|
注目基督(黄玉恩) 目录： 一、引言 二、在众教会间交通的灵 三、谁是教会的源头？ 四、最妙的道 五、是否分裂的因素？ 六、使徒的种类 七、从众使徒领受 八、本末倒置、倒果为因 九、「在主恢复中的众教会」真正的意思是什么？ 十、从历史得教训 十一、个人的见证 附件一：教会当有的立场——一九八八年八月廿八日安那翰教会聚会记录（十六点声明，经John Ingalls和Albert Knoch校订 附件二：朱韬枢及James Reetzke给英格斯等人的联署信（请参阅本书P.138) 附件三：由波尔等八位弟兄连署「给一九八八年八月廿八日安那翰教会聚会中发言人的公开信」（请参阅本书P.142） 附件四：新约教会的根基——圣灵的主权 译 序 一九八八年八月廿八日，安那翰教会长老英格斯（John Ingalls）等发表了十六点声明，包括圣经的权威、教会合一的立场和见证、「职事」的正解、众使徒的原则、地方教会行政的独立等真理，愿意是为了针对当日的时弊，给圣徒们正确的教导（见附件一）。 翌年二月，朱韬枢和James Reetzke针对这十六点声明，写信指责英格斯等弟兄（见附件二）。四月再有波尔（Francis Ball）等八位弟兄连署的函件，进一步评击英格斯的声明（见附件三），引起了主恢复中一场真理上的辩论。 以后有人到英国曼彻斯特派发朱韬枢和波尔的文字，导致圣徒的不安，由此引发当地一位负责弟兄黄玉恩（Eddie Huang）写成本文——「注目基督」，从真理上作出回应，指出主恢复中的病根所在，并见证他如何因转向基督而蒙恩。 本文切中时弊，剖析入微，而且态度中肯，是一份历史性的文献。不过由于篇幅颇长，读者也可先读第十、十一两点，就是「从历史得教训」和「个人的见证」这两章。附件四是作者回应李常受弟兄宣判几位同工「背叛和发酵」的评论信，内容一针见血，因此一并列在书后。 本书小标题为译者加上。 一、【引言】 1.【写作本文的背景】本文源于我给某弟兄的覆信。他曾寄给我两本小册，一本署名波尔（Francis Ball）等人所写的文章，题目是「给一九八八年八月廿八日在安那翰教会聚会中发言人的公开信」（见附件三） 还有一本是朱韬枢和James Reetzke写给约翰英格斯（John Ingalls）、Albert Knoch、林祥辉、陈实等的信（见附件二）。 我一再寻求，觉得主有带领，要公开我覆信中部分内容。为叫读者能了解其中原委，谨此稍加阐释。 我收到上述小册，起初认为争辩道理绝无意义，因为辩论只生辩论，永无止境。后来再细读全文，觉得其中的要点，都是过去几年间我们深表关注的事。因主的怜悯，藉这些事，我们在曼彻斯特的好几位圣徒，在主面前清楚看见自己曾偏离主作中心，虽然知道神经营的事，却未够活在其中。因此，我决定回信给那位寄给我上述小册的弟兄，虽然未必能帮助他，但至少让他晓得我在主面前的感觉。 我写完回信，在主面前详加考虑，与圣徒交通，最后决定公开我的看法。因着好些曾影响曼彻斯特教会的事，使我们能有今日的见证；而这些事的原则，与别处地方发生的事雷同。我相信好些人曾有我们的经历，或正面对我们所经历过的事。虽然非常痛苦，但最终主把我们带过来，并使我们从中领悟，一面蒙了光照，一面也得着平安。如此，主的自己变得更为宝贵，更为亲切，也使我们更切慕他，更追求他。他使流泪谷变为泉源之地！ 如果还有其他人正在经历我们的患难，那么我们所蒙的恩，也可能成为他们的帮助。因此我决心写出本文。 波尔等弟兄们的小册，的确触发了许多讨论，但我不过用它们作为讨论的引子，本文并无意全面反驳他们的著述。我一开始就无意如此，这原不是我的托付，更多道理上的辩论也毫无益处。 阅读本文的人，须以过去几年在众教会中所发生的事作为背景。我们在曼彻斯特所经历的事，不是单独的事件，而是深具代表性的。波尔诸君的文字，仅提供一个方便的起点来讨论。 2.【不是「反对职事」，乃是为着那职事】我深知写出本文，要冒被众人误会的危险甚至在主里最亲近的人也会对我误解。我确曾为此顾虑，犹豫不决。本文的读者也许误会我攻击个别弟兄，贬低论断某些弟兄们，甚至会认为我反对「职事」，用文字来「反对」，「图谋毁坏」李常受弟兄的职事。事实绝非如此！ 我无意攻击弟兄，更无心为谁辩护，我所切慕所盼望的，是本文能为着「那职事」，就是「新约的职事」，那领人到基督面前的职事，而不是攻击那职事。 我的目的，只是与人分享自己被带回到基督面前的经历与感觉。至于李常受的职事，我永远无法否认，主曾藉他帮助我和众多弟兄；毫无疑问，主曾把他赐给教会，作为恩赐，开启圣经，帮助我们看见基督、经历基督，这一份我绝对不反对，也不会图谋毁坏。 真的，正因为主曾藉他和别的前面弟兄，在我们中间立下了生命和真理的根基，我们才能有今天的认识。就众人而论未必如此，但就我而论的确是这样。 我只要求读者在未读完全文，尤其是未读完末了两段以前，不要对我的动机先下断案。请你读完全文，才决定我是存心清洁，还是攻击论断。 我也知道，本文可能揭开新一轮的辩论；许多人认为撰写和分发这类文章，只会在众教会中带来骚扰，而不是平安，正如波尔等人的小册，曾搅扰我们在曼彻斯特的圣徒一样。因此若有人感觉本文对他们徒增困扰，我便请求大家不要勉强任何人、任何教会来阅读。同时我也希望读这段引言的人，自己来决定是否继续读下去。 愿主保守，使本文不被用来攻击或诽谤任何弟兄姊妹，这是我最担心的事。我只好信靠他主宰的作为。我盼望没有在结党的灵里写成文，也求大家不要以结党的灵来读它、来用它。 最后，我要求读者存宽大的胸襟，字行间若有太苛刻、太率直的话，务请见谅。我不过尽力坦诚地吐出我的感觉。如果语气稍欠谦和，就请读者以及上述两本小册的著者赦免我。 二、【在众教会间交通的灵】 1.【是谁罔顾交通的灵？】波尔等在文中力指英格斯、Otuteye & Knoch等弟兄（以下简称英格斯等）公开的发言，所作的不是地方性的事，而是身体性的事（P.1），又说他们罔顾别的教会（P.4），因此违反了众教会间交通的灵（P.4),没有尊重与别的教会的交通，没有考虑到他们的言论会影响到别的教会（P.27）等等。 表面上似乎言之成理，但请读者回想自一九八六年开始所发生的事。在那一段时期内的风风雨雨，才是导致英格斯等在一九八八年八月起来说话的因由。 我在此要特别追问，所谓「交通的灵」是否波尔等真正关心的事？ 自一九八六年开始，在众教会中的确发生了好些事。为怕误信谣传，我所说的只限于我们曼彻斯特圣徒在场的事，加上从录影带或印刷的档上所看到的准确记录，包括每年两季训练中的言行（尤其是与「台北全时间训练」和「新路」有关的「实行」与「交通」），「台北全时间训练」，台北全时间训练有关的长老训练，高中生训练，英国黑池（Blackpool）和在别处举行的「职事聚会」，以及多次席间的私下谈话等等。其间好些言论谈到众教会，尤其是谈及众长老对「职事」以及「新路」的态度，都是语带鄙视和贬抑的。 那时有人为了对付各地「漠不关心」的态度，便鼓励受训者要晋身为特殊人物，比方说，在征召台北全时间训练时，特殊人物是指某些合格的年轻人，他们必须大学毕业，年龄在廿一至四十岁之间，未有孩子。在高中训练中，那些「将来全心全意全时间的人」会被捧为特殊人物；在「职事站」聚会中，那些有负担服事「那使徒」的人就会备受推崇，被人另眼相看。 不仅宣传，更有人谈到这些「特殊类别」的人该以何种态度来对待「职事」和「职事站」。他们指令全时间者该去那里，在本地本国又该作什么。 不只如此，更有全球性过节的「宣告」，全球祈祷日，有人甚至想定出一九八八年为「欧洲年」等等。（我感谢主，此事未能付诸实行。） 事实上种种言行严重影响众教会，却根本上未与有关的众地方教会的负责弟兄们交通。我们还被忠告，那个教会、那些弟兄「漠不关心」、反应冷淡，甚至是反对「职事」的。好些人被定罪为吹冷风、坚持「旧路」、不愿放弃地位等等。 以上种种历史，严重损害了教会和圣徒们在基督里真实的交通。虽然我们只能见证在曼彻斯特所发生的事，但别处传来的报导，更印证我们的经历并非孤立的事件。 2.【只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯】相比之下，到底谁真有强烈的身体感觉？谁对别的教会切实关心？谁有交通的灵？他们想到这些言论会伤害众教会么？为何当日竟无人挺身指出这些错事，如今却有那么多人，急急责备英格斯等说真心话的人不顾身体感觉，没有交通的灵？ 无疑地，寄这两本小册给我的人（当然是同意作者的感觉的），自己也有分于上述的事。由此可见，波尔等弟兄们真正不满意的理由，并不是说英格斯等三位弟兄罔顾众教会，违反了交通的灵、不尊重众教会间之交通。真正不满意的理由，其实是他们认为英格斯等弟兄不推行李常受弟兄和他的工作。 多年来人可任意说话，不管多么得罪众教会（这不是我的话，而是一位在台北全时间训练中受训者自己的话），不管会多伤害众教会，只要是「为职事、支持职事」的——对李常受的工作，职事站有或多或少的好处、有促进作用的，就没有人会说他们缺少交通的灵；而今波尔等急急定罪英格斯等弟兄的话，压根儿是因为英格斯等不像波尔他们一样鼓吹李常受的工作。 对我来说，像波尔等人所真正关心的，乃是：到底你是「支持」李常受、「站在他这边」；或「不是支持」李常受、「不是站在他这边」。可见波尔等人根本不在乎众教会交通的灵。 「身体的事」、「交通的灵」等等都是很好很属灵的名词，但为何这种论调这么有选择性？这岂非古语所云：「只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯。」容我打个比方，一个人在路上开车，见有辆车越了线，在同一边向他迎面驶来，于是按喇叭示警；迎面来车的司机竟然指责他，说按喇叭者骚扰他人，缺少关心，没有顾到别的司机。但他自己鲁莽、危险、危害他人生命的驾车方法又怎么说，若我们定罪那响号示警者是不够关心，未顾到别人，那么更应该先定罪那率先鲁莽危险驾驶的人。 若要指责弟兄们罔顾别的教会，发出警告，岂不更应该先问：是什么事导致他们示警？为何他们要先发出警告？ 他们发出的警告，对别的教会的影响，比起那逼他们先行示警的因素，后者的危险性和影响就更大。 当然，有人会说，我所举的例子「已成过去」。事实上我们也曾被人关照要「忘记」背后。不错，在一九八七年五月间，李常受弟兄在台北对全时间者交通到要与自己所属的教会有交通，那时我也很被他交通的话摸着。可是，话虽如此，根据我的观察，其后许多人依旧不变，只要你为李常受 说话，作什么事情都没有问题，都能接受。 比方说，在一九八七年夏季训练看，有人鼓吹，甚至勉强合乎「特殊类别」条件的人，去台北参加全时间训练。我找不到一句话容许（不用说「鼓励」）这班人先与所属的教会有交通，也只字不提他们应去寻求主的带领才作决定；这些都发生在李弟兄五月交通的话之后。施训者真有人关心众教会间交通的灵么？ 3.【论到李常受，你们的意见如何？】时到今日，许多人的所作所为仍继续印证这原则。写给英格斯等弟兄们的两本小册的作者正是其中表表者。他们提到许多问题的背后关键点，归纳起来也不过一句话，就是「到底你支持李常受或是不支持李常受？」套入圣经的话，「论到李常受，你们的意见如何」？ 说真的，我们从前彼此亲密相爱的圣徒，今天在基督里的交通根本荡然无存。好像某些人来到曼彻斯特看望圣徒的家庭，用心已变，存心只为说服我们，劝大家要像他们一样来跟随李常受弟兄，根本不是为寻求在基督里的交通，也不像圣徒间应有的光景。 几个月以前，有人来曼彻斯特看望圣徒们的家，分发那两本小册，说是波尔和朱韬枢等人所写的。这使有些圣徒感到烦恼，也伤了他们，因为他们根本连英格斯等的交通档也一无所知。这同时也伤害了我们，使我们不能再平安享受主，因为这些「看望」要逼圣徒们「对某些事表态」（表明立场），而这些事明显对教会生活是无关紧要的。 若事先与此间弟兄们寻求交通，难处大可避免。为何他们没有应用波尔等人所讲的，「要与众教会交通，要关心人，要顾及人，要事先想到后果」呢？这不是再次证明分送这些小册的人，认为只要是站在李常受这边，为他说话、赞成他，就可任意而行？但是任何人不推崇李常受，那么他所说的话就要放在显微镜下细察，看看是否顺应「交通的灵」。他们的理由，究竟是真正关心教会、顾到教会？冷眼旁观的人岂难看穿，李常受在我们中间已成了彼此争论的焦点？ 三、【谁是教会的源头？】 1.【教会的存在岂能归功于人！】在波尔等人所写的小册第十五页，说「安那翰教会的存在，全是因为李弟兄」（owes its existence to Brother Lee）。朱韬枢等的小册更进一步地说：「事实上你们安那翰弟兄们，并安那翰教会的存在，岂不是因他的缘故么？」英格斯、Otuteye和Knoch等弟兄以及安那翰教会，自然该为此而申辩。可是我认为波尔等人这样的说法压根儿就是错误的！将一个教会的存在归功于某人，真是大错特错！ 回顾历史，主作工的道路总是高过我们的道路，一切荣耀都该归给他。耶路撒冷教会并未受彼得指导，根据统计与研究，策划福音化埃提阿伯与非洲。但是到了元首命定的时候，他打发了腓利，用人无法想象的办法，对一位没有人知道会经过那里的太监传道。腓利既非「头号使徒」，也非「使徒长」，而是在厨房服事的小弟兄，但却是联于升天元首的肢体，也是回应主呼召的人。并且紧接着太监受浸之后，主并未打发腓利去继续栽培造就，兴起在埃提阿伯的教会，反而「圣灵将腓利提去…太监就欢欢喜喜的走路」。 请问，早期在埃提阿伯的基督徒，他们的存在，究竟该归功于谁？归功于太监？腓利？当然只能归功于主，他是元首。 2.【倪弟兄的例子】再引另一例子。在倪柝声弟兄被囚以先，他计画了福音化全中国的大举，他曾说，如果我们忠心，全中国要在十五年间被拿下来。他也开始有训练中心，训练同工，给他们「初信造就五十二题」，好在众教会中教导众圣徒。 为这伟大的国家，有何等了不起的计画，有轰轰烈烈的福音和造就工作。但计画尚未展开，全中国已经失去了。当共产党刚要渡江时，江南的众教会祷告求主挡住共产党，像红海埋葬法老的军兵一样。 主听了这个祷告么？共产党占领了全中国，众地方教会和一切的工作，表面看来全都了了，圣徒所见，一片荒废。可是今天在中国有数以百万（千万）计的基督徒，真正在宗派之外，只奉主名聚会，不高举任何人，只高举基督。这是谁作的？这不是出自倪柝声的计画；若是那样，也许我们都要说这在中国有数以百万的圣徒，他们的存在都当归功于倪柝声了。 是教会的元首作成这一切，荣耀全都归他。 倪弟兄和众弟兄们的劳苦，的确已撒下种子，主也自有赏赐。但是主作工的法则，是要叫人不能夸口说，在他之外海有谁是任何教会的源头，因为他是妒嫉的神。如果我们的劳苦满有果效，赏赐是在主那里，也只从主得到赏赐。但愿我们不再称许自己的工作，也不再赞美任何人的工作，愿一切荣耀都归于元首。 3.【弟兄会的例子】数月前，我们读过启示录一至三章，主对非拉鐡非和老底嘉教会所说的话，尤其摸着我们。如果非拉鐡非的预言头一个应验的，主要是应验在弟兄会身上，那么他们的历史必定又有意思，又深具教训。 弟兄们（弟兄会）起头只有一个念头，就是离开所有别的名，只在主名里聚集，并根据他的应许，求他同在，接纳所有在基督里的信徒，绝无半点意思想发起新运动，也未想过用伟大的方法拓展福音的工作。 主却在他们中间行了大事。一切不是出于组织，而是主亲自运行。回顾他们的早期历史，就发现他们并不觉得自己有什么了不起的，也不知道为主作了许多，更不会自觉比别人强，唯一感觉就是归回到主的名里，回到身体的合一。而主对他们所说的话，乃是「我知道你的行为」；但他接下去并没有列举他们的丰功伟绩，而只说「你略有一点力量，也曾遵守我的道，没有弃绝我的名」。主的称赞并不在他们的行为（工作），而是他们与主之间的关系，而他们所顾念的，也不是自己的行为（工作），而是与主的交通。 后来，弟兄们自觉比别人强，远比别人知得多、作得多，这时他们就已经变成老底嘉，主把他们吐出去了。 4.【保罗的例子】当然，有人会引用保罗对哥林多人所讲的话为例子，说他们在基督里正是他作使徒的印证，是他在基督耶稣里用福音生了他们。但保罗也说过，我栽种了，亚波罗浇灌了，「惟有神叫他生长」。可见栽种的算不得什么，浇灌的也算不得什么，只在那叫他生长的神。 不错，保罗的确曾为他是哥林多人的使徒一事申辩，但是他之所以这样作是为爱他们，因为他们被犹太教人引诱，离开了对基督的享受，离开了神新约的经营。难道波尔等弟兄们对英格斯等弟兄的关心，也是如此吗？谁能真说英格斯等三位弟兄所讲的虎啊，表明他们失去了对基督的享受，离弃了神新约的经营呢？ 容我再问，究竟波尔等人真正关心的是什么事？他们的负担是为顾到那三位弟兄以及听他们话之人的属灵光景么？ 我看他们最关心的事，最主要的负担，是「别人是否支持，是否赞同李常受弟兄」，因为对波尔等人，没有使徒李常受，就没有安那翰教会。 当然有人会争辩说，「你们的存在是由于他」（Owe him your existence）这句话，不该拘泥字面的解释，正如保罗自认生了哥林多人，不该领会作他是他们生命的源头一样。我不想象法庭审案一般查究每一字句的用意，只想问他们这种说法到底所关心的是什么？ 我不能代英格斯等在安那翰的弟兄们答辩，但是就我们在英国切身的经历，我们能与他们讲同样的话。我们不是存心想要破坏教会与任何弟兄的关系，只是要把众圣徒带回到基督身体的元首，那独一的源头。 四、【最妙的道（The most excellent way）】 1.【是道路，不是方法】在廿九、三十页，波尔等弟兄曾作如此申明，「圣经中挨家访问传福音的方法，远比任何方法更高明」，「将福音送到他们的家中，是更妙的道」（more excelling way），「我们寻求更好的（作法）」，「若不采用最好的办法（best way），便是傻瓜。」 「更妙的道」（more excelling way）」一语，当然是源自林前保罗所说的「最妙的道」（most excellent way），从前后文可看出，他们比较聚会中「更大的恩赐」时，表明了同样想法。保罗所说的最妙的道到底是何所指？从十二章到十四章上下文看，他所关心的，是哥林多人说方言并滥用恩赐对于教会建造毫无益处。他也有负担让哥林多人看见为神说话、悟性的话语和知识的话语的重要。按理说，保罗应该接着谈到如何才是达到这些「最妙的道」最上好的方法，比方说，可以教大家在会中怎样实行人人为着神说三分钟话，如何每人预备一段圣经来彼此对说真理，又或者是轮流准备某一段圣经的讲章等等。可是保罗并没有暗示有何「方法」能达到人人为神说话，达到「两三个人为神说话，其余的就当慎思明辨」的光景。 那么保罗提出的「最妙的道」是什么呢？乃是爱。哥林多人在次要的恩赐上彼此争竞，却不用更好的恩赐彼此建造，压根儿是缺少爱。他们所缺少的，不是知识或口才的训练，保罗说到他们在他里面凡事富足，口才知识都全备。保罗没有教他们如何增长知识、操练口才，他只说到爱。哥林多人误用恩赐，根本原因是缺少爱。这才是保罗所关心的。 为此我重新看最妙的道的「道」字的真正含意。英文的「道」（way），不论是字面解或引伸的解法，都是指路径、旅程，也可解作方法和手段。不过根据Vine的新约字典，希腊文的「道」是「可道思」（hodos），除了字面上指路径或旅程之外，只可引伸为一种行为、一种思想观念。所以有爱的道路、义的道路、真理的道路、主的道路，而反面的有巴兰的道路、该应的道路。约十四章六节，耶稣说「我就是道路」也是这一个字，但却没有一处像英文的way一样，可解作手段和方法，更没有像「十种开家的办法」或「六种领人受浸的方法」一样的意义，希腊文说到手段和方法，是用「塞普斯」（tropos）。有趣的是，这字在腓一18用上了：「…或是假意，或是真心，无论怎样，基督究竟被传开了…。」林前九22也用了另一个助语词「板图斯」（pantos），可译作「用尽方法，千方百计」。「…向什么样的人，我就作什么样的人，无论如何，总要救些人」。 保罗说到爱的道路，不仅是更佳的道，而是更妙的道，他用「可道思」（hodos）。而说到用何方法传福音，保罗非常包容，他愿意用各种方法，视乎福音的物件是谁。无论如何总要救些人，他愿意用各种方法救人，除了罪恶的方法之外；他也从不高举任何一种作法过于别的方法。同样，他也没有要求全教会所有肢体都用同一种方法，来运用最好的恩赐建造教会。他向人人推荐最妙的道，那就是爱。 传福音时，我们应该强调对罪人的爱，强调他们对福音的需要，正如神爱沉沦的罪人，神寻找他们，主耶稣亲临人间拯救我们，这样的道路就是「可道思」（hodos），是最妙的，也是唯一的道路。 2.【强调方法可能带来分裂】但若果我们强调「登门造访」、「叩陌生人的门」、「只用某一本小册子」，限制时间、用词程式等等，这便是强调方法而不是强调道路（「可道思」）。我当然不是反对这些实行和方法，因为这些都不是罪恶的，然而这是方法，不是「可道思」，因此我觉得在传福音的方法上无需要重这个轻那个。 回头来看噶夫瑞（Godfred Otuteye）所说的话，看看他为何会触怒波尔等人。他说：「我们必须说清楚，我们传福音并没有一种特别非此不可的方式。任何正常的方式都可以。」 稍明事理的人若明白过去的历史，都知道这些话是为针对过去的弊端，就是过份高抬某种特定「方法」。噶弟兄不是说到爱的道路，而是说在传福音的事上，别要求人人跟我们的标准看齐。他是指着不同的传福音方法说的，为何波尔等人误解噶弟兄的意思呢？这些饱学之士居然故意混淆英文的「道」（way）字的两种意义，岂不知圣经说到「实行」和「方法」，是不会高举这个方法过于那个方法的。 也许有人认为我在咬文嚼字，其实不然。从过去的经历和见闻来看，有必要把上述的字意弄清楚。 教会历史上曾有不少有识之士，因为高举某些非必要的事，带来教会分裂，事例不胜枚举。当「新路」在曼彻斯特推行得如火如荼之际，一般人都以为叩门和家聚会等「方法」（tropos）就是「道路」（hodos），如同把希伯来书中「又新又活的路」与进入美地的「路线」混为一谈一样。这样的说法，暗示那些不采用那些手段、方法来传福音的人，便不在至圣所和美地之中！这是仇敌分裂我们的诡计。 我绝不反对进家传福音。我的经历反而告诉我，家访传福音大有益处。记得初时实行叩门，所摸着我的是对灭亡罪人的爱，需要为他们祷告，要俯就他们，把福音传给他们，正如主为我们所作的。我的天然不喜欢如此作，但当日实行，仍然满有享受。不过后来我们得了「帮助」，被教导要不择手段，严守同读小册子、呼求祷告、示范和受浸等程式，我便十分反感。因为「不择手段」实在罔顾听者的光景，违反了俯就罪人的传福音原则。虽然如此，只要别人认为这些戒律有用，甘心情愿去行，我仍不表示异议；但我绝不认为方法本身有什么过人之处。 或者有人又会争辩，指我所讲的情形不过是我们实行「新路」时「不得其法」。不过这种讲法并不准确，也并未回答我所提出的问题关键，不论推行新路的人原意是否这么极端，也不论我们实行是否得法，都不是问题的关键。这些不过是一种手段、一种方式，不应有「更妙的路（more excell-ing way）」的说法。如此高举某种方法，结果就在制造分裂。 3.【保罗绝不高举方法】回到保罗在林前的话，他愿人人都为神说话，却没有发明一种方法去成就这事。我们不难想象他可以发明什么方法。他若真的提出方法，哥林多人又不顾一切的推行，当日的哥林多教会必然更严重分裂！因为偏离爱的道路。这岂不正是我们的情形？最少在某些教会中已经如此。 保罗为了解法哥林多教会的纷乱，提到最妙的道，乃是爱，而不是用方法来限制人说方言，或鼓励人为神说话。这事不是意义深长吗？哥林多人误用恩赐，原因不正是缺少爱吗？推行「新路」时的根本问题，难道不也是缺少爱吗？那时不是有人说，即使牺牲一些圣徒，也要坚持到底吗？这些问题岂不正是噶弟兄所关心、所提出来的吗？ 下面我还要请波尔等人看看李常受自己如何在「带领及工人的原则」一文中说到方法（ways）的问题： 「别强调你的道路（way）、方法和作法比别人的更好，即使真的如此，也不要夸口…不要说你的方法比别人的更先进、更完美。不要说别人在某事上偏离了，而你却走在最妥当的路上…经常有人说自己走得正确，而且要求别人跟他们一起走，这样作法立刻引起纷乱，破坏自己也破坏别人，最终破坏主的恢复。」（长老训练第四册62、69页） 讽刺的是噶弟兄要说的情况，李常受自己早已准确料到。奇怪的是噶弟兄的话居然会触怒波尔等跟随李常受的人。到底谁更忠于李常受的教训呢？ 在这点上，波尔等人强烈批评噶弟兄，认为他暗示「新路中极为有益的实行」——家访——可能导致教会分裂。换言之，他们认为高举某种实行不可能引致分裂。这样的说法极其惊人，因为连保罗、亚波罗、矶法等主的仆人的名，甚至基督的名，也会被误用而引致分裂，何况高举方法，岂不更可能引来分裂吗？是否因为这些方法是我们所尊敬的某人所发明的，就盲目相信，以为不可能引来分裂呢？若波尔等的意思，是说这方法本身原不是具有分裂性的，正如基督的名本身不是具有分裂性的，那我会说，噶弟兄的话中，并没有指这方法本身是有分裂性的。 我们不能空谈理论，也要眷顾事实。好些地方教会，包括曼彻斯特在内，分裂的原因就是有人把某些方法吹捧到天上有地下无（虽然这不是根本的难处，这点我稍后再行交待）。波尔等说这些事的责任在三位弟兄身上，而不是外来因素，分明有意回避事实的真相。我重申我不能替安那翰教会的弟兄们说话，但最少我们的情况的确是受外来的影响所困扰。有关例子我已在「众教会交通的灵」的那一段提出过。 4.【病根：只在意是否支持李弟兄】也许仍有人觉得我是为「更妙的路」这句话下微言大义，大作文章。我再说明我不是辩论文词，因为这些言论不过是病症。我在意的是病源、病根。 容我再看事件背后的深义。