Search
Scripture Reading: Acts 15:36-41; 16:6-7
The leading in the work is not individual but corporate; it is a leading in the Body. Concerning this point, we need to read Acts 13 and pay particular attention to how the apostles worked and were led. After the ascension of the Lord Jesus, an important aspect of the disciples’ work on the earth involved their corporate leading; it is hard to find an example of anyone who was led individually or acted individually in Acts. Although it may seem as though Philip acted and was led individualistically in the gospel, the account in Acts shows that his leading was a part of the Lord’s corporate leading, which was confirmed by the Body (8:5-17).
In the corporate leading in the work, we also must be careful not to bring personal affection into the work. In Acts 15 there was contention between Barnabas and Paul over the leading that they received. Although they both received the leading to visit the brothers, they differed on the matter of whether or not to take Mark. Barnabas insisted on taking Mark, but Paul did not consider it “suitable to take with them this one who withdrew from them in Pamphylia and did not go with them to the work” (v. 38).
Based on the account in Acts, the record of this contention between the two seems simple, but Colossians 4:10, which identifies Mark as being a cousin of Barnabas, reveals the further complication. Barnabas and Mark were relatives, and Barnabas’s insistence that Mark be taken could easily have been influenced by family attachments and personal affection.
When Barnabas, Paul, and Mark had gone out to work, they encountered difficulty at Pamphylia, and Mark withdrew (Acts 13:13). Mark’s withdrawal was unacceptable to Paul because it violated a principle related to spiritual warfare. Just as soldiers on the frontline of a battle should not withdraw, those who work for the Lord should not withdraw, because their withdrawal affects those who remain. It was good that Paul and Barnabas were not stumbled when Mark withdrew.
Mark’s withdrawal, however, did affect Paul’s consideration when they were preparing to go out a second time. Paul felt that Mark needed to be disciplined by being restricted from going with them the second time. Paul’s willingness to restrict Mark from going was his execution of God’s government in the work. The Lord’s work cannot be carried out if a serving one acts according to his feeling, that is, if he works when he has a feeling to work and abandons the work when he has no feeling. Individuals cannot do as they please in the corporate move of the Lord’s work.
Often the only way that a servant of the Lord can administer discipline is to first allow such ones to act according to their feelings but then to not allow them to later participate in the work according to their feeling. For example, Paul, Barnabas, and Mark were all led to participate in the work, but when Mark could not endure the suffering at Pamphylia, he withdrew. As a servant of the Lord, Paul could not force Mark to stay, but he could discipline Mark by not allowing him to go a second time. As a further example, if some brothers in a certain place do not want to receive my speaking, the only thing that I can do is to not go there to speak. In effect, my not going will be a discipline to them. In the Lord’s work discipline primarily involves not being allowed to participate in the work. When Mark withdrew, Paul did not stop him from going, but he also did not take Mark with him the next time. This was his discipline of Mark.
Paul did not discipline Mark out of his flesh. Paul knew God well, and he upheld God’s governmental principle. Love and affection cannot be allowed to overthrow God’s government. God blesses what is according to His principle, and He does not bless what is not according to His principle. Paul’s unwillingness to take Mark the second time was an execution of God’s government according to the principle of God’s work.
Barnabas, however, neglected God’s government and God’s principle in the work, and he allowed family affection to influence the work. Paul said that they should not take Mark, but Barnabas insisted on taking him. As a result, there was a sharp contention. As a serving one, Barnabas veered from the principle of God’s work by holding on to his personal feelings in his human relationships. Paul kept God’s principle, whereas Barnabas held on to his personal feelings. This was the source of their contention and separation.
After their contention Barnabas took Mark and sailed away to Cyprus. There is, however, no mention of their being sent forth by the brothers (15:39). In contrast, verse 40 says, “Paul chose Silas and went out, having been commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers.” When people contend, the wrong side always acts first, and the right side acts last. From reading this passage in the Bible, we know that the Holy Spirit judged Barnabas’s actions to be wrong. Despite the word from Paul and the other brothers, Barnabas took Mark with him. Although the Bible records that the brothers sent Paul and Silas forward, commending them to the grace of the Lord, there is no record of Barnabas being sent in this way. After Barnabas left, he was on his own. Although he no doubt continued to work, the Bible contains no further record of his work. From that point forward, Barnabas did not have the leading of the Holy Spirit.
God’s principle can never be overlooked, and God’s government can never be compromised. We can only accommodate God; God does not accommodate us. We cannot lower God’s governmental standard to accommodate ourselves. We should conform to God’s principle; we should not expect God to conform to our feelings. Whenever our work is not according to God’s principle but according to our feelings, God will set us aside. Personal feelings must never be brought into the work of God.
