwardly, and we have to take the differences outwardly. This is the essence of the church ground.
The ground of the church involves not allowing anything but the locality in which we live to separate us into local churches (Rev. 1:11). Baptism, speaking in tongues, sprinkling, immersion, and dietary preferences are all differences. But none of these differences should separate us. We should be separated only by the localities in which we live. If we live in Anaheim, we cannot meet together regularly with the saints in New York. This is impossible. If we are in Anaheim, it is also difficult for us to meet with the saints in Los Angeles. Our locality spontaneously separates us. We are separated outwardly, but we are still one inwardly. We are one in the Spirit with the saints in New York, London, and Taipei.
The dissenting ones demanded that all the trainings by the ministry be stopped. This was their opinion, but I have my burden. Those who have caused divisions among us have accused me of using the trainings to control the churches.
The rebellion with these ones began in September 1987, while I was in Taipei. Shortly after I came back to the United States in December 1987, four of the dissenting ones came to see me. They made some demand of me and warned me that they would cut off my publications and tapes if I did not comply with their demand and that the church in Anaheim would take the lead. One of them said to me with a furious tone that the training in Taipei should be dismantled into pieces.
Again I say, they have their opinion, but I have my burden. It is not right to interfere with another person’s burden by your opinion. The more I prayed about the training, the more burdened I became. Consider what the situation among the churches in the recovery would be if the trainings were taken away.
When I went to Shanghai for the first time in 1933, Brother Watchman Nee talked with me about the need for a training. A number of us were under his continual training. Eventually, he had two big trainings. In 1948 over eighty people went to his place on a mountain to be trained by him for nearly half a year. In 1949 he had a second big training, and I was there.
The apostle Paul stayed in Ephesus for three years (Acts 20:31). For two years he spoke the word of the Lord in the school of Tyrannus in order to teach people (19:9-10). Tyrannus might have been a teacher, and Paul might have rented his school and used it as a meeting hall to preach and teach the word of the Lord. I consider his teaching of people in that school to be something like a training. Surely there were church meetings in Ephesus. But if Paul did not do something in addition to the church meetings, why would he have needed to use a place that was like a school? If there were no need for the saints to be trained, why would Paul stay in the city of Ephesus for three years? We have had our trainings mainly based upon Paul’s example. We have a burden to train the seeking saints and young saints with the word of the Lord.
When the dissenters began to cause trouble in 1987, they claimed that I had changed and that my change had affected the nature of the recovery. I admit that I changed from the old way of gospel preaching to the scriptural way of visiting people. I also told people to turn from having church meetings with one man speaking and the rest listening to meetings in which all can prophesy according to the revelation of 1 Corinthians 14. I changed in these matters, but my change did not affect the nature of the oneness of the Body.
The opposing ones have said that I was right before 1984 but not since then. They said that I used to minister life but that now I minister budgets, numbers, and activities. From September 1987 until now, I have given many messages and conferences. These messages have not been concerning budgets, numbers, and activities, but they are full of the unveiling of the divine truths and the ministry of the divine life.
The opposing ones also said that we have applied the teaching concerning the ground of oneness in a divisive and sectarian way so that we separate ourselves from other Christians. Actually, we receive all the Christians, but we cannot accept the divisions in which they meet. The denominations are not just differences; they are divisions. Hence, we cannot take them. We differentiate, however, between the saints and the denominations. The denominations are one thing, but the saints in the denominations are another thing. We receive the saints who are in any of the denominations and also those in the Catholic Church, but we cannot receive the organization of the denominations.
I spoke concerning this matter many times, and my speaking has been printed. These dissenting ones heard my speaking and have also read the books, but they have neglected these things. They have said that we are too narrow, that we feel that only we are right, and that we do not receive other Christians. This is not a fair statement. We receive all of the Lord’s children, the genuine believers in Christ.