波尔等人真的不知圣经对方法和实行，只从大处落墨？他们难道从未读过前面所引李常受的话？难道他们自己服事教会时，没有遇过人出于好意要推行某种作法，结果破坏和分裂教会？否则他们为何急急批评噶弟兄？噶弟兄的话最多只可算是没有推行新路，他们却指他「反对新路」，真是匪夷所思。这不是很清楚吗？任何客观的读者都能看出，噶弟兄是警告高举「方法」的人会引起分裂，波尔等人却真的相信「新路」不可能导致教会的分裂？这事背后真正的原因何在？ 关键岂不正是因为「新路」是李常受所提出的，而这些弟兄们只关心别人是否支持、赞同李常受，抑或不支持、不赞成李常受？ 李常受岂不是已成了争端的中心点吗？ 答案是肯定的。我只说我们本地的经历，正当「新路」推行得如火如荼时，很多人都抱一个态度——凡是李常受和他任命的施训者所说的，都一味照做。从早到晚，我们都听到「顺服」、「合一」、「不吹冷风」，要为不顺服和不合一而「认罪」。但他们却不是指在灵里的顺服主，与主合一，而是指要与李常受一伙的指令合一。人们虽然觉得一九八七年台湾训练中的毕业「盛大演出」和中学生训练有极不妥当之处，但还是认为李常受既在其中，这是他的训练，一切便无问题。 由此可见，很多人（我们自己也曾一度如此）着紧的不再是主在灵里的带领，而是诸般实行是否出于李常受。 亲爱的圣徒，请忘记谁发明种种方法，忘记哪种方法更高明。这些事何时变成这么重要？我们为此辩论已经是我们的大错了。知识叫人自高自大，惟有爱能建造人。若果我们真的爱圣徒，便不会让任何事分裂我们，那管这是多好的、多合乎圣经的。在爱里行事，必定会顾到「最小的弟兄」和「似乎软弱的肢体」，过于关心方法。让我们都实行最妙的道——爱。 五、【是否分裂的因素？】 1.【交通的基础——是否推崇某人的职事？】同样，波尔等人又说到另一点，说「李弟兄从不是分裂的因素」，也否认「分裂是因有些圣徒高举李弟兄」。 这是极其大胆的说法，因为保罗、亚波罗、矶法，甚至基督的名也可能造成分裂。我想李常受弟兄本人也难于说从来没有因人吹捧他而引致分裂，否则他为何在过去数年提醒别人不要高举他？ 最近有人警告圣徒不要访问曼彻斯特教会，因为她已不再「跟随、接受职事」。发出警告的人不是说我们偏离了基督、离开神新约的经纶、离弃了新约职事的目标；只因我们没有全力推荐全体圣徒去读李常受最新的信息（但我们也从未反对或禁止人去读）。 这样的警告岂不是把教会分门别类？把是否推介李氏现时的职事、工作，作为交通的基础，说明最少对某些人来说，李氏已成分裂的因素？ 我确信提倡「与职事合一」，要求与李常受和他的职事站合一，就是问题的症结。稍后我会回头再说这方面。 六、【使徒的种类】 1.【使徒分类，动机何在？】波尔等人长篇累牍，说到使徒的定义和种类。若果不是当前形势严峻，问题严重，我们觉得这类讲法十分可笑。但事实上我忧心忡忡。主的恢复中，几曾有此必要按法理来争论使徒的身份？从前我们轻看基督教人士对「使徒」一词的用法，因为他们自诩为现代使徒，甚至以使徒的地位作为辖管别人的权柄。 李常受弟兄曾说及，有人问他是否觉得自己是使徒，他说，我心中暗笑，因为他们用同一字眼，但有不同的定义。今天我们是否同样以法理的地位和眼光去看使徒一字呢？是否又认为使徒是人可获得的官方的、永久的地位？ 有关使徒的地位，争论由来已久，我不敢自诩为专家，不过就是孤陋寡闻的我，也觉得波尔等人冗长的争论言不及义。 首先，把使徒分类令属灵事物流于官派和僵化，重蹈前人的覆辙。若果真有「第一类」使徒，是由主亲自任命和启示的，我就要说这等使徒已随约翰的去世不复存在，因约翰之后启示已经完成，再无需要增加什么。往下的世纪，主会藉已启示的光照我们，但不会再有新的启示。波尔等人又怎可说「我们难道不把李弟兄当作头一类使徒」？ 再者，他们说有「第三类使徒」，这类使徒是由主亲自设立的使徒所偶产生的，不能与第一类使徒同等地位（equal standing），因此第三类使徒该由设立他们的使徒带领及指导作工。其实什么叫作同等地位呢？这种译法本身已具有浓厚的圣品阶级色彩。这是何等严谨的阶级制度！ 若果第一类使徒随约翰的过去而消失，那么第三类使徒也随第一类使徒的下一代过去而不复存在了。波尔等人的译法，便与今天的情况毫不相干，认真说来，我们也可说李常受是由倪柝声而来，所以李常受也只是第三类使徒。以此推论，连倪柝声也不过是第三类使徒而已！又怎可以说倪柝声去世之后，一个本来属于第三类的使徒就摇身一变，像以利沙披上以利亚的外衣，成为第一类使徒呢？ 据我对圣经的认识，我找不到任何非常肯定、确定、僵化的、法定的证据，能支持次等使徒由高等使徒设立的理论。新约明文说到十二使徒（apostles，众数），巴拿巴和保罗在使徒行传也被称为使徒（众数用法）。所以使徒明显不仅十二位，而是指任何被主差派为他作工的圣徒。 2.【使徒职分的传递：并无「专利」】保罗在林后也说到两位有恩赐的弟兄，是教会的使徒。在腓立比书也有以巴弗提是「你们的使徒」。当然这两个例子可能是指被教会差派的圣徒，而不是奉派完成主的使命，作主工的圣徒。新约里当然有很多无名使徒。其实根据李常受的教导，所有人均可成为使徒，主要的根据是以弗所书第三、四章，升天的元首在他的得胜升天后，把恩赐直接赐给教会。可见主在肉身和化身那灵时，都设立使徒执行他的旨意。在第一世纪后，他仍继续把使徒当作恩赐赐给身体，为着建造教会。不过重点是这些恩赐都是由升天元首而来，至于说元首授权某人（甚至是他亲自设立的使徒），按手传递使徒的职分，正如波尔等人所说，「产生其他使徒」，却是毫无根据的。 若把使徒的定义局限于被主差派的工人，而剔除了林后和腓立比书中被教会差派的使徒，那么除了元首以外，无别人可以差派使徒。 当然也有人争论说，保罗也差遣提摩太和提多到外地去。但是否保罗的差遣将他们构成主的使徒呢？ 如果提摩太和提多是使徒，其根据定是按照以弗所书四章所说的，是由于元首给身体的恩赐，而不是由于保罗的设立。 这样说并不是抹杀保罗给他们许多的帮助和带领。保罗在主里较长进，数次差遣他们出去作工。但不能凭此便说是保罗设立他们，他们使徒职分的证明只是因保罗的差遣，该受他的带领和指导去作工。这是很危险的推论，会取代主直接的带领，并由元首把恩赐赐给教会的原则。更严重的，是取代了个别肢体直接向元首该负的责任。这不仅是使徒们的本份，也是每个肢体的责任。如果人人不向元首负责，只有使徒向主负责，恐怕便是教皇制度的翻版！虽然不能否认提摩太和提多的确从保罗得着帮助，但他们有使徒般的服侍，是因元首把他们作成使徒的恩赐，他们当向元首负责，而不是向「产生」他们的「人」负责任。 若接受波尔等人的推论，那就真是危险之极。若当日提摩太和提多二人和保罗同在耶路撒冷城，他们便应理直气壮，不管良心的反对，跟随保罗进圣殿去还拿细耳人的愿了。若是他们不肯，我们可以质问他们，你们岂不是因保罗，就是那头一类使徒所产生的么？你们岂可不跟随他的带领吗？同样，我们也可说，巴拿巴在行传起头的时候，就得到耶路撒冷众使徒很多的帮助（连他这巴拿巴的名，也是在那里得的），而使徒中为首的乃是彼得。 这样，巴拿巴跟同彼得在加拉太二章中装假也是应当的了！如果这样，那里还有圣灵在每一个肢体里的膏油引领呢？神应许说「从至小的到至大的，都必认识我」，又将怎样？一旦接受了上述有关使徒类别的观念，就可以罔顾自己向主所当尽的一切责任，因为我们可以说，我作这个作那个，都是听从「头一类」使徒。这个第一类使徒一向是服在主的元首权下，我们也信是如此，那么我们跟从他的带领也必不会错。甚至有人说，他的良心既然平安，我们的良心也就平安（以他的良心作我们的良心）！我恐怕我们中间的确有这种事了。 3.【是恩赐，不是地位】数世纪以来，人对「使徒们」的定义已经争论不休，我无意多加辩论。只是因已过数年所发生的事件，叫我深刻觉得，主赐给身体的恩赐，原本是为着「功用」（functions），而我们却把功用改成了「地位」（Positions），甚至成了正式的地位。 我的膀臂无疑的是身体上的大恩赐，有很大的「功用」。假使我说，膀臂真强壮，支配着手与指头，因此认为膀臂具有「地位」，手和指头必须服从它，听它的支配，就等于否认了真正的元首主权。 不仅如此，假如我再对其余的肢体说，虽然你们各有功用，却不当说，我比膀臂走得好，嗅得好，看得好，听得好，你们虽具有不同的功能，却都当服在膀臂之下。我再进一步想，膀臂既是这么强壮，和头又是这么相联，这么可靠，任何肢体若服在它以下，借着它，必定自然而然的服在真正元首之下了。（我既非说笑，也非夸大其辞，这种说法许多读者都不会陌生。）这就完全偏离圣经，把元首赐予的生机功能，变成了制度的、法定的、机械式的地位。若是如此，不管膀臂站住或跌倒，不管膀臂是否仍旧强壮，是否联于元首，已不是关键。我们有这种想法的人，便已偏离了元首的主权。 事实上，元首也许可膀臂犯错误，膀臂也不一定常联于元首，这些事实不过是在他主宰之下，显明我们的错误。关键在于我们到底是把元首赐给身体的恩赐当作功用，为此感谢他？还是把他们推上制度式的地位？当我读过波尔诸君的小册后，发觉他们对使徒职分的观点，实在已根深蒂固，认为有些人可以获得权柄，把低于自己的人立为使徒，这种想法太官式、太过法定、太机械式了，简直把恩赐看成地位而非功用。 4.【新约的领袖：非正式、非永久、非组织性的】波尔诸君的「使徒论」，通篇没有说到元首的权柄和他所赐的恩赐，以及各人「对他」所当有的责任。我不想辩论道理，在主的工作中，我赞成年幼的应当顺服年长的，却不是按官式的和法定的方式。我不太在意波尔诸君是否道理正确，而是说，我们言论中所着重的，显明我们心之所击，心之所想。若是看见使徒的职分乃是元首赐下的恩赐和功用，为要建造他的身体，我们必然着重主的元首地位，凡事上都要长到他里面。另一方面，若是对使徒职分的领会只看成地位，自然会着重使徒的不同「等类」，就如是否某一类使徒有权柄产生新的使徒，新使徒有没有旧使徒同等的地位？当受谁的领导，又当听谁的吩咐。 我的话暂停于此，而将李常受弟兄的著作中，抄录一段如下： 「神的新约经营中，神儿女中的领袖并非正式的、永久的、或是组织的…。神所以这样定规，为要把人对领袖的看法摆在一边。旧约时代的君王都是一个接续一个，从来没有在同一时间中有三四个王。但是在新约时代，主并非只拣选一位使徒，而是十二位，以后他又加了别人如保罗、巴拿巴、提摩太等。我认为有好多使徒…。长老也是多数的，清楚说明在教会中并没有固定的领袖。」「你不可以仅凭一个弟兄口所出的要求，就采取行动，或就认为是那样。每一件事都要问主怎么说，圣经怎么说，而不是某个弟兄怎么说。」 「我们以为我们的肩、臂、手和手指等都是『小头目』（subheads）。绝对不是，我们只有一个头，向身体上的一切肢体直接发号施令，并非通过『小头目』…。不要以为肩或膀臂等乃是小头目，身体唯一的头乃是基督。」 「神的儿女在神今天的新约经营中，绝不当有一种天然观念的领袖。我们不当在众使徒中有什么正式的、永久的、组织性的领袖…。因此，所有的使徒，所有的地方教会，所有的长老，所有的工作区域，都是在同等的水准位置上。」 （真理信息第三篇，22、24、25、26、27、29页） 可以用以上的一段话，来察验波尔诸君的观念是否正确。这些观念包括：「第一类使徒」产生「第三类使徒」，而「他们的地位，与产生他们的使徒并不相等，他们应当受第一类使徒的带领并指导。」 七、【从众使徒领受】
1.【接受使徒的条件：膏油涂抹，对照圣经】波尔诸君讲论使徒的职分时，又把英格斯的话，妄自解释成有意叫「圣徒应该照自己的喜好去挑选自己喜欢的使徒」，并且说英格斯的意思是教唆人「各按自己的立场，大可选择性的接受保罗的职事」。如此曲解别人的话，做法很像从前好些人写书攻击地方教会时一样，似乎引用别人的话，好像别人真是那么说的，却是故意改动几个字，使那句话的意义愈能挑起人的反感愈好。 英格斯原本这样说：「我们当从他们（使徒们）接受任何出乎生命和真理的供应，凡是他们所有的，且能帮助我们，使我们得着益处为着建造身体的，我们都接受。」波尔诸君却私自添上「当照自己的喜好」来接受使徒这一句，而事实上话中绝无此意。单从英格斯的话看，并没有明确的说圣徒当照着什么标准，来从使徒的话中得帮助，但是他的确说到「任何出乎生命和真理的」，以及「凡…能帮助我们使我们得着益处，为着建造身体」的，这是英格斯所提出接受使徒的条件。这话岂不正对吗？每一个重生了的信徒，既是身体上的肢体，有生命的感觉，里面有膏油的涂抹，能认识生命和真理，能察觉什么是对身体的建造有益的，这样的讲法又有什么不对呢？ 再者，英格斯所摸到的头一点，乃是神的话语的权威。照着上下文来看，他是盼望圣徒当跟随主的引领（在灵中，也按圣经的明文），也考虑到教会当时的需要。请问劝告圣徒要按照灵里的膏油，也照着圣经的话来接受对教会最有益处的，又有什么错呢？ 我好像也把自己的话套在英格斯的话上了。但是从上下文看来，我更正确的表达了他的语气。波尔等诸君却故意曲解英格斯的意思，替他的话加上了「随他们的喜好（来接受使徒）之语。当然，对某些武断的宗教人士来说，别人灵里膏油的涂抹，只不过是「随他们的喜好」，任意作事。所以我对于波尔诸君之曲解英格斯的话，也不觉诧异了。（比照一句名言：我信的是真理，你信的是迷信。） 2.【察验使徒，有何不妥？】我也要将问题转到另一面。波尔诸君的意思岂不是说：我们大可罔顾里面的感觉，也不要管圣经怎么说，只要某人是使徒，就只管接受，把自命使徒之人的话生吞下去吗？（容我也效法他们，强解别人的意思！）若是如此，以弗所的教会如何能查验那些自称是使徒，其实却是假使徒的人？主又为什么称赞他们？（当然，有些人会说，他们既是假使徒，查核他们当然又作别论。但是若不照着灵里的膏油涂抹，并对照神的话，何能分辨出谁是假使徒呢？）圣经为什么又说庇哩亚人贤明，因为他们查考圣经，查验保罗的教导是否正确？ 最讽刺的，就是早年有许多人从基督教团体出来，进到地方教会中，并见证如何受李常受弟兄职事的吸引，虽然不同于传统的教训，但比照圣经，发现他传讲的都是又纯正又合乎圣经的。这是对李常受弟兄的职事最佳的辩护。（当然，不仅道理上合乎圣经，供应生命上也完全准确。）我回想一九八三年的时候，有一次李弟兄当着众弟兄面前，与一位元来访的记者谈话说，正因上述原因，他的职事广为福音派圣徒接受并跟随。 如今声称忠心跟随李弟兄的波尔诸君，却因英格斯说：要照着圣经和里面的膏油，从使徒领受有益的帮助，便竟然如此不悦！其实英格斯的提议，跟我们起初接受李弟兄的原因并没有两样，若是波尔诸君反对英格斯所说的，岂不是破坏了这一个基础？ 到底谁在破坏、损毁李弟兄的职事？如果李弟兄的教导仍然合乎圣经，供应生命，为什么英格斯的话会被视为反对他的教导？ 3.【长老不能（毋需）断定真理？】还有相关的一点。波尔诸君宣称，「长老可以教导圣徒，但是不能断定真理，不能辨明真理，因为这样的功用是使徒才有的恩赐」。又说「在地方教会中，长老不需要断明（define）真理，因神命定由使徒来作这事」。首先我要说，在启示录之后已毋需任何长老或使徒去定义任何真理，所有的真理都已经定了。关于断定、辨明圣经所已定义的真理一事，我实在不敢相信波尔诸君会说不需长老来断定真理！再请细读庇哩亚人和启示录第二章以弗所教会的例子，还有主斥责别迦摩、推雅推喇教会容让巴兰、耶洗别的教训，很明显地，从圣经辨明真理，拒绝错误的教训，不仅是长老的责任，也是我们每一个信徒的责任。这不正合乎教会是「真理的柱石和根基吗」？ 关于这一点，解释上不够准确仍非致命伤，而藏在某些人心底，叫他们说出错误言论的缘由，才是最要命的。在我看来，人要划分谁应该断定、辨明真理，谁不可以作这些事，就是以法定、官样、机械的态度去看身体的恩赐，特别把身体的恩赐看成地位而非功用，这正是病症之所在。正如我身体上其他肢体，用不着去帮忙开门，因为手可以开门。但是若我手上拿着东西，或是手受伤了，那么我的手臂、手肘及脚都可以帮忙开门；其他肢体根本毋须考虑这是不是「自己的功用」。有需要的时候，元首可以照着他所拣选的，叫身上任何一个肢体来满足这个需要。 4.【丢弃异象，高抬神的用人】有人也许认为这会制造混乱，但是治乱的良药不是外面的分门别类（以毫无生命的制度来止住混乱），却是每一个肢体都要服在基督的元首地位之下。为什么波尔诸君绝口不提肢体要长到元首里？人人都长到元首里，各肢体的功用便正常、合适；反之若违反了基督元首的地位，那所谓「正确的」、「功用上」的分工配搭，也就丝毫不能派用场，不过是以组织来代替生机的身体。在中古时期教皇及主教自命能「辨明、断定真理」，而马丁路德也要起来辨明真理，难道他是错了吗？路德可曾想过断定真理是否自己的功用呢？身体的元首岂不正是照他的拣选，在这肢体里运行来与他配合吗？ 我再说，不要单单注意目前诸多纷扰的事件，虽然看来既复杂又重要，更要想到背后的原因。为什么要谈论使徒的种类？为何要谈到谁该受谁待领？为什么要划分谁的功用是断定真理？为什么不说肢体当在元首的主宰下，在生命里尽功用，却要强调地位呢？我们岂非丢失了中心异象，就是基督照着每一个肢体功用的度量，把自己分赐给他们，藉以建造身体？多年来，我们听了不少，也传讲了很多关于神的经营，到底真正活在其中有多少？到末了我们所说的并不能算数，惟有我们的所是的才能算数。过去我们很宝贝神经营的启示向我们打开了。但是我们如何宝爱法？是生活、事奉都受此异象规正呢？还是高抬被主使用、向我们打开启示的「人」？只求保住那被主使用，将神经营的启示向我们打开的「人」的地位，行事却与他的经营背道而驰，可算是最大的讽刺。 八、【本末倒置、倒果为因】 在「使徒」这个题目上，我还发现一个要点，就是波尔等人怎么会认为英格斯自命是第一类使徒。只要看英格斯的话，就会知道，他强调使徒是有恩赐的肢体，为着建造身体，着重说到恩赐的功用而不是「地位」。英格斯所以说到使徒是复数的、教会对众圣徒的态度、哥林多教会的情形，以及保罗教导人说不要越过圣经等等，从其上下文来看，是有人过份高举「与某使徒的关系」、「跟随某使徒」、「与某使徒合一」等等。因他们以某人为「那使徒」，于是便用各种口号，去鼓励众圣徒不加思索地跟从这位弟兄所讲的，也跟从这位弟兄及其职事站所选的施训者。 1.【圣经强调众使徒】在这种背景下，英格斯才会说到在新约圣经中，除了特别指明某人外，使徒这个字常以复数出现；他也说到该如何从众使徒领受生命及真理，有趣的是，波尔等人竟然扯出英格斯是否自命为使徒，这简直毫不相干。公正的读者在读了英格斯的话后，难得会下结论，说他们在宣称自己的使徒地位，并与李弟兄同等。（我确信对大部分的圣徒而言，「同等地位」这一类讲法简直陌生。）我也不信有人听了英格斯的话，就会认为他真是这样的一个使徒了。英格斯的目的，明显是希望听者皆能认识使徒是从元首来的恩赐，为要叫身体得着建造，使众人能明辨、能领受出乎生命和真理的东西，而不要高举推崇某一个人的地位。文中没有蛛丝马迹显示他是指着自己说的。 当然，有人也许要辩驳说，谁能洞察人心呢？话里没有这个异象，难保发言者无此意。英格斯的用心何在，只有他自己才能回答。不过既然不知道别人心里真实的动机，就不要去臆测，否则保罗在安提阿责备彼得一事，我们也可指责他是为自己求地位了？谁敢保证这不是他当时隐藏的动机？同样的，我们也可以说，庇哩亚人天天查考圣经，要看保罗的教导是与不是，动机是要造就一个「本地的」使徒。这种猜测对基督的身体也是毫无益处的。 我并不是要为英格斯的动机辩护（如我所说的，他自己会表明），只是在已过数年中，在我们的经历里，这种猜疑别人的动机的事太普遍了。每逢有弟兄提醒众人，若高举「那使徒」和他的职事站（甚至将众圣徒和众教会按此分门别类）会造成分裂，他就会被指控「为自己有所贪求」。若有人表示担忧高举「新路」会出乱子，就会被认为「吹冷风」、「想保住在旧路上的地位」。若有人说到权力集中会生出难处，就会被控为高举地方教会的自主权。 这些指控只是想本末倒置，倒果为因，从根本的问题上分散人的注意力。英格斯所谈的难处，是有人凡事过份高抬了「那使徒」。波尔等人不提他真正的负担和用意，却指英格斯在宣称自己的使徒地位，真是全然离题了。他们岂非以己之心，度人之腹？ 九、【「在主恢复中的众教会」真正的意思是什么？】 波尔等人说：「在主恢复中的众地方教会，乐于接受李弟兄的职事，作圣徒结实丰足的（属灵）滋养来源」（P.19），「…时到今日，众地方教会均宝贵这份职事」（P.18），「（水流职事站）的服事对主的权益，关系重大，所有教会的圣徒都因此获益无量，不容争议」（P.21）。 这到底代表多少「地方教会」（或称「在主恢复中的众教会」）的意见，有多少教会同意，实在无从稽考。但是肯定无法代表今天全地所有教会，甚至不能代表所有的美国的教会。除非对他们来说，「地方教会」已不再是所有站在地方合一立场上，接受所有信徒，和众教会有交通的教会，而只是那些接受并推荐李常受当前职事的教会。 1.【「地方教会」的定义：接受李常受的聚会？】果真如此，「主的恢复」一词的含意，就不再是指「经过许多世纪荒凉堕落后，主再来重建和恢复的工作」；反而变成特殊的名称，只用于追随李常受及其职事站的人。按这定义，他们所谓的「主的恢复」，便不再是我心目中的主的恢复，而是宗派了！ 我无意追究实际上有多少处教会赞成这种想法，只是要指出波尔他们的心底话——地方教会的定义，是接受李常受的职事，这几乎已成教会中最重要的事。 我无意定人的罪。多年来我们可能或多或少，不自觉的抱此信念。道理上虽然认定合一的立场是地方教会的基础，但实行上，尤其是在对待别的基督徒，很多人都有强烈倾向，觉得地方教会的立场，就是接受李常受的职事。 我们大可辩称，说只有李常受的职事建造教会，其他人的职事制造分裂；又或者说在法理上「站住立场」是不够的，还需要「在灵中站住立场」，甚至以为不接受李常受的职事，就不可能有真正建造，难得属灵长进。最近，更有人根据各地教会、众圣徒与李常受之间的关系来把教会分类。这种作法正是源于上述观念。 波尔等弟兄的文字正有这种想法，我不是挑剔他们行文用字粗心大意，这不过是枝节的事。但把「接受他的职事」列为教会中必须接受的条件，正是现时诸般难处的因由！我会就此进一步详加探讨。 十、【从历史得着教训】 贯串全文，我力图找出当前教会诸般问题的症结。我虽然针对波尔等人的文章，作为讨论的「引子」，但我无心争论对错，免得争论不休。他们的文章，不过是冰山露出的一角，冰山本身才具有既隐藏又强烈的毁灭力，这方面才是我们应当竭尽心力，仔细思量的。 我多次自省，倘若诸般问题不过是病症，疾病的本身是什么？问题的症结何在？ 1.【合一的根基：是基督？还是李弟兄？】我相信，问题的症结是在于「合一」：「什么是我们今天的合一？」 我们的合一是否单纯基于基督，或者另有别种的合一？（不管称之为「与职事是一」、「跟随职事」或「与使徒是一」）。虽然有人提到「众教会交通的灵」、传福音的方法、使徒的「种类」与地位等问题，但我已说过，这些并非波尔等人真正关心的。他们虽然把问题「倒果为因」，指控英格斯等弟兄批评影射，暗中破坏李常受弟兄的职事，可是没有面对那导致这些弟兄们挺身说话的难处。 我深信引起当前困局的，不是所谓的诬蔑者（倘真有其人），而是那班推崇、高举李常受职事的人！不是受指控的人在摧毁李常受的职事，而是他们，正是对李氏推崇备至的那些人，他们的摧毁其职事！ 作为新约职事的一部分，李常受的职事多年来解开圣经，让人看见、让人经历神新约的经营。他的职事受敬爱，为大多数圣徒所接受。虽然回头来看，或许就着神新约的经营来说，我们知识虽多，经历却十分有限。（从目前那些自命精通神经营的人的所作所为，可见一斑！） 其实，主既把李弟兄作为恩赐赏给身体，特别在解经方面把基督启示出来（新约职事的标记，见林后三章），无论有多少的攻击和暗中破坏，他这一份也不能被摧毁。 历史正是良师。路德无疑是基督身体上的恩赐。他在新约的职事中占有重要的一席。若有甚么瑕疵，就是他晚年显出的自义和自私。 典型的例子，是路德拒绝接受慈运理（Zwingle）和瑞士改革派为弟兄，只因为他们对主的晚餐（擘饼）的看法，比路德本人的观点更准确。同样，在上个世纪，达秘大有恩赐，但排斥异己，若有弟兄在真理上有不同见地，他就要革除，甚至革除仍然接受这些弟兄的教会；达秘若非变成这样，他昔日的职事和服事，对弟兄会的益处就必更大。 历史证明，若有人成了主的仆人，除了他自己以外，没有人能真正摧毁他的职份。 2.【教皇路德：历史的教训】有关路德和瑞士改革派的争论，就是有关基督的肉身和血，在主的晚餐（擘饼）中的意义，现摘引米勒（Andrew Miller。译者注：米勒为倪弟兄推崇的教会历史编者，见「教会的正统」一书P.60）所著「教会历史」中数段如下： 「神按着自己的美意，为了广传真理，为了完成他恩典的旨意，曾经否定了无益的辩论。路德罔顾神昔日在会议中施行了怜悯，他根本只顾一己的名誉，但神却顾念改教的进展。 何等可欺，人的本相何其堕落、何等自私！改教初期的路德，如今安在哉！从前路德大量宽宏、心存体谅，为什么如今转眼就堕落至此，成了最偏执、最顽固的人呢？答案显而易见——从前他用信心为神站住，现在却高傲自视，站在一党之尊的领袖地位。这段历史不仅说出路德心灵上异常的改变，也道出古今很多杰出人物可耻失败的因由！ 「昔日在沃木斯举行帝国会议时，还有在其他不同的场合，路德几乎独力为神的真理争战，对抗撒但的谎言；但在马尔堡（译者注：Marburg，路德与瑞士弟兄们决裂的地方），他却以自己的新教条，为撒但的谎言而战，对抗神的真理！ 「也许有人认为路德是凭良心，为真理打仗。或许如此，但应记得，他拒绝心平气和地研究真理，拒绝对『这是我的身体』这几个字一切合理的解释，只顾维持一派之尊的地位和权势。