I have a heavy feeling within me based on years of serving the Lord with the brothers and sisters. In serving the Lord over the years, we have encountered the problem of personal feelings affecting the leading of many brothers and sisters. The source of personal feelings is personal affection. For example, there may be two brothers who have deep relations in the Lord. Nevertheless, whenever the co-workers seek the Lord’s leading together, it almost always seems as if these two brothers have a sense to work in various places together. Even if the co-workers feel that it is the Lord’s will for one brother to go but for the other to remain, the first brother will say that he cannot work if the other brother does not go as well. When the co-workers ask him to consider a different brother, he will say, “I am afraid that Brother So-and-so’s going may not be of the Lord.” Instead of saying, “His going may not be of the Lord,” which is a lie, he should be truthful and say, “His going does not suit me.”
This problem is even more serious among the sisters. According to my observation, if two co-workers cannot be separated, they will eventually lose the Lord’s blessing. It is difficult for co-working sisters to acknowledge this; consequently, they argue, saying, “If the Lord Jesus sent out His disciples in pairs, there should be no problem with us going out in pairs.” Nevertheless, our history shows that if a pair of sisters cannot be separated, their work will be based only on human affection.
I hope that the brothers and sisters will learn not to interact with their co-workers based on human affection. This matter must be dealt with completely; personal affections kill the Lord’s leading. It is not a simple thing for us to gather together and discuss the matter of our leading. If a co-worker says, “The Lord is leading me to Keelung, and it is best for Brother So-and-so to go with me,” he should have the full assurance that he is not acting out of personal affection. Personal feelings have no place in the work among the co-workers.
No personal affection should be involved in our leading in the work or even in the work itself. Although a certain brother and I may be close, I must be willing to speak a strong word to him if he makes a mistake in the work. Only in this way will we have a clear and accurate leading in the work.
We should never regard Barnabas’s actions toward Mark as trivial; they were based entirely on human affection. One day we will face the situation of Barnabas, so we need to take precautions. It is possible to have weaknesses and to make mistakes in the Lord’s work, but this does not mean that we have violated God’s government. However, whenever we bring in personal affections, we violate a governmental principle in the work. We must fear human affections more than falling, sinning, or making mistakes. Related to the work, personal affections are more serious than falling, sinning, or making mistakes. Personal affections will cause us to veer from the line of the Lord’s work.
We also need to realize that the corporate leading in the work does not completely annul the Lord’s personal leading. For example, when the serving ones seek the Lord’s leading together, they may feel that a certain brother should go to Hualien, and, having the same feeling as the Body, he may go. If, after arriving in Hualien and praying, he feels to hold an eight-day gospel meeting, he does not need to check with us about this. This does not mean that he is acting individualistically; rather, he is being led personally, according to our corporate leading. Thus, the matter of personal leading is not annulled in the move of the work. As long as the brother is led by the Holy Spirit when he arrives in Hualien, he does not need to check with someone about every detail of the work. Sometimes it is not even possible to check with others. Can we even say that someone has the “higher” authority to answer his question? If a Christian mission work sent two missionaries to Hualien, their every action would first have to be reported to the mission board, but this would not make their actions to be according to the Lord’s leading.
When Paul and Silas were led to go out, the brothers corporately sent them forward and commended them to the grace of the Lord (15:40). When they arrived in Asia, however, the Holy Spirit forbade them to stay (16:6). At this point they did not say, “The forbidding of the Holy Spirit is insufficient. We should write to the brothers in Antioch to see whether or not we should leave Asia.” This would have been wrong. In the work’s move there should be the freedom for the personal leading of the Spirit. When Paul and Silas left Asia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but again the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. As a result, they went west to Troas (vv. 7-8) in the direction of the Holy Spirit’s leading and in the direction that corresponded to the allowance of the Spirit of Jesus. At this point “a vision appeared to Paul during the night: A certain man, a Macedonian, was standing and entreating him and saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us” (v. 9). Then they became clear, and the gospel was spread to Europe.
In the fellowship among the local churches today, all the local churches, large or small, have equal standing before God. Even though some large local churches may be more experienced and may have been blessed more, they can only take the position of supporting the smaller churches, not of governing them.
We need to be clear that our oneness is in fellowship, not in organizational hierarchy. The church has no headquarters or even branches. Some saints seem to feel that the church in Taipei is the “headquarters.” This is a delusion that, in part, is based on the fact that the co-workers often gather together in Taipei. For example, sometimes the co-working brothers and sisters come together for the sake of the work, which is not a matter related to the church in Taipei. Taipei is used only because it is convenient. However, when we call a co-workers’ meeting in Taipei, we often include the brothers from the church in Taipei in order to take care of them, but the saints should not think that this means that Taipei is our “headquarters.”