The dissenting ones have also raised an issue concerning the apostles’ existence and how they relate with one another or work together. The existence of the apostles should be under the Lord’s sovereign arrangement, and their existence, relation, and work should keep an excellent order in the Body according to the organic function. My working together with Brother Nee was not according to my choice but was under God’s sovereign arrangement. There was always an excellent order between us. I fully realized that according to the organic function in the Body, I should be under him.
The organic function can be illustrated by our physical body. When one moves his arm, the shoulder, elbow, hand, and fingers move by keeping an excellent order according to their functions. Suppose the fingers would form a conspiracy and say to one another, “Why should we fingers be under the shoulder?” This would be the same as saying that the fingers should be cut off and placed above the shoulder. This would kill the fingers.
When I came into the work, from the very beginning, all I knew was to labor without any opinion. I realized that I was under Brother Nee according to the organic function in the Body. The dissenting ones who have claimed to be something have cut themselves off. Suppose the eyes said that they no longer wanted to be under the eyebrows. That would be terrible. It not only would destroy their function but also would destroy the beauty of God’s creation. In the Body of Christ a kind of order is spontaneously manifested according to the organic function. This function is not according to any organizational arrangement. Rather, this function is organic. The apostles and all the saints exist according to God’s sovereign arrangement.
You may feel that the church where you are is too difficult. Because of this, you may consider going to another place. But wherever you go, troubles will be there and hardships will be your portion. There is only one place for you to go—the place under God’s sovereign arrangement. Anyone who exercises his choice concerning the place for his existence will receive trouble.
The opposing ones have also rejected the truth concerning deputy authority, claiming that they are under the direct headship of Christ. This is nonsense. All the people ruling in the government are deputy authorities under God (Rom. 13:1-7). If a country existed in which the people said that they did not want to have any man ruling over them but that they just wanted God to be their Ruler, that country would be full of chaos and anarchy. There must be a government with the rule of law through the police and the courts. Deputy authority is not versus God’s headship.
In our physical body there is order. The arm can be considered as a deputy authority to the hand and fingers. The arms are not versus the head. On the earth among human beings, deputy authority is everywhere. In the family there are parents. Even between the parents, there is the father and the mother. These two are not equal. Even among the brothers and sisters in a family, there is an order. Something in our nature tells us that there is such an order. A principal is the head of a school, the teachers are under the principal, and the students are under the teachers. The good students stay in their position, keeping the proper deputy authority.
Throughout society there is deputy authority. To talk about getting rid of deputy authority is nonsense. The police who regulate traffic on the roads are an example of deputy authority. Because of policemen, the traffic is controlled and kept in a good order, thereby reducing traffic accidents and deaths.
According to the divine revelation in the holy Word, there is also deputy authority in God’s economy, both in the Old Testament, such as with Moses and the priests who taught the people the divine oracle, and in the New Testament, such as with the elders, who take care of the church (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17; Heb. 13:17), and the apostles, who establish the churches and teach the saints (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; 1 Cor. 4:21). In Hebrews 13:17 Paul says, “Obey the ones leading you and submit to them.”
The opposing ones have taught the autonomy of the local churches and have accused us of trying to federate the churches. We need to see that the church is not an organization but an organism. In an organism you cannot have autonomy or federation. The members of our physical body are organically united as one; they are not federated into one.
To say that all the local churches are separate in administration, in a certain sense, is right, but this is only one side. The church has its local aspect, but it also has its universal aspect, the aspect of the universal Body. Both are needed. I need the universal Body, and I also need the local church. When I stressed that all the churches should be the same and that they should be one, the dissenting ones said that such oneness meant federation.
The Brethren had a dispute concerning this. G. H. Lang taught the autonomy of a local church and condemned J. N. Darby for teaching federation. The local churches, however, should not be independently autonomous, because they are all the unique, one organism of the processed and dispensing Triune God. If the church in Anaheim declared that it was a local church, standing independent from and not caring for the other churches, the church in Anaheim would immediately become a local sect. A local church must be one with all the other churches in the Body.