这些事显明路德和德国同人，对广传福音毫不关注，对改教成功也不关心。因此，路德伟大、蒙福的工作，竟因他轻率提出历来最荒谬愚昧的教条，蒙受玷污破坏。 「从史家引述对路德的评述吗，可见在属灵的事上，成为一党一派领袖的地位与危险： 『在马尔堡，路德就是教皇！』 『被公认为福音派领头的人，其身份地位却如专制君主。为维持他属灵的地位，竟制造偏见，使人相信他本人绝无错误。路德若向人承认自己在教义上有错，他在人心目中绝对无误的虚假形像便会消失，建基于那假像上的权柄，亦会随之消失，至少在群众中，他失去了权威。因他相信自己有地位，也盼望自己占有一个地位，故必须为每项曾向其子民公布的教义，以最崇高的语调，竭力辩护…。』」 3.【摧毁别人职事的捷径：奉他为「一派之尊」】我引述史家对路德的评述，可能惹人非议，指我影射别人。我无意自辩，主也知道我的心。但我恳请公正的读者从历史中吸取教训，因为不参照历史的殷鉴，势必重蹈覆辙！ 正如路德的事，道理对错固然关系重大，昔日双方均可表示这样争辩，是按良心行事。但要紧的是当瑞士弟兄们愿意平息干戈，为着福音和改教的崇高目标，同心宣告在基督里合一，不再争辩；而路德竟然拒绝承认他们是弟兄，也拒绝承认他们是属基督的。 今天也是一样，谁对谁错固然重要，但更重要的是人的态度与存心。字里行间，谁真心引领读者在灵中、在圣经中认识主？谁表达了对每一肢体，甚至最软弱的，被视为消极份子的爱心和关怀？而谁却在他们的言行中，意图维护「一派领袖」的权柄与权力？ 圣徒们，你若真的赏识某弟兄的职事，真正爱他，恳请不要把他奉成「一派的领袖」，因为这样作，鉴定速速摧毁他的职事。我重申，攻击者、诬蔑者、诽谤者都不能摧毁任何人的职事；但圣徒若狂热地推崇人，以为在堕落过的人身上仍有绝对无误的可能，这些人才会真正摧毁某人的职事！ 有人或者批评我不公平，要波尔等弟兄单独负起推崇「一派领袖」的责任。我知道这事其实涉及更多人，但本文目的不是追究责任——这方面我留待历史和主去判断。我最巴望的，只是我们不要再推崇个人。要回转，归向基督，他是独一的元首。波尔等人的文章，不过让我有机会说出当前的危机。 4.【新约中的那职事：顺从神不顺从人】我虽然驳斥波尔等弟兄，但倘若他们的动机，是希冀圣徒均接受他们觉得有益的职事，好叫人得着帮助，那么我便心感同情。假如时光倒流三年，我也会像他们那样慷慨激昂，坚决推崇、维护李常受。理由很简单，因为那时我也相信他的话语代表了今天新约中的「那职事」。 但人该从历史中吸取教训。鉴古知今，我想向波尔等弟兄剔除如下问题：路德的确在那职事里占一份，但假如你活在他的时代，会否毫无保留地跟随他（并推荐别人跟随）？即使他排斥弟兄，也同样跟随他排斥弟兄？达秘革除弟兄、革除教会，你又是否跟从？当然，你们很可能这样做；假如有弟兄、有教会感到不能再推许路德或达秘最新的讲法，因为二人都攻击未能与他们完全一致的人，那么，你们是否认为，这些不赞同路德和达秘的弟兄和教会，是不再跟随新约的那职事呢？ 弟兄们，事关重大，你们所作的必须在主面前交账，不仅为着自己，更因为你们影响了那些尊敬你们、跟从你们的人。你们有没有充份的把握，相信现在所作的会帮助与圣徒更注目基督？而并不是仅带人走你们所走的同一道路，去跟从一个你们所尊敬的「人」（不管他曾如何被主大用）？ 弟兄们，请不要忘记，我们的主是忌邪的神！ 十一、【个人的见证】 1.【弟兄会败落之始：从「合一」转到「纯一」】我最近重读自己的笔记。回想一九八七年许多纷乱的事。八七年四月，事情变得那么糟，我才敢向自己承认实在出了乱子。那时我自忖：「在主的恢复中究竟发生了什么事？」 我不断思量，五十年后历史家会怎样说，会怎样判断现在发生的事？当他们评论「地方教会运动」时，会作何评注？ 我们都盼望这一代能把主带回来，就无须让历史评断。但世代以来，爱主的人都盼望主在他们那一代回来，包括弟兄会的信徒，也包括倪柝声弟兄。当时我特别想到在弟兄会中间所发生的事。 不久以前，我读到一本小册子，是「公开弟兄会」一位圣徒所写的历史，对弟兄会的事有公允的看法。历史上，各种新运动的兴起都由于主启示出新亮光，这些运动通常以新启示的真理作为中心，同意的便起来跟从，也可能意味着排除那些不赞同的人。作者说，弟兄会的兴起情况迥异，他们的特点是合一，不是因为彼此都同意某一项特别的真理。他们的合一，不是以彼此都赞同的事物为根据，乃是根据基督的身体。对他们来说，信徒都是「弟兄」，他们也真有弟兄相爱的实际。 不过作者继续说，弟兄会逐渐变质，由着重「合一」（unity）改为「纯一」（purity），就是指从分裂和宗派的「罪恶」中分别出来的纯一。「合一」是拒绝分裂，但「纯一」却是拒绝所有不肯起来拒绝分裂的人，两者差之毫厘，谬之千里！不久之后，弟兄会不再接纳所有信徒，却强调从宗派中出来，甚至拒绝与任何继续在分裂中聚会的人有交通。作者认为，这标志着弟兄运动败落之始。 该作者看透历史，直指问题的根源。读到上述内容，我禁不住想到昔日弟兄们（会）必为很多「事端」困扰，谁对谁错，作这作那，诸多问题。但一百五十年后史家看得一清二楚，整个见证败落的根源便再清楚不过了。 那么，我们又如何呢？今日许多事端困扰，诸如叩门、看录影训练、去台北、要不要主日聚会、一人讲道或是众多申言者、为别人洗们…等等，很多人为这些事辩论。追本朔源，这些事情的根源是什么？五十年后，若有中立客观的史家检讨往事，会对现时在我们中间所发生的事有何观感？（在我们中间无疑发生了一些事情，或好或坏，实在已改变了主的恢复。） 我不是问基督教里攻击我们的人到底要怎样说。我是指真正客观的学者，一个教会历史学家，当他回顾我们今日的所作所为，会指出什么是今天变动的根源呢？这个「改变」虽然难以察觉，但却是根本的变更（fundamental change）。我们的变，是正如弟兄会那样在本质上改变了？还是仅止于实行上的改动，像（李常受）所说，「因为科技进步，不再坐牛车，改乘珍宝客机」？今日的改，是大聚会改为家庭聚会，一人讲论改为人人教导、人人学习（例如读真理课程），把福音爱筵改为叩门等等呢？还是在关键性的真理上，最要命的事上变了质呢？ 2.【我们的特色：生命与合一】倘若「合一」是弟兄会初期最鲜明的特色。试问将来史家又会怎样写我们？地方教会最鲜明、最重要的特色是什么？从某方面看，是地方合一的立场。这无疑是主恢复中宝贵的一项。但这个合一不是外面的规范，叫人依照「最正确」、最合圣经的方法来实行教会生活，更该是出自里面的生命。 按着我们以往的教导，这个合一，特别是约翰福音第十七章和以弗所书第四章所提到的合一，乃是出于三一神，而三一神的本质（nature）就是一。我认为，这就是主恢复中最重要的特色。我们不仅要完全明白圣经，实行上正确无误，更要作一班遗民，恢复神的经营。这群少数的人绝对是在生命里认识神，活出基督，在他元首权柄之下，在生命上与他合一，作他的肢体，藉此神能得着一个真正合一的彰显，成为一个金灯台。 这样的启示，在基督教中久已丧失多年，没有这种恢复，新郎（基督）就没新妇（教会）。特别在一九七八年的风暴影响众教会之后，又那时至八零年代初期，在我看来，三一神的分赐，并因这分赐而产生的合一，成为地方教会中最鲜明，最着重的要点。（八一和八二年长老训练时着重说到的「中心的异象」正是明证。）当然，这仅是我个人的感受。你可以说，这一点从始至终都是地方教会中最鲜明的特色，李常受弟兄到西方之后，这方面的教训也是他职事的重心。但在一九八七年四月，我自忖，这些关乎恢复的命根，是否已有了改变？抑或诸般的变动仅是实行上、外表上有些改进？那时激进的实行引起很多争论，我们也难免被周遭急剧发生的事所蒙蔽。 3.【从「与地方上所有圣徒合一」变成「与李弟兄合一」】如果近年来我们的基本重点未变，恢复中的特色没有改变；如果生命和合一没有改变，事情就不会引起我们警觉。但随着时间的过去，我发现在主恢复中的最根本的重点的确变了——从「与地方上所有信徒合而为一」，作为教会的根据，改为「与职事合一」，高抬主所用的人，一位主曾用来开启他的经营的「人」，作为合一的依归！这是根本上的改变，不仅仅是实行上的更改。一切实行（甚至最微小的细节）的根据，都是「李常受弟兄这样说」或「他属下的施训者这样说」，而且人人必须跟随。 不错，没有明文规定众教会、众圣徒必须如此这般的行，但若有人表示异议，便被指为「吹冷风」、「漠不关心」、「把持地位」。这些话若非心理压力，就是要所有人一致跟随，成为一个模样。更重要的，是有人明明鼓吹「与职事是一」（oneness with the ministry），罔顾与众圣徒的合一，甚至牺牲与所有在基督里的信徒的合一。 我看过一九八七年夏季训练的录影，其中有一聚会中，众人被鼓励到台北接受全时间训练；我也看了中学生训练的录影。我当时想，任何客观的人都会同意，有人确实高举某类特殊人物，其范围狭于包括所有信徒的教会。那段日子里，我几乎听不见我所宝贵的中心异象，就是主最重要的恢复，反而听见很多推荐李常受弟兄、他的职事和职事站的话。 「神的经营」这类词语，也被用作强调李常受弟兄的工作。不错，他曾开启我们，但到一个地步，这些属灵名词已不再用来帮助众圣徒经历属灵的事物。像波尔等人的小册正是很好的例证：我们能从小册中找到多少成份，其用意是引领读者在生命中认识主？多少是要人顺服基督元首的地位？多少是助人活出肢体的实际呢？而其中又有多少成份，要引领读者跟随李常受、推崇李常受，甚至到一个地步，要和作者们看齐呢？相较之下，英格斯等人的话，岂非把众圣徒引回专注基督、圣经、生命和真理吗？ 比这些更坏的是很多的「密谈」。有人根据各地教会和弟兄们与李常受的职事站的关系而分类，结果是在圣徒之间，在教会和教会之间造成隔阂，破坏了合一和交通。那些密谈常改头换面，用「与使徒是一」、「众教会与使徒的关系」、「服事职事」（serving the ministry）等说法来提出来。 4.【差之毫厘，谬之千里】我的结论，是八七年四月发生在教会中叫我困扰的转变，乃是从强调「众圣徒的合一」变成了强调「与职事合一」（a shift from the oneness of all believers
to a “oneness”with the min-istry）。 表面看来，两者非常接近：一个是真正的合一，出于三一神的分赐；另一个是高抬一个「人」，就是一个主曾使用的人，这个人曾带来启示，把三一神分赐给人这启示，告诉我们。直接诶就如弟兄会中「合一」（unity）与「纯一」（pu-rity）的问题。二者表面上并无分别，性质却背道而驰。我终于明白，强调基督以外的任何东西，作为合一的条件，不管多么属灵，都必会成为分裂的因素，破坏了在基督里的真正合一，就如白日过去，必有黑夜来临。 过去我以为消极的事只是个别事例，大概是教会急进的青年误解真理，行事极端。我曾相信，倘有的主的恢复中较成熟的人知道这些事，他们会全力制止，但可惜至今这个希望全部落空，反之那些「成熟」的、成长的人，正是最热心鼓吹这些不当行为的人。 最新的事例，是波尔等弟兄的小册（著者之中有我所尊敬、认为是「较成熟」的弟兄），无论就其内容，以及他们分发这些文字的不当手法，都不过是冰山露出的一角，也是我们过往几年所观察到的典型例子，对波尔和与他们同一见地的人来说，问题的关键其实乃是：「到底别人是赞成李常受和他的职事，还是不赞成李常受及其职事。」对他们来说，真正的问题不是英格斯弟兄缺少「交通的灵」、不明白圣经真理，而是那三位弟兄不像他们那样推崇李常受。 局外人读到双方的文字，实难明白真正的争端是什么。关于圣经、关于教会的立场、关于合一、关于传福音，双方的立场并无重大分歧。唯一的差异乃是：「论到李常受，你们的意见如何？」 5.【关键：人偏离基督作元首】回复一九八七至八八年那一段时期，许多纷扰的事正如火如荼，我像进了满长而漆黑的隧道。很多次我曾燃起了希望，以为不久会有「解决」的良方，可是每次以为是到了隧道的尽头，却不过是迎面而来火车头的灯光。我终于认识，我所等候、所寻找的「光」，是建基对别人的信心的沙土上，定规带来失望。我开始看见关键乃是人偏离了基督作元首，不再以基督为唯一的目标。我们虽听过、晓得很多有关神的经营的事，但其实不够活在其中。 当然，认清事实真相后所带来的失望吗，很容易使人感到美景完全破灭了，以为主在我们里面所得的，已归徒然，以为我们所见的「异象」是虚空的，遥不可及，永难达到。但因着主的怜悯，他的光照不仅暴露、不仅杀死，也如常的引我们悔改归向他。何等喜乐，何等平安，归向那曾出重价，又住在我们里面的那一位，我们忽略他已经太久了。但他不断耐心等候我， 归向他。对我来说，这样重新碰着主（几乎是从头再认识他），给我充分的把握，重温我们最高的启示：葡萄树与枝子、基督作元首、我们是他身体上的肢体、神圣的恩膏涂抹、弟兄相爱和真正的合一，都能在今天的经历中实现。主正等待我们付诸实行。 6.【竭力回转，专注基督】我们自从有了上面的认识，便再不管别的，只竭力专注于基督，只看重主的恢复中最宝贝的要点，不仅要明白，更要经历和活出所看见的异象。盼望有一天所有教会，包括我们在曼彻斯特的教会，能在平安中、在主里向前，没有人存心影响别人，要求别人跟从或不跟从某种作法，反而同心追求基督。我们若要彼此影响，是要使彼此能追求基督更多。 最近在我们的祷告中，有一句话常常出现，就是「吸引我，我们就快跑跟从你」。让人人都被主的自己紧紧吸引，使我们成为别人的鼓舞，使别人也追求基督，让我们被主紧紧吸引和俘虏，到一个地步，再没有心神去管别人是否走我们的路，是否和我们的作法一致，只望别人也追求基督。假如我们对主的经历是真实的（只有主知道），若我们的心只被他所吸引，必定会使别人也追求他，再也无需辩白自己的道路和看法。 为此，我愿意提醒读者，你读到这里，该明白本文并非要说服人赞同我的观点。借着以往所发生的事，我被引领再专注于基督，我唯一的盼望，是藉我自己的经历帮助别人。但愿本文能些微的帮助别人，不追求别的，只追求基督。 愿我所写的不被误用，我为此交托掌管一切的主。
黄玉恩（EDDID HUANG） 一九八九年十二月
英国 曼彻斯特 【附件一：教会当有的立场——一九八八年八月廿八日安那翰教会聚会记录（十六点声明，经John Ingalls和Albert Knoch校订）】 John Ingalls弟兄：我们弟兄们不愿意对你们大家成为一个谜，一直令你们纳闷不解，「到底弟兄们的立场是什么？他们的感觉又怎样？」我们觉得对你们众人缺少一些交通。我们盼望根据圣经真理跟你们交通到，作为一个教会我们应有的立场是什么。真理和混乱是不能并存的。 我们的立场是非常要紧的，甚至比我们的情况更要紧。当我们根据真理在许多事上有了一个清楚、恰当的立场，这会影响到我们的情况。你们中间凡有家庭的都知道这个恰当立场的重要性：丈夫有某种立场，妻子另有一个立场，孩子们又另有一个立场。当然，在你上班的地方你最好能清楚你的立场，否则你也许会被老板解雇。而最重要的，身为教会里的弟兄姊妹们，我们必须清楚什么是我们的立场。 我盼望今晚我们大家把事情都弄个清楚。我也盼望借着我们的交通，你们能了解我们没有意思反对什么人，或想打倒什么人。我们心中怀着为众圣徒的最高利益，也为教会的最高利益，我也深信我们的心也是为着主的最高利益。圣徒们，我们是为着你们的，并且我们相信我们是为主和主的恢复，并为他的真理的。 你们有些人一直在问说，这件事怎么说？那件事又怎么说？我们该有怎样的立场？现在我们就要与你们交通十六点关乎我们的立场，前八点重在属灵一面，后八点是重在实行一面。 （一）第一，也是最首要的是对于神的话，我们的立场如何？这必须是第一点，因为这是非常重要的，我们下面所要交通的话是完全根据神的话。那就是真理。圣徒们，我信我们都同意神的话应该是我们独一的权威，这是我们的宪法。我们在报章上常常读到好些律师、国会议员不断引用宪法说：「宪法怎么说的？」圣徒们，我们必须不断来引用我们的宪法，就是神的话！我觉得我们需要一个重新的申明说圣经是我们独一的权威。我们愿意受神话的支配。我盼望这在我们众人身上都是真实的：就是我们的良心是被神的话所约束；不是被传统、迷信、或任何别的事物所约束，而只受神纯净的话所约束。这话必须是我们坚实的根基。 并且我也希望我们众人都学习用神的话来试验每一件事，将每一件事带到神话的光中，正如庇哩亚人在行传十七章十一节所行的。那里说这地方的人贤于帖撒罗尼迦的人，甘心领受这道，天天考查圣经，要晓得这道是与不是。主在这事上称赞他们。庇哩亚人是用圣经来察验保罗所讲的道。也许保罗会对他们说：「嘿，慢慢来，你们岂不晓得我是使徒么？你们怎么可以来查证我讲的话呢？」不，他们仍旧用圣经来查证他的话，并且他们这样查证蒙了主的称许说他们是贤明的。圣徒们，我们众人必须如此行，尽力凡事察验，神的话也吩咐我们这样行（帖前五21）。神的话必须在我们中间居最高地位，它必须是我们坚实独一的根基。 （二）现在根据这第一点我们要来看第二点，就是关于教会我们的立场是什么？从永世教会就是神的心爱。他的心就在这上面，教会之于他是极宝贵的。尤其是在我们所处的这时代，教会是中心，也是最重要的。在新约中，在这时代除了教会之外没有任何别的团体是被承认的。一切都是为着教会：无论是众使徒，是那职事，以及我们众人都是为着教会的！一切受造之物都是为着教会。在这时代，神正作工使万有为着他的教会效力。 再进一步说，作为每个地方的教会，若采取一个恰当的立场，会使教会更为实际。就实际来说，对我们而言教会乃是地方的。从神的话中我们看见，唯一恰当的立场乃是在我们所住的地方站在一个身体的立场上，就是站在这宝贵的基督身体合一的立场上。我想这事已经组织到我们这人里面了，因此我们永不可能也永不会放弃这一个。我永远不会接受任何别的立场。 我们不同意有分于任何宗派、系统、或分裂的组织。我们只愿是一个基督徒——这是我们与生俱来的身分——站在基督一个身体的立场上，爱所有的基督徒，也只在基督里与所有的基督徒联合为一。我们只共有一位宝贵的元首，我们与他连结作他的一个身体。这个合一乃是一切祝福的所在，许多宝贵的事物全在这里面！这是神在他话语中所命定的，我们永不可抛弃。 （三）第三点是真正的合一：关于这一点我们的立场和关系又该如何？首先我们需要对什么是真正的合一下个简要的定义。当然，这一点与教会是连在一起的。这也是非常宝贵的，因为主耶稣曾为这事祷告过：……叫我们合而为一，使我们完完全全的合而为一（约十七21～23）。这个非常宝贵的实际是我们可享和有分的特权，以弗所书四章称呼这真正的合一有两种说法：那灵的一以及信仰的一。这个合一乃是生机的，不是组织的。这是永远组织不起来，教导不出来，也勉强不来的。这合一只需要被保守，因为那是圣灵的合一。我们在灵里与众圣徒共有这个一，我们只需要竭力保守它。这个合一何其宝贵。主在合一上命定了他的祝福（诗篇一百三十三篇）。那是一个属灵生机的合一，它全是是在生命与真理的领域中。 我们绝不能在这生命和真理的领域之外建造任何种的一，否则我们所建造的可能是巴别（巴别可说是在生命和真理的领域之外，一种属乎肉体的合一）。真正的合一是出于生命的。实际上，它就是基督，基督被我们享受并经历。当我们在这真正对基督的享受里，我们也就享受了这个真正的合一。再者，这个合一就是我们的见证。主耶稣祷告说，使我们合而为一，好叫世人知道……哦，这是非常有力的见证！ 当然，对于这个合一我们的立场乃是我们的灵永远不能赞同任何种的分裂。我们不愿有分于任何种的分裂。我们只顾在和平联索中保守那灵的合一。我们也愿达到众圣徒所共有之信的合一。我们得救的信仰乃是一切信徒所共有的。我们只愿站在这个合一上。一切分裂都是来自罪恶、自私、野心或无知。我们必须蒙光照看见我们不能被任何事物分裂。属灵的首领永不能分裂我们。没有什么可以分裂我们；相反地，我们必须保守与众圣徒在那灵里真正的合一。我们合一的大小范围，应当恰恰等于基督的整个身体。任何少于这个的合一，我们都不要。 （四）第四点也在同一条线上：我们与别的基督徒的关系，我们的立场又如何？在我们之外还有好些基督徒。时间其它地方不必说了，单在安那翰一地就有成千成万的基督徒。对于他们众人——包括那些曾与我们一同聚会而现今不再和我们在一起的人——什么是我们的立场呢？他们都是基督徒。（他们并不是未得救的人！）简单的说，我们与他们的关系是我们该爱他们众人。我们应该爱他们众人，也接纳他们众人，并且感觉我们的确需要他们众人。 近来我曾考量这件事：到底爱众人是什么意思？当然我信它就是我们感觉需要他们。哦，我们需要所有其他的基督徒。我们不只需要他们，我们也实在要他们；并且我们向他们非常敞开，也关心他们。我们就是爱他们。圣徒们，我过去对别的基督徒的态度曾被主责备，我也曾为这事向主悔改。我觉得我们过去的态度并不好：在已过我们曾嘲笑、藐视别的基督徒。现在正是我们该停止这种态度的时候了！我们必须以正当爱的态度来对待我们所有的弟兄们，因为他们都是在同一个身体上的众肢体。我们乃是互相作肢体的，所以我们当然该爱所有别的肢体，包括那些曾与我们一同聚会的人。好些曾与我们一起聚过会的人还住在邻近的地方，但我们几乎把他们全部从往来的名单上划掉了，我们觉得，最好把他们都忘了罢。这是一个错误的态度。最近有一位离开我们十年之久的弟兄打电话给我，我听到他的声音实在欢喜，他就是来寻求交通。Albert弟兄和我去看他，我们享受那个交通，也有很好的祷告。他爱主，也实在是为着主。我有很重的负担为我过去的态度向他道歉，他也原谅了我，我也欣赏他的态度。 我们对待众圣徒必须有一个对的态度好和适当的爱，无论他们是在那里。这并不表示我们在真理上有所妥协。不，但我们确实爱所有的基督徒。我们永远不认为自己比别人强；也许我们比有些人更差。我怕在已过（包括我自己的内）我们有一种优越感，自认我们属灵高人一等。这个错了。如果我们的态度是这样的话，我们十足就是老底嘉——我们是在一个堕落的光景里。还有一件事，我们中间不知从那儿养成的习惯，称别的圣徒是消极的。不能这样！我告诉你们谁是唯一消极的：就是魔鬼。如果你感觉喜欢称呼某些人是消极的，你就去告诉魔鬼说：「你总是消极的！」我们曾经称某些圣徒是消极的，但其实他们心中只是有一些非常真诚的关怀罢了。我们为何不能相信这些而爱他们呢？哦，圣徒们，让我们爱这同一身体上的众肢体罢。 （五）第五点是对我们职业的立场。我们的工作，我们的正当，我们的呼召是什么？换言之，我们该作什么？有人曾问说：我们到底在这里干什么？圣徒们，我们的职业只是建造基督的身体。这是我们的工作，我们的正业，我们的事奉。今晚我们唱的诗歌说：除此以外没有什么能满足主的。这是他今天所作的，就是建造他的身体。这也是使徒们劝勉我们去作的。我们都必须有分于这个建造。 林前三章告诉我们说，我们众人都在建造。各人都在这一个已经立好的根基上建造。同时这章圣经也警告我们要谨慎怎样建造：我们必须用对的材料。以弗所书四章说到那职事的工作，为的是建造基督的身体，以及身体在爱中建造自己。所以弟兄们，我们的工作，我们的职业乃是建造基督的身体。无论我们是什么，我们只该是建造身体，也只为着建造。我们绝不该建造别的东西。 当我们说到我们的立场该如何的同时，我们也必须表示清楚我们所不该有的立场：我们不该建立任何工作或职事。事实上所有的职事都该为着身体。今晚我们唱的诗歌说：职事乃是为着众教会，不是众教会为着职事。所以，我们的职业乃是为着建造身体。我们在这里有好些事要作，在生命与合一里彼此建造，以建造基督的身体。 （六）我们的第六点正与这点并行：我们的目的或目标是什么？就是为作主的见证，作他的完满表现。主今日在地上需要有彰显，因此这也该是我们的目标。最后所产生的结果必须是我们有一个见证，而我们就是他的见证。我们在这里不是为一个工作或活动。（我并不是说我们不需要出去传福音，不要误会我的话。）我们在这里单单是为作他的见证。 最近我读到尼希米记，这本书说到耶路撒冷悲惨的情形：城墙破裂倒塌，城门被火烧毁。尼希米见到这情况，不只他灵里被激动，他的心也非常关切，有负担。耶路撒冷，神的百姓都蒙了羞辱。弟兄们，老实说我觉得我们是在羞辱中，失去了见证。城墙已倒塌，城门被火烧毁。城墙不只说出一个分别，它也是一个见证。我盼望主恢复我们来建造耶路撒冷的城墙，建立他的见证。身体需要被建造，好叫我们成为一个见证。亲爱的主阿，恢复我们！恢复你的见证！圣徒们，这必须是我们的立场，我们只愿成为主的见证。 （七）第七点是我们对职事的立场是什么？我信我们在这一点上相当的混乱不错。你们听见好些圣徒用「职事」这个字眼。但是我要说他们错用了这个字，甚至是滥用它。他们完全没有正确的使用这个字。比方：「我们是为职事的，」或者「他们不为职事」这种说法，我们大家几乎都听说过。 首先，我要对什么是职事按照真理下一个定义。简单地说，按照神的话，那独一的职事乃是将神分赐到他子民里面而产生教会。这是真理的一个简单说明。现在让我问你们，你们是不是为着职事？这就是那职事。可是我想当我们用这个字的时候，绝大多数的意思是指某一个人的职事。弟兄们，这个错了，我们都该是这独一职事里的众执事。这不是任何人独占的职事，我们必须了解这一点。行传一章十七节说到犹大失去了职分。那里是说他「在这职事里原有他的一分」。所有的十二使徒都有他们的那一分。并且我们在这职事里也都有一分。 也许你要说，「在这职事里岂不是有一些特别有恩赐的人么？」不错，有众使徒，众先知，众传福音者，众牧人和众教师。但他们都是多数的。这是一件团体的事。在这职事中有好些人。而我们在这一个独一的职事中，就是在将神分赐到他子民中以建造基督身体的职事中都有一分。阿利路亚！我盼望我们能有一种新的说法，当我们谈到那职事的时候，我们都清楚我们不是谈到任何个人的职事。如果你是在谈某一个人的职事时，就请清楚表明。