However, this also does not mean that we can forsake the fellowship in the Body. If a small local church says, “We do not need to consult with the brothers from other local churches because our standing is the same as theirs,” we cannot say that this is wrong, but it is not sweet. The deeper the fellowship among us is, the better. Churches in various localities should stand before the Lord but also humbly consult with other churches to receive support and leading. If a co-worker who is led to a certain place can only tell others who his “boss” is, this is wrong. Nevertheless, it is good for him to learn to fellowship with other co-workers concerning his work so that he can receive a corporate confirmation.
In our going out to propagate the Lord’s work, we need to be corporately led by the Lord in our service, yet we should learn to receive the Lord’s personal leading. We must be like Paul and Silas, who accepted the Holy Spirit’s forbidding and disallowing. Every worker of the Lord must learn this lesson as well as the lesson of fellowshipping with the local saints.
We have no organization; we only have the leading to serve the Lord together in the church. If we leave one local church, we still need to be led by the Lord in another locality. We do not have organizational relationships, but we should have fellowship in all things at all times and in all places. In Taipei the co-workers should have fellowship with the brothers in Taipei, and in Hualien the co-workers should have fellowship with the brothers in Hualien.
Forgive me for saying that the Western missionaries made a great mistake in their preaching of the gospel in China. They had the thought that the Chinese were too immature, and thus they did not fellowship with the Chinese saints. Instead, they checked with their mission boards in everything. According to the truth, after preaching the gospel in China and raising up native believers to serve the Lord, the missionaries should have sought the leading of the Lord with these brothers and sisters to determine how the work should be done. Similarly, we must fellowship with the saints in Taichung if we work in Taichung, and in fellowship we should look to the Lord concerning how to carry out His work in Taichung. We should not say, “We have been sent by the brothers. You are immature, so we will not include you in our fellowship.” This forsakes fellowship and upholds organization. There is no organization among us; there is only the fellowship that comes through serving the Lord together. We should fellowship at all times and in all places with the brothers and sisters who are with us according to the Lord’s arrangement.
The Lord’s serving ones must learn to receive a burden at any time and in any place. In Acts Paul often received a burden. Verse 36 of chapter 15 says, “Now after some days Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brothers in every city in which we announced the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.” Then 17:16 says, “While Paul was waiting...in Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he beheld that the city was full of idols.” Therefore, he wanted to preach the gospel in Athens.
Many of the Lord’s serving ones today do not know how to receive a leading or a burden. The Lord’s leading may be present, but they do not have a clear sense of it. This is wrong. Every serving one of the Lord must endeavor to exercise to sense even the smallest burden.
Sometimes I see some saints who are in need of help, but the serving ones around them act as though they see nothing and as if the situation of the saints is none of their concern. As serving ones of the Lord, we need to practice heeding the feeling within us so that we can receive a burden when we see a need. If our sense is not keen in this way, we will not have much of a future in serving the Lord.
There is a major principle involved in the movement of brothers together in the work: All our movement in the work should be directed by senior brothers. For example, when Paul went out to work, he did not go out by himself but with other co-workers, including Barnabas, Silas, and later Timothy and Titus. Paul had at least four or five co-workers. Nevertheless, Paul did not have a group discussion whenever there was a need to move. Paul’s co-workers moved according to Paul’s arrangement and determination. Paul took the lead among his co-workers in making various arrangements. When he wanted Luke to stay, Luke stayed (2 Tim. 4:11); when he sent Timothy, Timothy would go (Acts 17:15; 1 Cor. 4:17). This is a major principle in the work: God desires that there be one head in the Lord’s work.
When a man and a woman marry, only one head is visible at the wedding; the other is covered. If there is more than one head in a marriage, it will be a dreadful marriage. Whether in the past or in the present, whether here or in other places, women cover their heads when they marry. In a Chinese wedding only the man’s head is exposed. A person with one body and two heads would be a monster.
In God’s government there should be only one head in the work—one head whether twenty co-workers are going out and one head whether two co-workers are going out. Peter took the lead among those working with him, and Paul took the lead among those working with him. God does not allow either a “dictatorship” or a “democracy” in the work. God only wants those who belong to Him to live in the Holy Spirit. In the worldly realm there is dictatorship, and there is also democracy, but in the church there is neither dictatorship nor democracy; there is only our learning to live in the Lord. When brothers and sisters are together, one or two must take the lead, but they should not dictate. Instead, they should make decisions based on the feelings that come from the brothers and sisters with them through fellowship.