The opposers also have said that the present churches are old and full of problems. We need to see that the churches mentioned in the New Testament all had problems. The church in Jerusalem was a young church, but it also had the problem of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) and the problem concerning the distribution of food to the widows (6:1). One does not need to be old to have troubles or to become sick. The elders who take care of the churches have to deal with problems continually. As long as you are a living, organic person, each day there is the possibility of sickness.
The Epistles in the New Testament were written to churches with problems. If these churches had not had any problems, we would not have these New Testament Epistles today. Thank the Lord, because the churches had problems in the early days, we have the New Testament Epistles, which have become a great help to us today. First Corinthians is a long Epistle of sixteen chapters. Every chapter deals with problems. In 1 Corinthians 11:34, after dealing with a number of problems, Paul says, “And the rest I will set in order when I come.” By this Paul was saying, “In this Epistle I addressed eleven of your problems. But there are still a number of other problems. I cannot cover them now, but I will when I come.”
I was in the church in Chefoo in 1932 at the beginning of the Lord’s recovery in northern China. Basically we knew only that we had to leave the denominations and meet together. We did not have our own hymnal, and we did not know how to choose a hymn. We did not know the proper way to have the Lord’s table. We also did not know how to praise the Lord in a high way. Today, however, our practice, our praises, and our hymns are higher. The churches today are much higher than they were sixty or even thirty years ago.
The dissenting ones have said that reality is versus the doctrine and systematized teaching of Brother Lee. In their opinion I have been teaching too much. They have condemned my teaching, my training, and my conferences because they said that these are the means for me to control the churches. Actually, my teaching does not control anyone, but it does regulate us, including me.
One brother in the past pointed out that if a speaker cannot speak something higher than himself, he is a poor speaker. We must learn to teach and preach things that are higher than what we are. Our reality can never match our revelation. Did Paul’s reality match his revelation? Did Paul’s experiences come up to his revelation? The Lord Jesus Himself is the only one whose reality fully matched His teaching. Apart from Him, no one on the earth can have the real experience to fully match his own teaching. The dissenting ones have also said that my teachings are systematized. This is not true. I have never taught anything in a system.
In 1988 the dissenting ones claimed that there should be democracy among us since the church is the church of the saints. In the Old Testament with Israel and in the New Testament with the believers, the government among God’s people is neither democracy nor autocracy. It is theocracy, which is government by God Himself. Democracy is better than autocracy in the political realm, but among God’s people, neither of these ways should have any place. God’s people should have only theocracy. Theos (God) is our Ruler. He is living, and today He is the all-inclusive Spirit within us and among us. We have to learn to listen to Him. The church should be under God’s ruling.
All the above points under the teaching of the dissenting ones have become winds of teaching that have caused divisions in the Lord’s recovery (Eph. 4:14). These winds of teaching have caused divisions in the following places in California—Rosemead, Anaheim, Huntington Beach, San Diego, South San Francisco, Cupertino, and Lomita. There is also a division in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. According to the Bible, there is no base, no reason, no excuse, no justification, and no vindication for any kind of division.
There are three things the church cannot tolerate: division, heresies, and immorality. Divisions damage the Body of Christ. Heresies insult the person of Christ and damage the work of Christ. Immorality damages the humanity of people who were made by God to be the members of the Body of Christ. In Romans 14 and 15 Paul charges us to receive all the believers, embracing all the differences. But in Romans 16 he says, “Now I exhort you, brothers, to mark those who make divisions and causes of stumbling contrary to the teaching which you have learned, and turn away from them” (v. 17). Concerning the divisive ones, Paul was very definite and strict. His teaching concerning these divisive ones was also very straight. He exhorted the saints to turn away from anyone who made divisions.
Ephesians 4:14 says, “That we may be no longer little children tossed by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching in the sleight of men, in craftiness with a view to a system of error.” Any teaching, even a scriptural one, that distracts believers from Christ and the church is a wind of teaching that carries believers away from God’s central purpose. The only way to escape the waves that are stirred up by the winds of teaching is to grow in life, and the safe way to grow in life is to stay in the proper church life with Christ and the church as the safeguard.