如在指某某弟兄的职事，就说「某某弟兄的职事」。但愿我们对于那职事的意义都有一个更新的领会，并且我们也都有一分在内。 （八）我现在来到第八点：我们对众使徒的立场又如何？按照神的话，使徒总是多数的。最近我从圣经汇编查看这个字，发现只有提到特别某一个人时才用单数，例如「耶稣基督的使徒保罗」或「耶稣基督的使徒彼得」，此外所有提到使徒的地方都是复数的，例如「他所赐的有众使徒」（弗四章）。在圣经里有十二使徒以及许多别的使徒，还有使徒们的交通，不是单个使徒的交通。他们都恒心遵守使徒们（多数）的交通和教训。我想我们在这点上也都需要有一些的校正。使徒们是多数的。但是我怕今天如果你去问教会中大多数的圣徒说：「到底有多少位使徒？」他们会回答说：「一位，只有一位。」不，弟兄姊妹们，今天有好多位使徒。也许你们中间有些人会问说：「他们是谁呢？」我可以告诉你们一些使徒。无论如何，按照神的话使徒是多数的。 （九）再进一步看，众多的使徒加上所有有恩赐的肢体，是神所赐下为着建造基督的身体，而不是为着建造他们自己的工作，他们的职事的。他们乃是为着身体的。因此，对于这些使徒们我们的态度应该如何呢？我们当从他们接受任何出乎生命和真理的供应，凡是他们所有的且能帮助我们使我们得着益处为着建造身体的，我们都接受。并且我们都该乐意从所有的使徒领受帮助。 新约圣徒给了我们许多榜样，好些使徒们之间有非常好的交通与配搭。哥林多前书给我们看见保罗和亚波罗有很好的关系，他们互相尊重并配搭。保罗称赞亚波罗，他自称是栽种者，而称亚波罗是一个浇灌的人（林前三章）。在林前十六章里，他再三的劝亚波罗去看望哥林多教会。在提多书三章十三节保罗说，当亚纳和亚波罗来的时候，你要为他们送行，并要顾到他们的需要。使徒们是彼此相爱相顾的，并且有一个好的配搭。圣徒们，我们的确彼此需要，使徒们也彼此需要。没有一个人是完全或是包罗万有的。 关于使徒们，我们还需要认识一点，就是保罗在林前四章六节所强调的：「弟兄们，我为你们的缘故拿这些事转比自己和亚波罗，叫你们效法我们不可过于圣经所记。」换言之，就是不要高抬我们或看我们过于圣经所记的。圣经所记的是什么呢？第四章是回头提到前面三章，在第三章里保罗说：「我栽种了，亚波罗浇灌了，惟有神叫他生长。可见栽种的算不得什么，浇灌的也算不得什么，只在那叫他生长的神。」所以意思就是不要过于这里所记的！然后在四章一节他继续说：「这样，人应当以我们为基督的执事，为神奥秘事的管家。」 你不记得在哥林多发生了什么事么？他们高抬这个高抬那个，有人说我是属保罗的，有人说我是属矶法的，又有人说我是属亚波罗的。他们就是在高抬某一个人过于圣经所记的。圣徒们，我们不该高举任何一个使徒或任何一位主的仆人过于圣经所记的。如果我们这样做，我们就是落到哥林多人的光景里，结局必然是一样的，就是分裂！我盼望我们不会这样做。我再说，我们不是在反对任何人。我们应该受、尊重和敬重每一个人，尤其是主赐给他身体的众使徒和众执事。但是我们绝不可越过圣经所记的。 但愿我们都能根据这八点，站在一个对的立场上。这会拯救我们脱离许多的难处，使我们能走在一条恰当且美好的道路上。 Godfred Otuteye弟兄：刚才John弟兄所交通的八点，对于了解我在下面所要讲的实行的事是非常重要的。为要让教会能往前，我们必须了解真正身体合一的重要性。你将看见，今晚我所要交通的有些点已经有人把它们当做合一的根基，比方：如果有某人不实行某些事，他就被定罪为不「与职事合一」。但是我所要提起的这些事，并不属于教会合一根基的项目。因此我们大家都能弄清楚这些事是非常紧要的。 九、首先是教会的行政。今晚我们都唱了诗歌第五百九十八首，那里说：「地方行政虽独立，各向元首负责」。这一首诗歌我们已经唱了好多遍了，我们也知道它，但我们并没有实行它！结果就在我们中间带来好些难处。在地方教会里属灵的监督和实际的行政管理应归该地长老们负责。他们必须背负当地教会牧羊，教导，并实际照顾的责任。可是，所有的信徒也都该和长老们一起做当地的主工。长老们不可成为另一阶级的人来取代弟兄姊妹们。不，他们与众圣徒一起做当地的主工，而长老们在基督他自己头首权的引导下监督这个工作。 地方教会并没有任何总部，只有主自己为元首。早期我们常常听到这样的话：我们中间没有总会，也没有总部。地方教会不该受到中央的控制。圣徒们，安那翰教会除了接受从三层天来的带领之外，不该受任何总部，总办公室，或中央管理的辖制。不过，这并不就是说我们不与那些创立教会的使徒们有交通，我们彼此之间是有交通的。但是任何有关行政的交通，在执行实现那个交通时，究竟该不该这样作，那是长老们的责任。请注意在林前五章里，虽然保罗告诉哥林多教会他们该将那个犯罪的弟兄革除，保罗并未亲自革除他，乃是那里的教会作这件事。保罗给他们教训，说明按照神的原则该怎么办，但办理那件事乃是当地的长老们和教会的责任。 我为什么对这点将这么多话呢？因为在已过几年间，我们在安那翰并没有这样实行。我甚至要这样说（因我是带头弟兄们中间的一个，求主遮盖）我要说，我们弟兄们竟至某种程度，放弃了我们对主和对这里的教会的责任。我们屈服在许多外界事物的压力和影响之下，好些主工作的活动成了指挥我们教会的根源。在这里有一段时期，我们每隔几周就改变我们的作法。首先我们关闭会所，打发大家回家；然后又把大家叫回来！不过，我说这话不是在批评任何人这样作。大部分责怪应归在我们身上，因为我们有责任去看究竟怎样才对本地的教会是合适并最好的；可是在这事上我们向主不够忠心。 今晚我代表其余的弟兄们向教会道歉。在已过几个月中，当我们开始查看在我们中间所发生的事情时，我们实在向主悔改，但我们仍得向你们众人道歉。我们觉得我们做错了，并且我们今后绝不该再这样作。无论在何处有主的话语出来，在各个教会负责的弟兄们应该祷告寻求主，看看这事是否在这时刻适合于他们的地方。在圣经中有许多美好的事物，也有许多美好的事是主众仆人今天所说的；但我们并不能在同时去实行每一件事。有些事对这时刻是好的，可是有些事要明天作才好；也许有些事根本不适合我们去作。这是带头弟兄们的责任，带着全教会一同寻求主和他的引导，看看到底这时什么是我们这地方所该作的。 在过去，有些人曾来见长老们，非常强的责问说：「昨晚在某地所说的这件事，我们为什么不付诸实行？如果教会要」与职事合一「的话，我们应该马上实行！」圣徒们，我们必须把它弄个清楚，我们不马上实行昨晚所提说的事，并不就是说我们不接受它，只是它可能在这时刻对我们并不合适而已。在已过我们有太多变来变去，一下这样，一下那样！我们浪费了太多的时间。许多圣徒觉得困惑，灰心，也不再来聚会了。有人甚至觉得长老们根本不知道在干什么，因为看起来情形就是如此。 十、第二件事我要交通的就是关于水流职事站。在已过几年里，这个职事站以及它的管理阶层在我们中间被过分地推销，甚至在我们中间被高抬。曾有这样的说法：「与职事站并它的管理阶层合一，就是与使徒合一。」（这是逐字逐句引用的话）。反过来说，不与职事站合一就是不与使徒合一。更进一层，在这样一种压力和捧场的环境之下，我们在安那翰的长老们，曾和其他许多弟兄们联合一起发表声明，宣告这样的合一。我相信当我们这样作的时候，我们是代表你们，宣告这里的教会是与职事站和它的管理阶层合一的。这些事曾在我们几次聚会中说过。 我觉得今晚我们必须抓住这些问题予以解决，因为我们过去是在公开的场合声明的，那是一个错误的声明，因此我们必须公开地更正它。我们曾宣告我们是与职事站和它的管理阶层合一的，因着这样的高抬，职事站开始对一些教会发挥某种程度的影响力——我不敢说对所有的教会，但确实是对包括安那翰教会在内的一些教会——也影响到青年的工作，其影响的程度，我们今天认为是不能接受的。我们不同意这个，并且我们也不能容忍这个。由于我们曾公开地宣告与职事站合一，就是因为这样，我们现在必须把它摆明清楚，一个活的神圣实体的教会与一个事业办公室合一是不相称的。这两者是不能相容的！ 再者，在水流职事站里面有一些实行和行为，我们发觉是无法忍受的。我们要在此公开地说，作为本地的教会，我们从此断绝与那些实行和行为的关系。我再说，我们所以这样作，因为你们圣徒们有一种印象，由于我们曾公开宣告与这职事站合一，因此凡职事站所作的我们都与之合一。这就是为何我们必须公开取消我们所作的声明。我再说，我必须承认对于教会与职事站那个不正常的关系，错在我们长老们身上；那个声明不应该放在那办公室的门口。有一段时期，我们——我个人曾在这事上带头主张，当然弟兄们也都觉得有责任，也承认是作了这事——我们曾公开鼓吹这些事并高抬职事站，我们强迫圣徒，甚至把他们推到那里去服事，并要他们与职事站和它的管理阶层合一。甚至到某种程度，不论圣徒们在那里看见什么，或是那里发生了什么事，我们都叫他们闭嘴不言。为这事情赦免我们！我们要告诉教会说，我们对不起你们。 水流职事站是一个营业办公室，从事于基督徒刊物的出版、分发和销售。我们与它的关系应该仅限于这个范围，不能再多。职事站无权管辖这个教会。而在这里的教会也无义务去那里服事。（你决定以一个雇员的身分在那里工作，或志愿去那里服事，乃是你个人的决定，与教会无关）。我希望这件事现在已向大家交代清楚，好叫我们能在此地教会中正常往前。 十一、下一件事我要交通的就是有关生命读经和一般基督教的刊物。除了圣经之外，我们读基督教的书报对我们的属灵生命会有很大的帮助。在提摩太后书里，保罗要求提摩太将他留在特罗亚的书卷带来。他又说：「更要紧的是那些皮卷……」也许你要说这些都是圣经；但我们也可以说它们也许是另外的一些材料，也对保罗的工作是有帮助的。无论怎样，这表示保罗有他的藏书！根据这推定的事实，我们的点乃是说阅读属灵书报对我们是一个造就。我们鼓励你们去读任何的基督教书刊，只要你觉得它具有造就性，你就可以照你自己的识别判断去取舍。 但是我们原对大家说，我们不可有人容让这些属灵的材料成为一个拐杖或取代了我们的读经，不管这是什么材料或是谁的材料。这些帮助我们的东西很容易会变成一个顶替，正如属灵领袖很容易会成为主自己的一个顶替一样。我们绝不容许这样的事发生。再进一步说，若有人坚持圣徒们只能读水流职事站出版的书籍，这就太过份了。在我们中间任何人持有这种观念或坚持这样作的，这就超越了限度，它会把我们的教会转变成一个宗派。另一方面，反对读注脚、生命读经或水流职事站所出版的书籍的，也是宗派性的作法。因此我们也不赞同。你们大家应该有完全的自由去读任何你们发觉有造就性的基督教书刊。然后，若在一个聚会中有一位圣徒想要念某一点、或某一个注脚、或某些帮助了他的话，我们众人都该敞开来接受它。但是我们不应坚持每一个人都照样作。我们盼望你们对这事现在都能清楚。 十二、我们的下一点是关于在会所里售书的事。我们有这项服事，纯粹是对你们大家一个不营利的服事。你们中间反对这事的人也许要我提出一节圣经说可以在会所里销售东西。若是这样说的话，那么圣经里也没有一处说到我们可以用冷气或电气！圣徒们，如果有些事你坚持太过，那就会使整个事情变得太荒谬了。所有这些实际的事，我们都应该运用「一般性」的灵，那就是说如果一件事不是罪恶的，而又是对圣徒们有益的就可以。 我们有这项服事是为给大家方便。散会后很容易到后边去买你所要的书籍，而不必特地到书店去买。不过在已过几年间，特别是自从我来到本地之后，我们曾过度地宣传、推销一些书籍。在我们的灵里，当我们在主面前通盘考量这事时，我们理解到我们作得太过了。教会的聚会不应该被用来推销物品的。凡事都有它们合适的地方，在会所里推销物品是不恰当的。所以我们还会继续这项服事，但是我， 将不再宣传或推销任何书籍了。你们人人都有自由在会后去看看有什么新书，有什么旧书，或有什么别的。同时，你们不同意我们这项售书服事的人也有自由不利用它；你们可以到外面任何书店去买。但对你们想要在这里买书的人，无论是水流职事站或是别人出版的，我们将提供这项服事。 十三、另一点我们必须使你们清楚的是关于半年一次的训练。许多圣徒曾经参加一次或数次的训练，也从其中得了帮助。但是，我们现在觉得，从这次开始，我们将不再在训练期间打岔我们的教会生活。若有人想参加训练，你可以自由参加。这是你个人的决定。若是录影训练，我们会在会所里腾出一个房间让你们参加的人使用，但对于你们不参加的人，在训练期间我们的教会生活仍将按照平常的进度继续不断，好让你们参加教会的倒常聚会。我们弟兄们认为这样的作法是适当的。我们将不会关闭会所的门，或停止任何聚会，或作任何打岔我们例常日程的事。如果在训练期间我们正在请以弗所书，我们还是继续读。但我再说，如果你要参加训练，你可以去；如果你不想去参加，也可以不去；你若喜欢，你仍可参加教会的例会。 十四、另一点我们必须提到的，是与其他众教会的关系，我们的立场是如何？我们应该尊重并对所有别的教会给予高的评价，无论她们人数多或少。并且我们与她们全体应该有完全的交通，彼此之间有好的往来。毕竟我们是互相作肢体，我们都同属一个基督的身体。可是，我们在这里也不愿意任何别处教会的长老们告诉我们该怎样作。我们曾经让这样的事发生在安那翰这里，我对此觉得非常难过。 当我在尔湾的时候，我记得曾告诉一些弟兄们说：「永远不要在访问别处教会回来之后，因你在别处看到的，就来定罪这里的教会。」这样的事过去常常发生。如果我们在别处教会看到什么好的事，我们可以把它服事给圣徒们，但我们不可勉强自己所在的教会马上也实行别处教会所实行的。不，我们该为这事寻求主，到底他在我们这地方所要作的是什么？ 十五、再有一点我们必须澄清的是有关一些不同的作法：例如「叩门」的作法。我之所以提起这件事，因为这是最近发生的事：去年因着这事我们教会几乎产生分裂！所以我们必须申明，在所有这些事上我们应当与众圣徒实行「一般性」。任何一种实行或作法只要与罪无关，我们既不可反对，也不可强制人人实行。对任何的作法，不要试图说服别人，也不要试图反对，不坚持也不抗拒。我可以见证，当我得救后不久，我作了不少挨家挨户传福音的工作，也有不少人得救。以这种方式传福音也没有什么错。可是当我们弟兄们说人人必须这样作，这就太过份了，并且也违反了一般性的原则。今晚，我们盼望教会明白我们反对这种情形。我们不可强迫任何人实行任何一件事。 我也清楚记得去年那些出去叩门的人如何实际把持教会的许多你聚会。他们作见证说到这说到那，但教会其余的人变得整个地厌烦这种见证。圣徒们，这种事不该发生在我们中间。当然我们应当向那些实行某些作法的人敞开，接受他们的一份，但也不可把它拿来强迫任何人。对于任何作法我们必须非常顾到大体。 十六、我的最后一点就是关于传福音这事。我们弟兄们实在盼望也祷告，使你们因着对主的享受，叫你们众人都能对邻居、朋友、以及你们周围的人传福音，广泛地传，并且天天的传！然而，我们必须说清楚，我们传福音并没有一种特别非此不可的方式。任何正常的方式都可以。（当然我们不该用摇滚乐或电影或任何世界的办法去吸引人到主面前来；但任何恰当的传福音方式都可以）。如果你邀请人到你的家，不错，或者你去他们的家也是好的。只是我们没有一个人该坚持任何特殊的传福音方式，否则又将导致教会产生分裂。不，教会是一个身体；它是生机的，且是活的！ 这些都是实际的点，是我们弟兄们盼望交通给你们的。我再说，我们对过去所犯的错误觉得亏欠，我们求主也求你们赦免我们。再者，我们之所以有这么一次的交通，不是在为什么人辩解，也不是在定什么人的罪，同时也不是为我们自己作什么事。我们有这一次交通的目的是要把我们大家都带回到主面前，他是我们的元首，他是我们的中心；并且他也该是教会生活的整个且是独一的内容。我们盼望所简略交通的这些话能了结已往，好叫我们本地的教会能一同积极往前。 Albert Knoch弟兄：听见今晚的交通实在是好，我只想作一个见证来印证弟兄们所说的清楚立场。最近我访问了欧洲的几处教会。他们并不知道我们所经过的这一切困扰，但我相信他们都会同意我们今晚在此所表明的立场。今晚所交通的话一点儿也没错；神的话教导这些真理。当然，我们在这里不是要反对主这些年来所给我们的。但我必须说，我在和欧洲各地教会交通时所听到的，和我刚才所听到的完全一样。他们问说：「我们真是地方教会，有一个「一般性」的立场，向着本地每一位基督徒都是敞开的么？或者我们是一个宗派呢？」他们像我们一样的关心，因为经过他们已过几年的实行——他们一直努力去跟随他们所认为主今天最新的行动——他们发现他们已逐渐成为一种非常特别的「教会」，不是一个地方教会（那就是说，在他们的聚会唯读一种的材料，等等）。 我不能确知主将如何把我们从这种已陷入的模式里带出来，但我实在感觉弟兄们所交通的恰当的立场和实行的路，将给我们极大的帮助。当我在欧洲时，曾参加一个教会的聚会，虽然我不懂他们的语言，但在我灵里我能体会到任何不是基督的事物就不是教会！教会就是基督。哦，圣徒们，任何我们所有的恐惧必须被除去；我们必须不用怕单单的跟随基督，并且仅以他作我们独一的元首！我看到有些圣徒并不像我们所认为必须如此的，他们不「跟随职事」，但是我看见这些圣徒非常享受主，爱他并事奉他，比我更多结果子，甚至带领许多人归向主且进入教会生活。他们敞开接受李弟兄的职事，同时也接受其他主仆的职事。他们享受全体主仆的供应，也尽所能的采用。当某种作法来到时，他们就转向他们里面的膏油；如果他们觉得有引导去实行，他们就去作；如果他们不觉得有引导去行，他们就不去作。他们不勉强自己去讨任何人的喜欢，只讨主的喜欢。他们都来在一起享受基督，为着建造来分享他。 我觉得我也必须为已过我所参与的所有推动，以及我所作的事和我所说的，向你们大家道歉。我们的心一直想要作一些有益于教会建造的事。但我们发觉除了基督我们不该把任何东西带进来。我很喜欢这句话，就是新约的职事乃是我们众人的责任：甚至如果只有一位弟兄和你在一起，你在灵里供应基督，你就是把新约的职事服事给他！你也就在那时建造教会，并且你在那职事里被成全了。 哦，圣徒们，主已经在这地方把我们都放在他身体合一的立场上了，我们已无法离开这个。我们必须留在这里直到我们保守那灵的合一而达到信仰的一，直等到我们长大进入那位说他要建造他的教会的丰满实际里。我非常注意到那被主耶稣称为石头的，过不了几分钟就被他称作撒但！所以无论何时我们一落到我们天然的人里，我们就能犯各种各样的错误，作出许多伤害的事。然而，我们必须仍旧与本地的圣徒们一同站在合一的立场上，直到所有这些东西都受到对付，使我们有一个纯洁的教会（新妇），这就是主在我们里面，借着我们并要与我们一同建造的！ 【附件二：朱韬枢及James Rettzke给英格斯等人的连署信（请参阅本书P.138）】 【附件三：由波尔等八位弟兄连署，「给一九八八年八月廿八日安那翰教会聚会中发言人的公开信」（请参阅本书P.142）】 【附件四：新约教会的根基——圣灵的主权】 亲爱的Benjamin、Peter及诸位弟兄们： …我曾在电话中与Peter谈到，李常受的策略是在推搪，说难处都出在几位弟兄身上，说他们阴谋毁灭他的职事，破坏圣徒与他的关系。 对于毫不知情的人（或根本不想知的人），假如对双方过节并不清楚，自然觉得李弟兄目前列举的种种记录十分可信，因此李氏对这几个人的反应，也十分合理（事实上许多人也主观地巴望相信他，正如昔日的我一样）。李弟兄想在人心中制造这种印象，又用许多谎言，破坏几位弟兄们的信誉。 但我们要切记，绝不能同流合污，把水准降低到和他一样，用同样的手法来回应，好像这场争战不过是他和几个人之间的事。圣徒若这样想，就必被他误导，以为弟兄们为个人恩怨反对他，因而「背叛」。所以我认为毋须劝人为弟兄们辩护，也不可对李氏和他身边的人作人身攻击，因为最重要的问题是真理。 我从一起首就看见，他想建立个人的权柄（权威），从某一角度来看，此事已越过了圣经。 是他自己出了问题，不是弟兄们有问题。这点必须让众圣徒清楚明白。我们可以告诉人，我们确知事情始末的真相，知道李氏所言乃属堆砌的虚假故事，更要指出的是，即使他讲的全属真相，可是他现在所强调的、所带领的，也完全违背真理：彻底违反了主在每个肢体，在每一个教会直接在灵中的引导；也违背每个人、每个教会直接向主负责任的原则。这两件事，正是神在新约经营中最重要的两根柱子，是撒但攻击的关键。 就算李氏真的存心清洁，从未制造分裂，也未许可分裂的事情出现，即使苏民强、John Ingalls、封志理和Bill Mallon等人，的确如他所形容的一样差，但关键的问题仍在——我们无法容忍这一个系统；这系统宣布它有一个代表权柄，一个总司令，一个聪明的工头。 简而言之，在这一个系统中“ 1.众教会联合成全球性的运动，使众圣徒的需要，使主在地方教会中的引导，变成附属于一个宣称代表主的、全球性的工作策略。 2.每一个圣徒都要屈服于此「代表」之下，也要绝对伏在其指定的许多代表之下，甚至不必顾到各人的良心，不必顾到里面膏油的涂抹。 这代表的带领是否正确，仅属次要。就算他永远正确，他的全球性策略、工作，永远可行有效，就算服从他和代表他的人，结果常证明行动「正确」，我们仍不能让这种系统出现。这系统要求每个圣徒，每个教会都服从「正确」带领，而这样的事完全违反新约。不错，让每个人、每个教会有权利、有自由，去跟从主在里面的引导，的确有可能出错，因为有人可能未够成熟，不能正确辨别主的声音，更可能引来众教会属灵上的衰落，但这正是主所允许的。主要来作身体的元首，他在身体中有主权，他选择了新约的路，我们是谁，要改变主的方法？ 在过去许多世纪的教会历史中，先后有许多人，尝试用这种违反新约的办法，把不同的系统加于教会，要求每个人、每个教会跟随「正确」的，甚至绝对无误的人的带领。这样作法，其实比人人、处处教会自己去仰望主更危险。因为这样就破坏了神在新约经营的根基…。 弟兄 黄玉恩（Eddie Huang） 一九九零年三月廿五日
英国 曼彻斯特 The talk about “Body matter”,about “spirit of fellowship”,etc.is all
very good and spiritual.But why is this kind of talk applied so
selectively?We have a proverb in Chinese,”The rulers can get away with
arson,while the peasants are not allowed to light a lamp.”If I may use
another analogy,this is like one driving along the road,and sees another
driving on the wrong side of the road towards him,and he sounds the horn in
warning;the other driver then rebukes him that his sounding of the horn is
lacking care and consideration for other road users.But what about his own
reckless and dangerous,to say nothing of homicidal,driving?If one is to be
convicted for driving without care and consideration,first of all let the
other be convicted for reckless and dangerous driving.Before we accuse the
three brothers in Anaheim of lacking consideration for other churches in
their sounding of the warning,one should ask what if was that led them to
sound the warning in the first place,and I would say what effects their
warning had on other churches were nothing compared with the dangers that
forced them to sound the warning in the first place. Of course some may say that many of the examples I used were things“of
the past”,which we had been told to “forget”.Indeed in May 87 brother Witness
Lee gave some fellowship to the fulltimers in Taipei on this very point,the
need to fellowship with the churches where they came from,and at the time I
was greatly touched by that fellowship.However,despite what was said on that
occasion,what we have observed since then is that the principle practiced by