It would be wrong if the brothers working in Hualien called meetings to vote on everything. The proper way to make a decision is to meet together, pray together, and discuss things together. However, a final decision should be made by the leading brothers based on the feelings of the saints. Once a decision has been made, the other brothers and sisters should learn to obey.
When Paul sent Timothy to Thessalonica (1 Thes. 3:2), Timothy did not say, “I have to wait for the Lord’s leading myself,” or “I will pray about it myself and see.” Whenever Paul sent Timothy, Timothy would go; whenever Paul sent Luke, Luke would go. A co-worker’s move in the work has to be based on submission to the leading ones in the work. God never lets anyone speak, move, or work freely in His work. When co-workers move freely, there is chaos.
If the Lord establishes someone as a leading one in the work, he should learn to know God’s leading and God’s intention in all the co-workers and then make an accurate judgment. This is a necessary qualification for being a leading one. However, if we are not a leading one according to the Lord’s arrangement, we need to learn to obey the leading ones. Otherwise, the work will fall apart and be chaotic.
This requires us to be spiritual. If a co-worker is not spiritual, he cannot lead the work, and if a co-worker has not learned the lessons, accepted the dealings, been subdued or broken, it will be difficult for him to obey others. There is authority and order in God’s government; He does not want chaos.
We need to understand the Lord’s desire in relation to His command. We can see this in Paul’s experience at the end of Acts when he was put in prison. We must ask whether Paul’s imprisonment was according to the Lord’s command or His desire. There is no record in Acts of the Lord commanding or leading Paul to be imprisoned; rather, there is a record of the Holy Spirit, through the brothers, trying to stop him from going to Jerusalem, which eventually led to his imprisonment (21:4, 10-14). Paul was not imprisoned by the Lord’s leading. Rather, Paul’s imprisonment was the result of his great love for the Lord.
The record of Acts shows that although the Lord wanted Paul to be in chains, He did not command him to be in chains. It is difficult to understand this seeming contradiction, but it can be likened to a father knowing that his desire for his son can be accomplished only through much suffering. Consequently, he will say, “Do not go,” even though his desire for his son remains. Paul loved the Lord so earnestly that if the Lord had commanded him not to go, he would have followed the Lord. Paul would have said, “If I go, my actions will be rash and against the Lord’s will.” Paul, however, not only lived according to the Lord’s command but also according to the Lord’s desire. We must learn to understand the Lord’s desire. At times the Lord’s desire may be the opposite of His command. The son’s accomplishment of a father’s desire often must come from more than a response to a command; it must come from an understanding and acceptance of the father’s desire. We must be willing to ask ourselves whether we are dutiful sons who act only according to a father’s commands or whether we are loving sons who respond to a father’s desires.
Many are confused when they read about Paul’s final journey to Jerusalem. Through the brothers, Paul was told not to go (vv. 4, 11-12), yet he still went. In the night following the rioting of the Jews and Paul’s arrest, however, “the Lord stood by him and said, Take courage, for as you have solemnly testified to the things concerning Me in Jerusalem, so also you must testify in Rome” (23:11). After Paul appealed to Caesar, he encountered a storm on his way to Rome. At this point an angel of the Lord appeared to Paul and said, “Do not fear, Paul; you must stand before Caesar” (27:24). Whether Paul’s final journey to Jerusalem and his subsequent encounters were according to God’s will or against God’s will is a great question in theology. Seemingly, it was God’s command for him not to go, while at the same time, it was God’s desire that he would go. Paul’s move was apparently contrary to God’s command, but actually it was according to God’s will.
Hence, we should not treat the Lord’s command as an excuse to avoid difficulties; satisfying the Lord’s desire is equally as important. All those who love the Lord should love Him to the point of exceeding His commands. Only such a love truly satisfies the Lord’s heart.
We often wish that the Lord’s commands would not be so high in order that things would be easier, but requirements associated with the Lord’s command often are much lower than those associated with His desire. We must learn to be able to say, “Lord, I would not only keep Your commands but exceed the requirements of Your command.” Paul’s last journey exceeded the Lord’s command. He lived in the Lord’s desire, and this pleased the Lord. The Lord did not command Paul to be imprisoned for His sake, but it was His desire that such a lover of Him would be in chains for Him. Thus, the Lord encouraged him again and again. We must hold on to this fact: the love with which we love the Lord must exceed His command. Those who do not love the Lord in this way will avoid the weighty and choose the light. May we be willing to choose the difficult and avoid the easy and to choose the weighty and avoid the light in serving the Lord.