many is still exactly the same,i.e.as long as one is speaking for Witness Lee
then anything is acceptable.For example,the speaking in the summer training
of 1987,in promoting,if not coercing,anyone who met the qualifications to be
in the “special category”to go to Taipei for the FTTT.Ifound not one word
permitting,let alone encouraging,this “special category”to fellowship with
their churches first,nor one word to say they should seek the Lord’s leading
in their decision;and this speaking took place after brother Witness Lee’s
word of fellowship in May.One may be forgiven for asking,Was there a real
concern for the “spirit of fellowship among the churches”? Even recently,the behaviour of many has continued to confirm this
principle.The two pamphlets addressed to the brothers in Anaheim are a
typical demonstration of this.As Ishall seek to demonstrate in the
remainderof this article,the central issue behind all the issues raised by
the writers in their pamphlets can be summarized in one phrase,whether one is
for ,or not for ,Witness Lee,or “What think ye of Witness Lee?”Closer to
home,we have had the situation where the fellowship in Christ between saints
who were previously very close has become virtually non Contents 2.Introduction 3.The spirit of
felowship among the churches 4.Who is the
source of the church? 5.The most
excellent way 6.A factor of
division or not? 7.The categories
of apostles 8.Receiving from
the apostles 9.Turning the
issue upside down 10.What do we mean
by “the churches in the Lora's recovery”? 11.Learning from
History 12.A personal
testimony Appendix Ⅰ：The Proper
Standing of The Church Appendix Ⅱ：A Letter from
Titus Chu and James Reetzke Appendix Ⅲ：An Open Letter
to the Speakers in the Meeting of the Church in Anaheim on August 28,1988 Appendix Ⅳ：A Letter from
the Author LET'S FOCUS ON
CHRIST Introduction The contents of this article originated as a letter written to a
brother who sent to me the pamphlet "An Open Letter to the Speakers in
the Meeting of the Church in Anaheim on August 28,1988"by Francis
Ball,Titus Chu,Les Cites,Eugene Gruhler, Joel Kennon,David Lutz,Benson
Phillips and James Reetzke，and the pamphlet
addressed to John Ingalls,Albert Knoch,Philip Lin,Minoru Chen by Titus Chu
and James Reetzke.After a period of seeking the Lord I feel led of Him to
make public some of the things Iwrote in my letter.In order for the reader to
understand why,it is necessary for me to give a word of explanation. My original thought on receiving those pamphlets was that it would be
pointless to argue about doctrine,for debates merely generate more
debates.Later on,after reading through the pamphlets again more carefully,I
realised that the points raised in them were very much the things that we had
ourselves given much consideration to in the last few years.By the Lord's
mercy,through these things a number of saints here,including myself,have come
to a realisation before the Lord of how we have departed from Him as the
focus,with the result that though we Knew much about God's economy，we were not
living in it.I therefore decided to write a reply to the brother who sent me
the pamphlets,based on this realisation,in the hope that it would,if not be a
help to him,at least make him understand my feeling before the Lord. After writing the reply,and after a longer time of consideration before
the Lord and fellowship with other saints,I have eventually decided to give
these points a wider airing.I know that many of the things that have helped
us in the church in Manchester,and have helped us to our present
realisation,have been of the same principle as events elsewhere.I believe
that many others have also gone through,or are going through,the same
experience as we had.Though our experience had at times been very painful,the
realisation that came forth from it when eventually the Lord brought us
through was both enlightening and peace-giving.The Lord's person became more
precious and more intimate to us，and we desire to pursue
Him more.The valley of tears became a place of springs.If our experience is
not unique,as I believe,then perhaps our
realisation could also be a help to others who are experiencing the
same thing.It is with this thought,and with this thought only, that I have
decided to write this article.Though the pamphlet by brother Ball and his
co-authors （hereafter referred to as Ball et al）is used as a
"trigger" in much of the discussion，this is not
meant to be a comprehensive refutation of their writing.I did not set out to
do this as I did not consider it my job to do so,nor does there seem much
point in generating more doctrinal debates.It should be read in the context
of the scene among the churches in the past few years,as seen and experienced
by some of us here in Manchester,which, I trust,is not too atypical.The
writings of Ball et al merely afforded a convenient starting point for the
discussion. I know well that in deciding to write this article I run the risk of
being misunderstood by many,including some who are dearest and closest to me
in the Lord.This has been a
consideration in my mind and a reason for hesitation.In reading this
article some may feel inclined to believe that it is an attack,an
undermining,or a criticism,against some brother or brothers.Some may even
believe that I am now against "the ministry",by which they mean I
am "opposing" and "seeking to destroy"btother Witness
Lee's ministry.This is certainly not the case.I have no wish to attack or
defend any brother,and my utmost desire is that this article would be for and
not against the ministry,the ministry of the new covenant that brings people
to Christ.The goal is just to share with others my own experience and feeling
in being brought back to Christ during this time.As for the ministry of
Witness Lee,I can never deny the help the Lord has given to me and many
others through this brother;undoubtedly the Lord has given him as a gift to
the Body,especially in the portion of opening the Scriptures to help us
see,experience and enjoy Christ.Far be it from me ever to oppose or seek to
destroy such a portion of the ministry.Indeed,it was exactly the foundation
of life and truth that the Lord has laid (at least to som extent)in us
through the portion of this brother,among others ,that has helped us to come
to our present realisation (this perhaps is not true for all,but at least it
was true in my case).I ask merely that the reader should carry on to the end
of this article (especially the last two sections)before passing judgment on
my motive,whether it is pure or merely to attack and criticise. I realise also that there is the risk that thisarticle is seen by some
as yet another chapter in the unfolding debates;many feel that the writing
and distribution of such articles generate turmoil rather than peace among
the churches,as indeed the pamphlet by Ball et al has done to some saints
here.I ask therefore that this article should not be forced upon anyone or
any church who feels it would merely add turmoil to their situation,and I
hope everyone who is reading this introduction will decide for himself
whether to read on .I also look to the Lord that the contents of this article
will not be used to attack or defame any brother or sister,for that would be
my greatest dread.Against this I can only trust in His sovereignty.I hope I
have not written in a partisan spirit;I ask that it be not read or used in a
partisan spirit either. One final point:I would like to ask the readers' leniency if they find
some of my tone in the following to be too harsh and direct.My only intention
is to be as frank and honest as possible about my own feelings.If in so doing
I have neglected politeness,then I ask both the readers and the authors of
the pamphlets for their forgiveness. The spirit of
fellowship among the churches Much was made by brothers Ball et al of their claim that what brothers
Ingalls，Otuteye and Knoch (hereafter referred to as Ingalls et al) did was not
a Iocal matter but a Body matter (P.l)，that they were
lacking in care and consideration for other churches (P.4),that they were in
violation of the spirit of fellowship among the churches(p.4),that they did
not display a respect for and fellowship with the other churches,that they
were lacking in forethought as to how their speaking would affect other
localities(P.27),etc. Superficially it may seem that there is some justification for this
charge,but l would ask the reader to consider the history of what happened
since 1986.the period in which many of the things took place,that were to
lead to the speaking by brothers lngalls et al in August 1988.Specifically I
would like to ask whether the “spirit of fellowship”is really the issue that
concerned brothers Ball et al. Since 1986, a great number of things have happened among the
churches.In order not to stray into the realms of rumours and hearsays,I will
limit the points here only to those where some of us from the church in
Manchester were present,and those of which we have seen an accurate record through video tapes
or published notes.These included the things that were said and done in the
bi-annual trainings(especially the "practice sessions"and
"fellowships"related to the FTTT and "new move"'),in the
FTTT itself,in the elders trainings associated with FTTT,in the
high-schoolers'training,in "ministry meetings" in Blackpool and
elsewhere,and in the numerous private talks at dinner tables,etc.There was a
lot of talk (mostly disparaging）about the attitudes of
the churches,and especially the elders,towards the ministry and towards the
new move.Often, "to counteract"such allegedly cold and indifferent attitudes,the hearers would be
encouraged to become a part of a promoted "special category";for
example,in recruiting for FTTT this would be those "qualified" by
being 21-40, without children and having a degree,in the high-schoolers'
training this would be those who will be the "future,fiery
full-timers",in the "office meetings" these would be those who
are burdened to serve "the apostle".Along with the promotion there
was also talk about what the attitude of such "special
categories"should be, especially towards "the ministry" and
"the office".Instructions were given about where the full-timers
should go, what they should do in their own locality and countries.Further,
there were "declarations" of universal festival,global day of praver,1988 being
the "year of Europe"(which thankfully-speaking in respect of my own
feeling-was never "executed"),etc.Virtually all of these things
,though they greatly affected the churches,were said and done without any
fellowship with the brothers bearing responsibility in those churches.
Further,we were even given to know which church and which brothers were considered
to be cold,indifferent, unresponsive,and even opposing towards "the
ministry".Many were charged with blowing cold wind,holding onto the
"old way", not willing to give up their position,etc.It was a fact
of history that this kind of talk greatly affected the genuine fellowship in
Christ that we had with these churches and brothers.Although we can only
speak for things that happened in our locality.the reports from elsewhere
suggested our experience was far from unique. Let us all ask ourselves,in which of these things was there the strong
display of the sense of the Body,the care and consideration for other
churches, the spirit of fellowship,forethought as to how such speaking would
affect all the localities? Why did no one rise up to condemn all that
throughout that period,but now so many are quick tl lay this charge at the
door of Ingalls et al? Indeed,the one who sent these pamphlets to me （who undoubtedly
agreed with the authors' sentiments）was himself
participating in many of the matters described above.This leads me to
conclude that the real objection harboured by Ball et al and their supporters
is not that these 3 brothers lacked care and consideration for the
churches,that they violated the spirit of fellowship among the churches,that
they did not display a respect for and fellowship with the churches. The talk about
“Body matter”,about “spirit of fellowship”,etc.is all very good and spiritual.But
why is this kind of talk applied so selectively?We have a proverb in Chinese,
“The rulers can get away with arson,while the peasants are not allowed to
light a lamp.”If I may use another analogy,this is like one driving along the
road,and sees another driving on the wrong side of the road towards him,and
he sounds the horn in warning;the other driver then rebukes him that his
sounding of the horn is lacking care and consideration for other road
users.But what about his own reckless and dangerous,to say nothing of
homicidal,driving?If one is to be convicted for driving without care and
consideration,first of all let the other be convicted for reckless and
dangerous driving.Before we accuse the three brothers in Anaheim of lacking
consideration for other churches in their sounding of the warning,one should
ask what if was that led them to sound the warning in the first place,and I
would say what effects their warning had on other churches were nothing
compared with the dangers that forced them to sound the warning in the first
place. Of course some may
say that many of the examples I used were things“of the past”,which we had
been told to “forget”.Indeed in May 87 brother Witness Lee gave some
fellowship to the fulltimers in Taipei on this very point,the need to
fellowship with the churches where they came from,and at the time I was
greatly touched by that fellowship.However,despite what was said on that
occasion,what we have observed since then is that the principle practiced by
many is still exactly the same,i.e.as long as one is speaking for Witness Lee
then anything is acceptable.For example,the speaking in the summer training
of 1987,in promoting,if not coercing,anyone who met the qualifications to be
in the “special category”to go to Taipei for the FTTT.Ifound not one word
permitting,let alone encouraging,this “special category”to fellowship with
their churches first,nor one word to say they should seek the Lord’s leading
in their decision;and this speaking took place after brother Witness Lee’s word
of fellowship in May.One may be forgiven for asking,Was there a real concern
for the “spirit of fellowship among the churches”? Even recently,the
behaviour of many has continued to confirm this principle.The two pamphlets
addressed to the brothers in Anaheim are a typical demonstration of this.As
Ishall seek to demonstrate in the remainderof this article,the central issue
behind all the issues raised by the writers in their pamphlets can be
summarized in one phrase,whether one is for ,or not for ,Witness Lee,or “What
think ye of Witness Lee?”Closer to home,we have had the situation where the
fellowship in Christ between saints who were previously very close has become
virtually nonexistent.The visits certain ones have made to some households
here appear to be principally with the aim of convincing us to go the same
way as they do in their following of brothers and sisters in Christ.A few
months ago some came to visit several households in the church in
Manchester,distributing the pamphlet written by Ball et al and the one by Chu
and Reetzke.This caused much distress and offence to some saints,who in fact
did not even know of the existence of the fellowship given by Ingalls et
al.It also damaged the peaceful condition and enjoyment of the Lord that we
had,for it forced some saints to “take sides”,on a matter that clearly is not
an essential item in the church life.All this could have been avoided if only
fellowship had been sought with the brothers in the church here first.Why
didn’t the need for fellowship with the church,the care,consideration,and
forethought on consequences,etc.apply in this case?Is it not again because
these”distributors”consider it OK as long as they are on Witness Lee’s
side?But if anyone is not speaking to promote Witness Lee then what they say
is put under a microscope to see if they conform to the “spirit of
fellowship”.Is the reason really their care and concern for the churches,or
is it not more likely to be,as a fair-minded observer will no doubt
see,because Witness Lee has become an issue among us? Who is the source
of the church? On page 15 the
pamphlet written by Ball et al states: “…the church in Anaheim,in a very
particular way,owes its existence to Brother Lee…”.The letter written by Chu
and Reetzke goes further, “Is it not a fact that you brothers and the church
in Anaheim owe him your existence?”(emphasis added).Brothers Ingalls,Otuteye
and Knoch and the church in anaheim must speak for themselves.However,I
believe it is fundamentally flawed to attribute the existence of any church
in such a way.If we consider history,the Lord has always worked in ways
higher than our ways,so that all glory can only go to Him.The church in
Jerusalem did not plan a move,under the direction of Peter,backed up by
statistics and research,to evangelise Ethiopia and Africa.But at the timing
of the Head He sent,not the : “chief apostle”,but a little kitchen service
brother by the name of Philip(who nevertheless was a member joined to the
ascended head and corresponding with Him),in a way that no one expected,to
speak to a eunuch that no one else knew would be passing there,And
immediately after the eunuch was baptised,the lord did not send Philip to
continue an edifying work to raise up churches in Ethiopia,but rather“the
Spirit caught away Philip,and the eunuch…went on his way rejoicing”.Who did
the early Christians in Ethiopia owe their existence to?To the eunuch,to
Philip?Surely only to the lord,who is the head. To use another
example,brother Watchman Nee,before his imprisonment,was planning a great move
to evangelise China can be taken in fifteen years.He also started a training
centre to train the workers,and gave them“52 basic lessons”that they were to
teach all believers in all churches.A wonderful plan for a wonderful
evangelising and edifying work for that great country,but before it could be
executed the whole of China was gone.When the communists were about to cross
from the north,the churches south of the river were praying that the Lord
would stop the communists, “as the Red Sea buried Pharaoh’s armies”.Did the
Lord hear that prayer?The communists took over the whole of China,and it was
devastrating for the saints to see all the local churches and all the work
apparently coming to nothing.Yet today there are millions of Christians in
China,meeting truly outside of denominations and in the Lord’s name
alone,exalting no one but Christ.Who did it?It did not come forth from
Watchman Nee’s plan;if it did we would probably say all the millions in
China“owe their existence”to him.The Head did it all,and glory can only go to
Him.Undoubtedly the labour of brother nee,among others,has sown a seed
there,and his reward is with the Lord.But the lord has worked in a way so
that no one can say the source of any church is anyone other than Himself,for
indeed He is a jealous God.if our labour is fruitful,let the reward be with
the lord.Let us cease from praising our own work,or that of any other.Let all
glory be to the head. A few months ago
we were going through Revelation 1-3,and we were greatly touched by the Lord’s
words to Philadelphia and to laodicea.If we believe that the first major
fulfilment of the prophecy of Philadelphia was with the Brethren,then their
history is both interesting and instructive.At the beginning they had only
one thought,to meet together in the Lord’s name and none other,to claim the
Lord;s presence based on Christ.They had no thought of starting a new
movement,no thought of spreading and evangelising in a “great”way.Yet
undoubtedly mighty works were done by the Lord through them.These were truly
works not out of organisation but out of the operation of the Lord,yet if we
liik at their early history we will see they had no consciousness that they
were so great,that they had done so much for the Lord,or even that they were
“better”than others.Their only consciousness was to return to the lord’s Name
and the oneness of the Body.And the Lord’s words to them were,I know your
works;but he did not then go on to enumerate their achievements,great and
genuine as they were,but rather He said,You have a little strength,and have
kept My word,and have not denied My name.The Lord’s appreciation was not of
their works,but of their relationship with Him,and their own consciousness
too,was not of their works,but of their relationship with him.When later,they
began to be so conscious that they were better than others,that they knew so
much,that they had done so much for the lord,then they had become laodicea
already,and the Lord spewed them out. No doubt some
would cite the example of Paul speaking to the Corinthians,that their being
in Christ was the seal of his apostleship,and that he had begotten them in
Christ Jesus through the gospel.yet Paul also said,I planted,Apollos
watered,but God made to grow;neither is the one who plants anything nor the
one who waters,but the One who makes to grow,God.yes,Paul did defend his
apostleship to the Corinthians,but he did so out of love for them,for they
were being distracted by the judaizers away from the enjoyment of Christ,away
from God’s New Testament economy.is the concern of brothers Ball et al for
brothers ingalls, Otuteye and knoch the same?Can one really say that the
speaking of these three brothers shows that they were missing the enjoyment
of Christ and that they were forsaking God’s New Testament economy?I ask
again,what was the real concern of brothers Ball et al?Were they burdened for
the spitirual condition of the three brothers and their hearers,or,is it not
more likely,that their primary concern was whether others are for,or not
for,brother Witness lee,to whom Ball et al consider the church in Anaheim to
owe its existence? Of course some may
argue that the phrase“owe him your existence”should not be taken too
literally,just as Paul’s claim to have begotten the Corinthians should not be
taken to mean he was in himself a source of life.It is not my intention to
debate what exactly Ball et al did mean(as if we were in a law court),but to
ask what concern lies behind this kind of speaking.i cannot speak for the
brothers in Anaheim,but in our own situation we would have spoken a similar
word to theirs,not with the intention of destroying any relation the church
has with any brother,but with the intention of bringing the saints back to
the unique source,Christ,the Head of the Body.For(again speaking for ourselves,but
I believe it was the same burden for the brothers in Anaheim)it was the
excessive promotion of one whom we all considered to be our source in the
past,that had opened the door to division and categorisation of saints and
churches,all in the name of and for the sake of the one to whom“we owed our
existence”.Because of this there is the need for a word to remind us that the
unique source of the church is Christ,and,to me,this was the burden behind
the speaking of Ingalls et al.Why did Ball et al not consider what the burden
of these brothers was,but instead put their words under a microscope to say
here is a criticism,there is an innuendo,and hidden somewhere is an
undermining? Let me give an
example which may make my meaning clear.A few months ago Billy Graham and his
associates had a gospel campaign in England.We came to know in a prayer
meeting that the parents of two saints were intending to go ,and we had a
burden to pray for their salvation.One brother prayed,Lord,let them come to
Yourself,and not to any speaker.this indeed was a pure prayer,for it is only
in coming to the lord that anyone can if I held him to the “source of
existence”for so many Christians,I would probably examine everything with
this focus in mind,and so I would rebuke that brother,Why did you pray like
that?Is this not an undermining and an innuendo against Billy Graham?Do you
mean to say Billy Graham brings people to himself and not to the Lord?Are not
the tens of thousands who came to the lord through his gospel preaching the
seal of his ministry?Why are you seeking to destroy it?On the other hand if I
were pure I would sense that his genuine burden was that all should come to
the Lord Himself and none other,and I would say Amen to his prayer. Now I would ask
the readers to judge for themselves:was not the speaking of brothers Ingalls
et al motivated by a similar burden?If I read their words with a pure heart
then I would surely sense that their genuine desire is to bring their hearers
back to focus on Christ,and I would say Amen to that burden.On the other hand
if I examined their words with the focus of brother Witness Lee(to whom I
believe we all“own our existence”)in my nind,then it would not be surprising
if I find in every sentence something that I interpret to be a criticism,an
innuendo,an undermining of Witness lee. The most excellent
way On p.29-p.30 Ball
et al made such statements as “gospel-preaching by the biblical way of
visiting people in their homes is far superior to any other way”, “bringing
the gospel to people in their homes is the more excelling way”, “we seek to
excel”, “we are fools not to take the best way”,(emphasis added),etc. The use of the
phrase“more excelling way”is ,of course,a paraphrase of Paul’s words in I
Corinthians on the “most excellect way”,and indeed their comparison with the
“more excelling gift”for the church meetings in that context underlines the
analogy in their mind.When I read this I asked myself,what was the most
excellent way that Pual spoke of?From the context of chapters 12-14,no doubt
he was concerned that the Corinthians’practice of speaking in tonguse and
abuse of gifts was not so profitable for building up the church.he was also
burdened to show them the need for the prophesying gift,the word of
wisdom,the word of knowledge,etc.logically,one would have thought,he should
then give us the “most excellent way”(or means)of arriving at this,which
may,say,be some method of practice of each one speaking for 3 minutes,each
one preparing beforehand on a portion of the Scriptures and coming to “speak
forth the truth”to one another,or some brothers should take the
responsibility in turn to prepare and speak on selected portions,ect.But paul
gave us no hint of any such“way”(in the sense of means or method)to arrive at
the desirable situation of “you can all prophesy,one by one”or“let two or
three prophets speak and let the others discern”.What was the most excellent
way recommended by paul?It was the way of love.For the real reason that the
Corinthians were competing with one another in the lesser gifts and not
building one another up with the greater gifts was their lack of love.it was
not their lack of knowledge nor the lack of practice in utterance,for paul
said, “In everything you were enriched in him,in all expression and
knowledge.”Paul did not recommend to themm a method to improve their
knowledge,even spiritual knowledge,or their utterance,but a way of love,the
lack of which was the root cause of their abuse of gifts that Paul was
concerned about. This made me
consider what the word“way”really means.In the English language this word is
commonly used to denote a path or journey (literal or metaphorical),and also
to denote a method or means.in Greek (according to the Vine New Testament
dictionary),however,the word for “way”here is “hodos”,which,apart from the
obvious literal usage to denote a path or journey,is only used metaphorically
to denote a course of conduct or way of thinking.Thus we have the way of
love,the way of righteousness,the way of truth,the ways of the Lord,and
negatively the way of Balaam and the way of Cain.It is also used in John 14:6
where the lord Jesus said,I am the way.In none of these places can the word
be said to denote a means or a method.as the word“way” is used in English(as
in “10 ways to get into a house”or“6ways to get people into water”).The Greek
word that can be used to denote a means or method is “tropos”,and very
interestingly,this word is used in Philippians 1:18: “Only that in every
way,whether in pretence or in truth,Christ is announced.”Also an adverb“pantos”,translated“by
all means”(meaning by whatever method),is used in 1 Corinthians 9:22, “To all
men I have become all things,that I might by all means save some.” Concerning
“hodos”,Paul was ready to recommend the way of love as,not only more
excelling,but even the most excellent.But concerning means or methods,for
example in preaching the gospel,he was general to the point that even he
himself would be quite willing to use all kins of different means,depending
on whom he was preaching to,that he might save some.Not only was he general
in alllowing all means or methods,except,of course,sinful ones,but he never
recommended one as above another.Similarly,there is no mention by him of any
means or method to achieve the exercise of the superior gifts to build up the
church by all members,but only a most excellent way of love. Concerning the
preaching of the gospel,one might say that if we only stressed the love for
the sinners and the need to bring the gospel to them in their situation,just
as God loved the fallen man and came to seek him out,and the lord jesus came
to be among men to save us,that could be considered a “hodos”,and indeed
everyone would agree this is not only the most excellent way,but even the
unique way.But if we were to stress“visiting people in their homes”, “door
knocking on people we have not known before”, “using only one booklet”,plus
all the limitations of time,use of words,sequence of actions,then this must
be considered a method and not a “hodos”.Certainly I am not against any of
these practices,means or methods,for none of them are sinful;I merely say
they are methods and not “hodos”.As such I see no reason to uplift one as
more excelling than another. To come back to
what Godfred otuteye was saying,that caused brothers Ball et al so much offence,what
he said was“We must make it clear that there is no one particular way in
which we must preach the gospel.Any proper way is good.”Any logical person
hearing this,and knowing the context of the history of what went on
before,would have realised that this was spoken because“one particular
way”,one particular method,had been lifted up beyond all proportions.What
Godfred was speaking was not about the way of love,the way of coming to
people in their situation rather than waiting for them to come up to our
standards,but about the different means and methods of preaching the
gospel.Why have brothers Ball et al deliberately misunderstood him in this
way?For I find it quite unbelievable that these learned ones could all fail
to discern the two meanings of the word“way”in English,or to know that the
Scriptures are general in respect of practices and methods to the point of
never uplifting one above another. Some amy feel this
is bordering on a semantics debate.Actually just to be clear concerning th
meaning of words is not my wish;I am saying all this because,in the context
of what we have experienced and seen,I do feel this is a crucial
point.Christian history is littered with examples of well-meaning individuals
who caused division by promoting something that is not general.During the
time whenpromotion of “the new way ”was strongest(I speak of manchester),it
was common to confuse the meaning of this method(tropos) of door-knocking and
home-meetings with“the way”(hodos),as in the new and living way in hebrews
and the way to enter into the good land.Taken to its ultimate conclusion,this
implied that those who were not taking this way(means,method)were not in the
holy of holies and not in the good land.This is the subtlety and the
divisiveness of the enemy.In no sense am I against the preaching of the
gospel by visiting people in their homes.Indeed,in my own experience there
was much benefit.i still remember that when we first practised it,the main
thing that touched me was the love for them,and to bring the gospel to them
in their situation,as the lord did with us.For myself,while that was the
focus,there was much enjoyment,despite my own natural disposition.But
later,when we received the “help”,to be so strict with all the rules of
forcing our way in at all costs, going through the sequence of
reading,co-reading,calling,praying, Demonstration and baptism,at all
costs,indeed ignoring the needs and the situation of the hearers(and thus
diametrically opposed to the way of bringing the gospel to people in their
situation),for me that put me off.Even so,Iwas not against such a method of
strictness for anyone who felt it was helpful to them and wanted to practise
that way,but I certainly will not say that method is inherently more
excelling than any other.(some will no doubt argue that the description I
gave was our own “wrong”practice of “the new way”,but that would be missing
the point.Whether the original promoter(s) intended it to be practised to
that extreme extent,and whether we followed it “correctly”,are beside the
point;my point is that this is only a means or method,and should not be
accorded the status of the“more excelling way”,for that is a recipe for
division.) If
we come back to what Paul was saying in I Corinthians,though he desired that
all should prophesy,he did not invent a method that would produce an
appearance of this(it should not be too difficult to imagine how he could
have done it).Indeed,if he had done so,and if the Corinthians had then gone
about practising it,at all costs,it would probably have torn down the church
even more,for it would not have been walking in the way of love.(Wasn’t that
precisely what happened to us,at least in some churches?)Isn’t it significant
that to paul,the most excellent way was love,and not a method to solve the Corinthians’confusion
by limiting their tongue speaking in favour of prophesying?Was it not a fact
that the lack of love was the source of the abuse of gifts in Corinth?Was it
not also a fact that the lack of love was the root of the problem for some of
the promotion of “the new way”(e.g.we will do this even if it means we will
lose some saints),and that was what Godfred was talking about?
Further,I would like to quote to brothers Ball et al what brother
Witness lee himself said on the subject of “ways”,when speaking on the
“Principles for the leading ones and the workers”(emphasis added): Do
not say your way or what you do is better,even if your way is the best…Do not
say your way is improved and advanced.Do not say that others have deviated in
a certain matter and that now you have an improved way…Do not try to convince
others that your way is the best…Sometimes certain ones not only said that
their way was the right or the best way,but tried to convince others of
this.This spontaneously and immediately caused a turmoil.This turmoil damaged
them,damaged others,and eventually damaged the Lord’s recovery. (Elders’training book 4,pp 62,69,emphasis
added). Isn’t it ironic
that what Godfred was concerned about had been predicted so accurately by
Witness Lee himself?Isn’t it also strange that Ball et al,who profess to be
followers of Witness Lee,were so offended by Godfred’s speaking on this
point?(Who is a more faithful follower of Witness lee’s teachings?) On this point Ball
et al were also strongly critical of the alleged implication by Godfred that
the practice of visiting people in their homes, “a greatly advantageous item
of the new way”,can be divisive.in other words,they considered it cannot be
divisive.That would be an exceedingly bold thing to say.When misused,even the
names of the lord’s servants such as paul,Apollos and Cephas could be
divisive;indeed,the name of Christ was also used as a basis for division.To
declare that any method cannot be divisive(maybe because that method was
invented by one we all respected?)is therefore total superstition.if Ball et
al meant that the method is not inherently divisive in itself,just as the
name of Christ is not inherently divisive,then I don’t think anyone can read
into Godfred’s speaking that he implied it was inherently divisive.One has to
be concerned with the facts,not merely with theory.The facts of what happened
in a number of localities (including Manchester),were that the promotion of
the method to something it wasn’t was the cause of division (though I would
not say that was the root cause-I’ll come back to what the root cause was
later).For Ball et al to say that this was the sole responsibility of the
three brothers and not due to any outside influence was deliberate blindness
to what happened.Again I would not presume to speak for Anaheim,but at least
in our experience there was much outside influence(some examples have already
been mentioned in the section dealing with the“spirit of fellowship among the
churches”). Here again some
may feel that I am seizing upon a small expression used figuratively by Ball
et al,in this case“the more excelling way”,and argue too literally over its
meaning.I would therefore say once again that to debate the meaning of words
is not my intention,for these words are mere symptoms of what lies within.The
root that brings forth the fruit is my concern.let us again consider what
lies behind this issue..Do brothers Ball et al not understand the generality
in the Scriptures concerning methods and practices?have they not read Witness
Lee’s words on this subject?Have they not also,in their taking care of the
churches in their localities,encountered situations where some try (with a
good intention)to bring in certain“ways”,that eventually caused damage and
division?Why,then,have they been so quick to react to Godfred’s
speaking,which cannot even be interpreted by any stretch of imagination to be
opposing“the new way”(at most he could be charged with not promoting it)?Is
it not clear,to any objective reader,that Godfred was merely warning against
allowing this to cause a division?And can it really be that brothers Ball et
al believe that this“new way”cannot cause a division?What is the real reason
behind all this?Is it not again because the so-called“new way”is associated
with brother Witness lee,and to these brothers whether one is for,or not
for,Witness Lee has become the central issue? These are somewhat
rhetorical questions,some of which can only be answered by brothers Ball et
al themselves.I will merely say that,in our experience here,during the height
of the promotion of “the new way”,the attitude of many was that“if this is
recommended by brother lee and his appointed trainers,then we just do it”.
“Obedience”, “oneness”, “not blowing cold wind”,even“confession”for not being
obedient or not being“one”were things we heard day in and day out(and
the“obedience”and “oneness”were not speaking of obedience to and oneness with
the Lord in our spirit,but in relation to instructions from brother Witness
Lee and his associates).though we were disturbed by the “big show”in the 1987
FTTT graduation,by the wild things from the high-schoolers’ training,many of
us thought,if brother Lee is present,if this is brother Lee’s training,then
everything must be all right.From these I conclude that for many(including
ourselves for a time)the central issue was no longer the Lord’s leading in
our spirit,but only whether a certain practice came from Witness Lee or not. Dear saints,let us
forget about who invented which method,and whether one method is superior to
others.Since when have such issues become so important to us?That we argue
about such matters is altogether a defeat for us already.Knowledge puffs
up,but love builds up.If we have the genuine love for all the saints we will
not let anything,no matter how good and scriptural,cause a division among
us.If we are walking in love,we will surely care for the“least of His
brothers”and the “members which seem to be weaker”,more than we care for our
practices.let us take the most excellent way of love. A factor of
division or not? On a similar
point,Ball et al claimed that “Brother Lee has never been a factor of
division”and rejected that“certain saints are exalting Brother Lee and are
thereby causing division”.I would say,as above,that this is an exceedingly hold
thing to say,considering that the names of Paul,Apollos,Cephas and even
Christ became factors of division.Even brother Witness Lee himself,I
believe,would not say no one has ever exalted him and thereby caused
division.If that were the case why was there the need over the years for him
to warn against uplifting him? Recently some
saints have been warned about visiting Manchester,because the church here
is“not taking the ministry”.By this those who sounded the “warning”do not
mean that we are deviating from Christ or god’s new Testament economy,the
goal of the ministry of the new covenant,but merely that we are not
positively recommending all the saints to read and watch Witness Lee’s latest
messages(though we have never opposed or forbidden it either).Is this kind of
warning,and differentiating between one kind of church and another,not making
acceptance and even recommendation of Witness Lee’s present ministry the
basis for fellowship,and if so,has witness Lee not therefore become a factor
of division,at least for some? I believe this
point,the issue of “oneness with the ministry”,or oneness with Witness Lee,or
oneness with his office,is the crux of the matter,and I will come back to
this again later. The categories of
apostles Ball et al entered
into a long discourse about the definition of apostles and the categories of
apostles.Were it not for the seriousness of the situation and of the points
at issue I could have found it in my heart to be amused by such talks.But in
fact I am greatly saddened.Since when has it become necessary to argue about
apostleship in such a legalistic way in the Lord’s recovery?I still remember
the days when we used to disparage the way that some in Christianity used the
term “apostles”,how they claimed to be the modern day apostles and exercised
authority over others.i remember brother Witness Lee said one time that some
such Christians came to ask him whether he considered himself an apostle,and
he said,I inwardly laughed,because they use the same terminology but a
different dictionary.Have we now become similarly legalistic about
apostles,as if they were official,permanent positions ascribed to certain
individuals? The definition of
apostles has,of course,been an issue of great controversy over the
centuries,and I do not pretend to be an expert in it.But even with my limited
knowledge and realisation I could not help feeling that Ball et al’s
discourse is altogether missing the mark.First of all,the categorising of
apostles is itself making spiritual matters far too official and mechanistic,and
falling into the error of many who have gone this way before.If indeed there
were such a thing as a “first kind”of apostles who were those appointed
directly by the Lord and those constituted through the lord’s revelation,then
I have to say that category ceased with the passing away of John,for after
John the revelation,then I have to say that category ceased with the passing
away of John,for after John the revelation was complete;there is no further
need to add any new revelation.in the subsequent centuries the lord may show
us light concerning what He has revealed,but there can be no new
revelation.how then can brothers Ball et al to on to say “Do we not all
regard Brother Lee as an apostle of the first kind?”Further,they claimed that
the “third kind of apostles”were produced by the Lord’s directly appointed
apostles ,therefore they were not on an equal standing with the first kind of
apostles(even this language is hierarchical-what is an equal standing?)and
should be led and directed in their work by those who produced them.What a
legalistic hierarchy!If the first kind of apostles ceased with the passing
away of John,then the third kind of apostles also passed away with the next
generation,and I see no relevance of their talk to what we have today.If we
wanted to be legal,then one can also say that Witness Lee was himself
produced by Watchman Nee,so he is only an apostle of the third kind (but
then,so was Watchman Nee!).Or are we to assume that as Watchman Nee passed
away,then a thirdkind apostle produced by him can suddenly become one of the
first kind?(perhaps as Elisha received the mantle of Elijah!) Actually from my
understanding of the Scriptures,I see no evidence to support the argument
that apostles of lower standing are “produced”by apostles of higher
standing,in a very definite,tangible,mechanistic and legal way.The New
Testament clearly refers to the 12 as “apostles”,and in Acts also to Barnabas
and Paul as “apostles”.It is therefore clear that apostles are not limited to
the 12,but the term is used to denote all those sent out by the Lord with a
commission to carry out His work.Then in II Corinthians we have the two
brothers bearing the gift,whom Paul described as apostles of the churches,and
in Philippians we have Epaphroditus,who was “your apostle”.The use of the
word“apostles”in thesetwo instances,though,probably means they were ones
“sent”by the churches,rather than in the same sense as those sent out by the
Lord with His commission.Of course in the New Testament we also have the indication
that there are many more apostles;indeed according to Witness Lee’s teaching
all can be apostles.But the main basis of this,Ephesians 3 and 4,speaks of
this in terms of the ascended Head giving gifts to the Body
directly,following His victorious ascension.my point is this:there is clear
indication that the Lord,in lfesh and as the Spirit,appointed apostles to
carry out His commission;there is also clear indication that He continues to
give apostles as gifts to the Body,after the first century,for the building
of the church,but the emphasis is that these gifts are produced by the
ascended Head.I see no clear ground to say that the Head has given the
authority to any other,even the apostles directly appointed by Him,to
transmit the commission of apostleship further and therefore,in Ball et al’s
words, “produce other apostles”.If we limit the definition of apostles to
those sent by the Lord with a commission to carry out His work(i.e. excluding
the ones sent by the churches as in II Corinthians and Philippians),then I
find no indication that anyone does this kind of sending of apostles,other
than the Head.Of course,some may argue that Paul sent Timothy and Titus here
and there,but was it that act of sending that constituted them apostles sent
by the Lord?Timothy and Titus may have been apostles,but if they were,the
basis of their apostleship must have been their being given as such gifts to
the Body by the Head,as shown in Ephesians 4,and not be that they were
produced by Paul.In saying this I am not disregarding the fact that they
received a lot of help and guidance from Paul,as a more mature one in the
Lord,or that in the work Paul did send them on several occasions.But to draw
from this the conclusion that they were apostles produced by Paul,that the basis
of their apostleship was Pau;’s sending,and they must therefore be “led
and-directed”by Paul in the work,is very dangerous indeed,for this annuls the
direct leading of the Lord,the direct giving of gifts to the Body by the
Head,and more importantly,the direct responsibility that each member,not only
apostles,has to the Head.I am afraid this is the recipe for a repetition of
Papacy.Without negating the fact that Timothy and Titus received a lot of
help from Paul,I have to say if they served as apostles they must have done
so because the Head gave them as such gifts,and their foremost responsibility
should be to the Head,and not to “one who produced them”. Herein lies a
great danger.If we follow the arguments of Ball et al to their ultimate
conclusion,Timothy and Titus should have followed Paul into the Temple to do
the Nazarite vows if they had been there,even if their conscience dictated
otherwise.We could have asked them,if they refused,Were you not produced by
Paul,an apostle of the first kind?Should you not follow his
leading?Similarly,we can also say that Barnabas received a lot of help from
the apostles in Jerusalem at the beginning of Acts(indeed his
name“Barnabas”originated there),and among these the chief one was Peter.Then
Barnabas was quite right in following Peter to practise hypocrisy in
Galatians 2?Where is the anointing in the spirit of each member?Where is the
promise that“all shall know Me,from the least to the greatest”?Once we accept
a concept like this we absolve ourselves from all responsibility to the
Lord,for we can say in doing such and such a thing we are following the
leading of a “first-kind”apostle,and since he is (or so we believe)always
headed up by the Lord we must be all right.Some may even say we can take his
conscience to be our conscience.I am afraid this has indeed been happening
among us. The reason for
writing the above is not to add to the centuries of controversy on the
definition of “apostles”,but because through the events of the past few
years,I was deeply touched by how we moved away from taking the Lord’s gifts
to the Body as functions,to taking them as positions,even official
positions.My arm is undoubtedly a great gift to my body,as a function,but if
I were to say,because it is so strong,and because it has the appearance of
holding and heading up my hand and my fingers,I ascribe to it some kind of
position such that the hands and fingers must submit to and be led by it,then
that is annulling the true headship.Further, If I then say to the rest of the
members,Though you may all have different functions,you cannot possibly think
that you can walk better,smell better,see better,or hear better than the
arm,so in your functioning in these diverse ways you should all be under the
arm.Indeed,I may go so far as to think that the arm is so strong,so linked to
the Head,so infallible,that any member headed up by it will automatically be
headed up by the true head.(I am neither joking nor exaggerating,as many
readers will know too well).This is altogether going beyond what has been
written,and makes an organic function given by the Head into an
official,legal,mechanistic position.if we do this,and if we believe
this,then,whether the arm stands or falls,whether or not the arm indeed
continues to be strong,to be linked to the Head,even to be infallilbe,is
beside the point,for we have missed the Headship already.The fact that the
Head then allows this arm to be shown to be fallible,not always linked to
Him,etc…is merely His sovereignty in showing us our error.The central thing
is whether we take these gifts given by the Head for them,or do we make them
into official positions.I have to say that when reading the pamphlet I could
not help feeling that Ball et al’s view of apostleship,how it is invested in
certain individuals who then have authority to produce further apostles with
a lower standing than themselves,is altogether too official,legal,mechanistic
and falls into the error of viewing the gifts as positions and not
functions.In the whole discourse on apostles Ball et al said not one word
about the authority of the Head,His giving of gifts,and the responsibility
that each has to Him.I have no heart for doctrinal debates,and indeed I also
would agree there is a case to say that in the Lord’s work the younger ones
should follow the more mature ones,though not officially and legally.But I
think the point is not so much whether Ball et al’s arguments are doctrinally
accurate;rather my point is that what we emphasise when we speak on such
matters is a strong indication of where we are and what our realisation is.If
we see apostles as gifts and functions given by the Head to build up the
Body,the emphasis would surely be the Headship of the Lord and the need to
grow up into Him in all things.On the other hand if our understanding about apostleship
is one of position,then it would not be surprising if our emphasis moves to
the“kinds”of apostles,whether one kind has authority to produce further
apostles,whether these then have equal or unequal standings,and who should be
led and directed by whom.
Here I would like to pause and quote something from brother Witness
Lee’s writings:
“In God’s New Testament economy the leadership among His children is
not official,permanent,or organizational…God ordained it this way in order to
set aside the human concept of leadership.In the Old Testament the kings
succeeded one another.There were never three or four kings at the same
time.But in the New Testament the Lord appointed not one apostle but
twelve.Later,Hadded others,such as Paul,Barnabas,and Timothy.I believe that
therewere many apostles…The plurality in the eldership indicates that
actuallly there is no fixed leadership in the church.” “You should never do
anything or believe anything because the claim is made that a certain brother
says so.What matters is what the Lord says and what the Bible teaches,not
what a brother says.”
“We regard the shoulders,the arms,the hands and the fingers as
subheads.Nevertheless,there is one Head who gives orders to all the members
directly,not through subheads…Do not regard the arms or the shoulders as
subheads.The Body has one unique head-Christ.”
“Among the children of God in today’s New Testament economy,there is
actually no leadership in the natural sense.There is no
official,permanent,organizational leader among the apostles…Therefore,all the
apostles,all the local churches,all the elders,and all the regions of the
work are on the same level.”
(Truth Messages,Message3,pp.22,24,25,26,27,29,emphasis added.)
Compare the above with Ball et al’s concept of the “first kind of
apostles”producing the “third kind of apostles”,who“do not have an equal
standing”with those who produced them,and who should be “led and directed”by
the first kind of apostles. Receiving from the apostles On
the issue of apostleship brothers Ball et al also interpreted John Ingalls’
words to allege that he was suggesting “the saints should pick and
choose,according to their preference”,and “take the standing of receiving
Paul’s ministry in a selective way”.This kind of citation may be compared to
the technique used by many who wrote books against the churches before,saying
something apparently quite close to what the person has said,yet deliberately
wording it in a way to make it sound as reprehensible as possible.What John
actually said was, “We should receive from them [the apostles]anything of
life and truth,anything they may have which will help us and benefit us for
the building up of the Body.”Ball et al have arbitrarily added the
expression“according to their preference”,which was not even implied in
John’s words.In this sentence alone John did not explicitly say “according to
what”should the saints receive help from the apostles,but he did say
“anything of life and truth”and“anything…which will help us and benefit us
for the building up of the Body”;now is it not true that every regenerated
believer,every member of the Body,has the sense of life and the anointing
within to discern the matters of life and truth that every regenerated
believer,every member of the Body,has the sense of life and the anointing
within to discern the matters of life and truth that are of benefit to the
Body?Further,the first point John touched in his speaking was the authority
of the Word of God.Based on this I would say it is clear from the context
that his recommendation to the saints was that they should follow the leading
of the Lord (both in their spirit and from the written Word)and have
consideration for the needs of the church in these matters.Is it wrong to
recommend that the saints receive what is of the most benefit,according to
the anointing in their spirit and according to the Word?(although I also seem
to be putting words into john’s mouth,at least from the context I think my
addition more accurately reflects John’s tone than that of Ball et al).yet
Ball et al have deliberately misunderstood and misrepresented john by putting
in the phrase “according to their preference”.of course,it is not unknown
among dogmatic religionists that what to one is the anointing in their spirit
is to another merely“their own preference”,so I suppose Ball et al’s twisting
of john’s words is not really that surprising after all.(Compare this with
the wellknown phrase: “Faith is what I believe;superstition is what you
believe”.) I
would also like to turn the question the other way round.Are brothers Ball et
al saying that we should receive and swallow everything from anyone who calls
himself an apostle,irrespective of what our inner feeling is,and what the
Word says?(let me also play the game of putting words into their mouth).if
so,how on earth did the church in Ephesus test those who called themselves
apostles,and find them to be false,and why did the Lord commend them?(of
course,somewould say these are false apostles,but without some discernment
according to the anointing in our spirit and according to the Word of God,how
can we tell they are false?)And why did the Scriptures say the Bereans were
more noble when they searched out the Scriptures to see if the things taught
by Paul were correct? I
find it most ironic to recall the numerous testimonies I have heard from many
who came out of organised Christendom into the local churches in the early
years,how they were drawn by the ministry of brother Witness lee which,though
so different from traditional teachings,they were able to compare with the
Scriptures and find them all to be pure and according to the Word.To many
this was the paramount justification of Witness Lee’s ministry(of course,not
merely scriptureally accurate in the way of doctrine,but in the way of ministering
life).indeed,I myself recall an occasion in 1983 when brother Witness Lee was
speaking to a visiting journalist in the presence of many btothers,when he
himself used this as the main reason why so many evangelical Christians were
receiving and following his ministry.But now btothers Ball et al,who profess
to be such faithful followers of Witness Lee,are so offended by John Ingalls’
words on the receiving of what is of benefit from the apostles according to
the Word and the inner anointing.John’s recommendation is no different from
the basis on which many(probably including John himself)originally received
Witness Lee’s teachings.If brothers Ball et al find John’s words
objectionable,then are they not actually undermining this very basis?Who is
actually destroying and undermining brother Witness lee’s ministry?And if his
teaching continues to be scriptural and life-giving,why would John
Ingalls’words be seen to be in opposition to it? On
a related point Ball et al claimed that“though the elders may relate the
truth to the saints,they do not ascertain,discern,and define the truth,for
this is the fifted function of the apostles”,and “in a local church there is
no need for the elders to define truth,for God has given apostles”,and “in a
local church there is no need for the elders to define truth,for God has
given apostles for that very purpose”.Let me say for a start that Revelation
there is no further need for anyone,elders or apostles,to define any more
truths,for all truths have been defined already.As for ascertaining and
discerning the truth(the truth already defined in Scriptures),I find it quite
incredible that Ball et al would suggest the elders do not do this.Again I
would ask the reader to consider the examples of the Bereans,of the church in
Ephesus in Revelation 2,and the Lord’s rebuke to the churches in Pergamos and
Laodicea for tolerating Balaam and Jezebel.Clearly it is the responsibility
not only of the elders,but also of every believer,to discern the truth from
the Scriptures,and to reject that which is falsehood.Is it not the case that
the church is the “pillar and base of the truth”? On
this point again it is not so much the inaccuracy of this kind of statement
that is striking,but the reason that lies behind someone having to make this
statement at all.To me the clear categorising of who should ascertain and
discern the truth,and who shouldn’t,is again symptomatic of a
legal,official,mechanistic attitude in the understanding of the gifts to the
Body,and in particular the danger of viewing these as positions rather than
functions.It is like saying in my body there is no need for any other member
to help open a door,for the hand has been given for that very purpose;but if
my hands are full,or if they are injured,then the arm,the elbow,the feet,can
all help in opening the door,and these members do so without even any
consciousness or consideration of whether it is “their function”or not.If the
Body has a need,then the Head may move through any member to fulfil that
need,as He chooses.Some amy say this is a recipe for chaos,but the antidote
to chaos is not formal categorisation(which merely replaces chaos with
lifeless officialdom),but for every member to be brought under the Headship
of Christ.Why haven’t Ball et al said one word about the need for growing up
into the Head?If we all grow up into the head,surely the functioning of the
members will be normal and profitable to the Body;on the other hand if the
Headship of Christ is already violated then a “correct”partitioning of
“functions”does nothing but to install an organisation in place of the
organic Body.No doubt in the Middle Ages the popes and cardinals set
themselves up as the ones who could “discern and ascertain the truth”;so was
martin Luther wrong in attempting to discern the truth for himself from the
Scriptures?Did he even think about whether it was his function or not?Did the
head not move through a member corresponding with Him,as he chose? I
say again that we should consider not just the issues facing us,numerous and
important though they may seem,but the underlying cause behind it all.Why was
there the need for all this talk about the kinds of apostles and who should
be directed by whom?Why was there the need to make a distinction about whose
function it is to discern and ascertain the truth?Why was there no mention of
the members functioning in life and under the Headship,but rather so much
emphasis on positional matters?Is it not because we have already lost sight
of the central vision of the dispensing of Christ for the building up of the
Body,through the operation in measure of each one part?After years of hearing
and even speaking God’s economy,how much are we genuinely living in the
reality>In the final analysis it is not what we say,but what we are,that
counts.We haveall appreciated very much the opening of the revelation of
God’s economy in the past years,but in what way did we appreciate it?Was it
in the way that resulted in our living and serving being governed by this
vision or was it in the way of resulting in an uplifting of the one whom the
Lord used to open the revelation to us?It will be the greatest irony if we
seek to preserve the position of the one whom the Lord has used to open the
revelation of this economy to us to the extent that we walk diametrically
against His economy. Turning the issue upside down
Still on the subject of apostles,I find it very interesting to see how
Ball et al brought in the issue of whether John Ingalls considers himself an
apostle of the first kind.If we look at John’s words on this subject in a
pure way,we would seethat his emphasis was on the apostles being gifted
members for the building up of the Body.His speaking was altogether on the
functions of these gifts,and not on positions.If I understand correctly,the
reason John started speaking about the plurality of the apostles,what
attitude a church should have towards these apostles,and the situation in
Corinth together with Paul’s words to them about not going beyond what has
been written,was in the context of some promoting so strongly the matters of
the “relationship with the apostle”, “following the apostle”, “oneness with
the apostle”.By identifying “the apostle”(in the singular)with one
person,they then used these slogans to encourage all the saints to receive
and follow unquestioningly anything that purports to come from this
btother,the trainers appointed by him,and his office,Because of this
background John shared how in the New Testament the word is used mostly in
the plural except when referring to a person by name,and how we should
receive from the apostles anything that is of life and truth.It is
interesting to me to see how Ball et al then brought in the rather irrelevant
point of whether John Igalls was claiming to be an apostle.I don’t believe
any fair-minded reader of what John Inqulls said could conclude that the
motive of his speaking was a claim to apostleship and equal standing with
Witness Lee.(Indeed I believe to most saints terms like“equal standing”are
foreign hlanguage anyway.)Nor do I think the effect on the hearers was that
they would go away thinking John was such an apostle.Rather the effect that
John was seeking,at least insofar as can be inferred from the plain words,was
that the hearers would realise the apostles are gifts from the Head for the
building up of the Body,that they would discern and receive from them what is
of life and truth,and not exalt any person in the way of position.For myself
I could find no indication that John was in any way referring to himself in
this context.
Some may argue,of course,that we cannot know the true motive in
others’heart,and the fact that there was no such indication in the plain
words does not guarantee the speaker had no such thought.John Ingalls will
have to answer for himself what his true motive was.But I think it is
precisely because we cannot know the true motive in others’heart,that we
should never attempt to ascribe to them what we think their motive may
be.Otherwise we could also have accused Paul of seeking a position for
himself when he rebuked Peter in Antioch,for who could have guaranteed at the
time that such was not his hidden motive?Equally we could say the Bereans had
the motive of producing a “native”apostle from among themselves when they
were searching out the Scriptures to see if the things spoken by Paul were
correct.This kind of suspicious inferences is surely foreign to the Body of
Christ. I
bring up this point not because I have any wish to defend John
Ingalls’motive(for,as I said,he will have to answer for himself in this,as we
all do),but because in our experience this kind of suspicion of others’
motives has been prevalent in the last few years.When one btother btought up
the problems of division that were being caused by the promotion of “the
apostle”and his office(to the extent of categorising of saints and
churches),he was accused of “wanting something for himself”.Anyone who
expressed concern about the effects of the promotion of the “new way”was
described as “cold wind blowers”,or “wanting to hold on to their position in
the old way”.When one spoke of the problem of centralised authority he was
accused of promoting “autonomy”of churches.This kind of talk is merely
attempting to turn the issue upside down,and diverting attention away from
the real question.The problem that Jhon Ingalls was speaking about was the
excessive promotion by certain ones of anything and everything associated
with“the apostle”;instead of considering this genuine burden and concern,Ball
et al implied John was claiming apostleship for himself,which is a totally
irrelevant point.Are they measuring others by their own yardsticks? What do we mean by “the churches in the
Lord’s recovery”?
Ball et al said, “The local churches in the Lord’s recovery welcome
the ministry of Brother Lee as a solid and substantial source of nourishment
for the saints”(p.19), “…what has been held precious by all the local
churches up until this time”(p.18), “That this service [of the LSM office]is
vital to the lord’s interests and that the saints in all the churches have
benefited immeasurably from this service is beyond dispute”(p.21). In
saying these things I don’t know how many “local churches”or “churches in the
Lord’s recovery”they presume to speak for and I don’t know how many churches
would echo their sentiments.They certainly do not represent all the churches
on the earth today,not even all the churches in the United States.Unless,of
course,we are to conclude that to them a “local church”is not one standing on
the ground of oneness,receiving all believers and open to fellowship with all
other churches,but one which receives and recommends the present ministry of
Witness Lee,and “the Lord’s recovery” describes not the Lord’s rebuilding and
restoration work after centuries of degradation,but is a specific name taken
by those who follow Witness Lee and his office.If this is the case,then,of
course,their statements are true by definition,their definition that is.All I
can say then,is that what they call“the Lord’s recovery”(but not what I call
the Lord’s recovery)has already become a denomination.
Please understand that in raising this point I am not attempting to
argue how many churches agree with which point of view.I am merely pointing
out that brothers Ball et al’s use of these phrases is again a reflection of
their(perhaps unconscious)assumption that the local churches are defined by
acceptance of the ministry of Witness Lee,which is almost like making this an
essential item in the church.I do not say this in a condemning way,for one of
the things the Lord has exposed to us is that for years we all had the same
unconscious belief.Though we all maintained doctrinally that the basis of a
local church is the ground of oneness,we actually behaved very much in a
way(especially towards other Christians)as if the basis were the acceptance
of Witness Lee’s ministry.We had many different ways of justifying such an
attitude,e.g.we would say it is “the ministry”that builds up the
church,whereas others were building up divisions,or we would say it is not
enough to be “on the ground”(in a legal sense),but we need to be “in
spirit,on the ground”,and we always believed that it was not possible to have
the real spiritual growth in life issuing in the genuine building,apart from
receiving Witness Lee’s ministry.The recent phenomenon of categorising churches
and saints according to their relationship with Witness Lee undoubtedly had
its root in this subconscious belief that many of us shared.
Again I would say I am not picking on brothers Ball et al for
their(perhaps)careless use of phrases that manifest this attitude,for that in
itself is after all a relatively trivial point.But I think the attitude
itself,making the receiving of “the ministry”an essential item,is the root
matter of all the issues we have discussed so far,which I will try to examine
in the remainder of this article. Learning from History
Throughout this article I have attempted to consider the central issue
of what confronts us today.Although I have used the pamphlet by Ball et al as
a “trigger”for discussion and even argued passionately over some of the
points they raised,the goal of this article is not to debate the rights and
wrongs of such issues,for that would merely lead to further,and endless
debates.One may also say that the contents of Ball et al’s writings are
merely the tip of an iceberg,and it is the iceberg,with its hidden yet potent
destructive capability,that we should concentrate our minds on.Over and over
again I have asked myself,If these issues are mere symptoms,what is the
“illness”?What is the central issue behind all this? I
believe the central issue is “what is our oneness today?”.Is our oneness of
Christ alone,or is there another kind of oneness,whether one calls it
“oneness with the ministry”, “following the ministry”,or“oneness with the
apostle”?Though the “spirit of fellowship among the churches”,the methods of
preaching the gospel,the “kinds”of apostles and their standing,were much
mentioned,I have argued that these were not the issue that really mattered to
Ball et al and their associates.While they have tried to turn the
issue“upside down”to accuse btothers Ingalls et al of wanting to undermine
btother Witness Lee’s ministry by criticisms and innuendos,they have not
addressed the problem that caused these btothers to speak forth in the first
place.For I firmly believe that it is the promoters of Witness Lee’s
ministry,and not the “detractors”(if indeed there are detractors),that have
caused the problem today,and it is they,rather than the ones they accuse.that
are destroying Witness Lee’s ministry.For years the ministry of Witness
Lee,as a portion in the ministry of the new covenant,opening the Scriptures
for us to see and experience God’s new Testament economy,was loved and
received by most saints,though it could perhaps be said,with the benefit of
hindsight,that our experience of it fell far short of our knowing(this has
now been demonstrated over and over again by the behaviour of many who must
number among the most “proficient”in their knowledge of God’s economy,as I
have briefly referred to in the previous sections).Actually,insofar as the
Lord has given this btother as a gift to the Body,especially in the aspect of
opening the Acriptures to unveil Christ(which is the hallmark of the ministry
of the new covenant,as shown in II Corinthians 3),no amount of attacks or
underminings,by anyone,could destroy his ministry.history is a good teacher
for us on this point.Luther undoubtedly was a gift to the Body,and had a
share in the ministry of the new covenant;if anything marred his portion,it
was his own selfrighteousness and self-seeking,especially in later
years,typified by his refusal to accept as brothers Zwingle and the Swiss
reformers just because they held a more accurate view of the Lord’s Supper
than he did.Similarly,Darby was a great gift in the last century,but his
ministry and service to the many assemblies could have been greater still,had
it not been for his exclusive attitude in excommunicationg btothers that did
not agree with him on every point,and even excommunicating churches that
still received these btothers.History tells us that,if anyone is a servant of
the Lord,no one can really destroy his ministry but himself. On
the subject of Luther and the Swiss reformers,and their debate on the
presence of Christ’s physical body and blood at the Lord’s supper,I would
like to quote the following paragraphs from Miller’s Church History:
Thus God,in His own goodness,overruled these unseemly debates for the
spread of the truth,and for the accomplishment of His own gracious
purposes.Little did Luther contemplate the merciful use that God would make
of that conference;and that ,when he,Luther,was caring only for his own
reputation,God was caring for the advancement of the Reformation.
But alas!what is man-fallen,self-seeking man!Where is now the Luther
of the early days of the Reformation?Why has the heart that was so
large,liberal,and considerate of all,so soon degenerated into the most
undisguised and intolerant bigotry?The answer is plain-then he stood for God
by faith,now he stood in pride as the head of a party.And this explains not
only the wonderful change that had come over the spirit of Luther,but the
ignoble failure of many distinguished men from that day until now.At the Diet
of Worms and other places,luther,almost alone,fought for the truth of God against
the lie of Satan;but at marburg he fought for the lie of Satan,in the form of
his new dogma,against the truth of God.Some may ge ready to say that he was
fighting for the truth according to his conscience;so far it may have been
so.But it will be remembered that he resisted all peaceful investigation of
the truth,all reasonable means of arriving at a proper understanding of
those“four words”this is My body and seemed only to care for the maintenance
of his own authority and power as the chief of his party.There was no concern
manifested by either Luther or any of the Saxons for the general interest of
the Gospel,or for the triumph of the Reformation.Thus was the great and
blessed work of Luther marred and vitiated by the most absurd and foolish
dogma ever proposed to the credulity of man.
The position and danger of a party leader in the things of God are
clearly expressed in the following opinion of Luther. “At marburg,Luther was
Pope.By general acclamation the chief of the evangelical party,he assumed the
character of a despot;and to sustain that part in spiritual matters ,it is
necessary to create the prejudice of infallibility.If he once yielded any
point of doctrine-if he once damitted that he had fallen into error-the
illusion would cease,and with it,the authority that was founded on it.It was
thus at least with the multitude.He was obliged by the very position which he
believed he occupied,or which he wished to occupy,to defend in the loftiest
tone every tenet that he had once proclaimed to the people...”
Some will no doubt accuse my use of this passage about Luther as
another innuendo.Towards such I have no heart to defend my own motive,save to
say the Lord knows my heart.But to the impartial readers I implore,let us
learn from the lesson of history,for “he who does not learn from history is
destined to repeat it”.Just as in Luther’s case,it is not merely the rights
and wrongs of the doctrine in question that mattered,for both sides could
argue they were following their conscience.But while the Swiss were willing
to let the disagreement rest,and instead proclaim their oneness in Christ,for
the sake of the greater goals of the gospel and the Reformation,Luther
refused even to recognise them as brothers or as belonging to Christ.So
today,it is not just a matter of whose arguments on the many issues are more
accurate(important though that maybe),but rather the attitude and concern
that each manifests.In whose words do we find the genuine concern that the
hearers and readers would be btought to know the Lord in their spirit and in
the Word?In whose words do we find the love and care for every member,even
the weakest(even those considered to be “negative”)?And in whose words (and
actions)do we find the desire to preserve authority and power for “the chief of
the party”?Dear saints,if you genuinely appreciate any btother’s ministry,if
you genuinely love any brother,then I beseech you,do not make him into“the
head of a party”,for this is the surest and quickest way to destroy his
ministry.I say again,it is not the attackers,the detractors,the defamers that
destroy any man’s ministry,but the promoters,the zealots and those who
believe in any kind of infalliblility associated with fallen man.(I may be
criticised for being unfair in apparently singling out btothers Ball et al to
be uniquely responsible for the promotion of “the head of a party”I know the
history is far more involved than that.But the goal of this pamphlet is not
to apportion responsibility that I leave to history and to the Lord’s
judgment my most earnest desire is only that we all would not go in this
direction,but rather turn back to Christ as the unique Head.The writings of
Ball et al afford me an opportunity to share the danger as I see it.)
Although I have argued on a number of points against btothers Ball et
al’s writings,in a curious way I feel I can sympathise with them,if they were
motivated by adesire that all saints should receive the benefit from a
ministry that they find so helpful.If the clock were turned back 3 years,I
myself too would have been in every way as strong and aggressive as they are
in the promotion and defence of everything to do with Witness Lee,for the
simple reason that I also believed that his speaking represented,in the
modern day,the ministry of the new covenant.However,in the context
of“learning from history”I would like to ask brothers Ball et al the
following.Undoubtedly Luther had a portion in the ministry,but if you had
been living in his day,would you have gone so far as to say you would follow
him unquestioningly(and to recommend others to do so)even when he showed such
an exclusive attitude to brothers?And would you have joined with Darby in his
excommunicating of btothers and assemblies?You may do,of course,but would you
go so far as to say if some brothers or some churches feel they can no longer
recommend the latest speaking of Luther
or Darby when they are attacking others who do not agree with them on
every point,then you would consider that those brothers and churches to be no
longer following the ministry(I speak of the ministry of the new
covenant)?Brothers,this is a serious matter,for in what you are doing you
will have to answer before the Lord,not only for yourself,but for your
influence on all those who respect you so much and will folllow your recommendation.Do
you really have the full assurance that what you are doing will help the
saints to focus on Christ more,and not merely bring them to go the same way
as you in following a man,however much that man may be respected by you,and
however much the Lord may have used him?Brothers,do not forget,our Lord is a
jealous God! A personal testimony I
was recently reading again certain things I wrote down myself during the
heady days of 1987(April 87 was the time when things became“bad enough”that I
dared to admit to myself that something was wrong).At the time I kept asking
myself, “What on earth is happening in the Lord’s recovery?”This might sound
ridiculous,but I was continually thinking,Fifty years from now,what will the
historians make of what is going on right now in what they may perhaps call
the “Local Church movement”?Of course we all hope and expect that this will
be the generation to bring the Lord back,and there will not need to be any
historical assessment.But generations of lovers of the Lord have also
expected the Lord to come back in their time,including the Brethren and
brother Nee.At the time I particularly had in mind what happened to the
Brethren.Some time before that I had come across a little pamphlet written by
one from the Open Brethren,about the history of the Brethren,which I thought
presented a truly fair view of what happened.Many times in history new
movements were started when the Lord showed new light,and these movements
were usually around those truths,and followed by those who agreed with
them(and by implication excluded those who didn’t).The Brethren,the author
said,were not the same,in that the particular characteristic was unity rather
than a specific truth.Their oneness was not around something they could all
agree on,but but based on the body of Christ.To them,all were“brothers”,and
they truly had brotherly love.But then,the author went on,they gradually
changed,from the characteristic of “unity”to that of “purity”(purity from
the“sin”of division and denominationalism).Of course,unity is to do with
rejecting divisiveness,but purity was the rejection of all who would not
reject division.The two seemed very close,almost indistinguishable,but in
actual fact they were diametrically opposite.Soon after,instead of the
emphasis of receiving all,it became the emphasis of coming out of
denominations,and even refusing to fellowship with any who would continue to
meet in divisions.The author felt that this marked the beginning of the
downfall of the Brethren movement.When I read this I thought to myself,the
historical view the author has is crystal clear;he put his finger right on
the root of the problem.At the time among the Brethren they must have been
confused by a lot of “issues”,who is right and who is wrong,should we do this
and do that,etc.But 150 years on it is clear to a historian where the root of
the downfall was. I
bean to consider,what about ourselves?Today we are confused by a lot of
issues:door-knocking,watching videos,going to Taipei,Sunday morning meetings
or not,one speaker or many readers,washing people’s doors,etc.and many are
arguing about these issues.But what is the root of all these?50 years from
now,with the benefit of hindsight,what will a neutral,objective historian
make of what is happening among us?(for undoubtedly something was happening
among us,that was changing the recovery,for better of for worse).I don’t mean
an opposer in Christianity,but a genuine objective researcher,looking back at
what we are doing,what will he identify as the root of the change goday?Was
this“change”that I was experiencing something fundamental (though hardly
perceptible),as was the case with the Brethren,or was it merely a change of
certain practices, “going by Jumbo jets instead of horse-drawn carts because
technology has improved”?Was it just a shift from big meetings to home
meetings,from one man speaking to everyone teaching and everyone
learning(e.g. by reading Truth Lessons),from gospel love feasts to
door-knocking,or was it a real and more fundamental shift in emphasis?If “unity”was
the outstanding characteristic of the Brethren in the beginning,I asked
myself,what will historians identify as the most outstanding characteristic
of the local churches?At one level of course we could say the distinguishing
characteristic of the local churches is the matter of the local ground of
oneness,which undoubtedly is a precious item in the Lord’s recovery.But this
oneness should not be merely an outward rule for the most“correct”and
scriptural way of practising the church life,but also comething inward and of
life.This oneness,as we have heard in the past,especially in relation to John
17 and Ehpesians 4,is out of the dispensing of the Triune God,whose very
nature is one.For me,at least,this was the most outstanding characteristic of
the lord’s recovery,not merely to be most accurate in our understanding of
Scriptures and most correct in our practices,but to have a recovery of His
economy with a small remnant who know Him absolutely in the way of life,who
are living Christ,under His Headship and organically one with Him as His
members,through whom the Lord would gain an expression in the genuine
oneness,as a golden lampstand.For this is what has been lost to Christendom
for centurise,and without this there is no Bride for the Groom.Especially after
1978,following the storm that affected many of the churches,and through the
early 1980’s(e.g. the emphasis of the“Central Vision”during the elders’
trainings of 1981 and 1982),the matters of the dispensing of the Triune God
and the genuine oneness out of this dispensing became to me the most
outstanding emphasis among the local churches (of course this is speaking
from my own perception only;one could say this had been the outstanding
characteristic among the local churches since the beginning,and especially it
had been the hallmark of btother Witness lee’s ministry all the time he has
been ministering in the western world.)In April 1987,I asked myself,Is the
change that I am witnessing a change in this outstanding characteristic,or
merely some outward improvements in practice?Of course at the time some of
these practices were causing a great deal of discussion(some passionate),and
inevitably we were all somewhat clouded by the events that were rapidly
unfolding around us.But all what would not have been alarming,if the
fundamental emphasis,the outstanding characteristic,of life and oneness had
not changed.But as time went on I was inexorably drawn to the conclusion that
there had indeed been a shift in emphasis,from the oneness of all believers
as the church in each locality to a “oneness with the ministry”,and from the
living of God’s New Testament economy to a promotion of the one through whom
the Lord has opened the revelation of His economy to us.I say there was this
fundamental shift,rather than a mere change in some practices,because over
and over again,the promotion of these practices(even to the last detail)were
based on “brother lee said this”,or“trainers said this”,and there was a clear
expectation that all had to follow.True,there were no written
rules,no written“constitution”,that all churches and all saints had to
practise these,but the phrases“blowing cold wind”, “indifference”, “holding
onto their position”,were used in a way that I felt an objective observer
could not fail to detect an expectation,if not a psychological pressure,on
all to conform.More importantly,there was clear indication (to me)that there
was a promotion of the“oneness with the ministry”at the expense of the
oneness of all believers in Christ.I watched the tape of the Summer 87
training meeting where a“practice word”was given concerning going to the
FTTT,and the tape of the High-schoolers’ training,and I said to myself,I do
not believe an objective observer would not come out with the conclusion that
there is a definite promotion of a special category,which was narrower than
the inclusive category of all believers.Throughout that period I heard almost
nothing of what had been to me the most precious,most outstanding
characteristic in the Lord’s recovery,what had been out central vision for
years,but a lot of promotion of btother Witness Lee and his ministry,his
office.
The terms of God’s economy were used mostly in emphasising that this
btother had opened up this revelation to us,rather than in helping the saints
to enter into that experience.(The pamphlet by Ball et al is a case in
point:how much can one find in it that seeks to bring the readers to know the
Lord in life,to be under His Headship,and to live as His members in
reality,and how much can one find in it that seeks to bring the readers to be
the same as the authors in their following and promotion of Witness Lee?By
contrast was it not the goal of the speaking of Ingalls et al to bring the
saints back to focus on Christ,the Word,life and truth?)
Worse than all these were the“private talks”that were categorising
churches and brothers according to their relationship with the office of
Witness Lee,the result of which was to drive a wedge between saints and
between churches,destroying the oneness and fellowship among us.(Of course
often these talks were shrouded in terms such as“oneness with the apostle”,
“relationship between the churches and the apostle”, “serving the
ministry”,etc.)Eventually I came to the conclusion that the shift in emphasis
that troubled me in April 1987 was a shift from the oneness of all believers
to a “oneness”with the ministry.Of course,the two are very close;one is the
genuine oneness that issues out of the dispensing of the Triune God,and the
other is the promotion of the person through whom the Lord has opened the
revelation concerning the dispensing of the Triune God to us.But just as
“unity”and “purity”with the Brethren,they are close yet diametrically
opposite.Eventually,I realised that if we emphasise anything other than
Christ as a factor of oneness,no matter how good and spiritual,that will end
up becoming a factor of division that destroys the genuine oneness in
Christ,as sure as night follows day. AT
the time I often put many of these things to one side on the assumption that
ghey represented only isolated incidents of some yong,zealous ones
misunderstanding and therefore promoting something rather extreme.I felt sure
that if the more mature btothers in the Lord’s recovery were to know about
this they would immediately put a stop to it all.I am sorry to say that all
that has happened since then has not confimed this optimism of mine.Rather,it
seems that these“mature”ones are the foremost in this kind of promotion.The
latest episode,of the pamphlet by btothers Ball et al (some of whom incidentally
were ones that I greatly respected as the more “mature” btothers in the
churches),and the way this pamphlet has been circulated to us,has merely been
the tip of an iceberg and typical of what we have been obseving for the past
few years.By this I mean,as I have argued in this article,that to brothers
Ball et al,and others like them,the central issue behind all the issues they
have raised,is whether others are for ,or not for,Witness Lee and his
ministry.The real issue with them is not that brothers Ingalls et al lacked
the “spirit of fellowship”,nor that they did not know the truth in the
Bible;the real issue was thatthese 3 brothers do not recommend brother
Witness lee in the same way as brothers Ball et al do themselves.If I were an
outsider,reading the writings from both groups of brothers,I think I would
find it hard to know what the “dispute”is really about.Brothers Ball et al do
not appear to disagree in any major way with brothers’ingalls et al’s stand
concerning the Word,concerning the ground of the church,concerning the
oneness,or concerning the gospel.The only point of disagreement is
actually“What think ye of Witness Lee?” To
come back to the period in
1987-1988,when the things mentioned earlier on were happening,for myself it
seemed like a long dark tunnel that would never end.many times my hopes were
raised,that some“solution”was at hand,but every time it was no exaggeration
to say that what I thought was the end of the tunnel was just the light of an
oncoming train.Eventually I realised,what I was awaiting,the“light”that I was
looking for,was founded on the sand of confidence in man,and therefore doomed
to disappointment.i began to see that the central problem was that we had
turned away from the Lord as our head,we had turned away from the unique
focus of Christ.Though we had heard and understood much about God’s
economy,we were actually not living in it.Of course,in the ensuing
disappointment from such a realisation,it was quite easy to be totally
disillusioned into believing that all that the Lord had gained in us was in
vain,and that what“vision”we had was empty and unattainable.However,in the
Lord’s mercy His light not only exposes and kills,but also,as always,heads us
in repentance back to Himself.What joy and peace it was,to come back to the
One who has paid such a high price to live within us,whom we had ignored(to
some extent at least)for so long,but who had been patiently waiting all the
time for us to turn back to Himself.For myself,this renewed touching of the
Lord(almost as if knowing Him afresh)gave me the assurance that all we had
seen as the highest of revelation,the Vine and the branches,the Head and the
Body with its members,the divine anointing,the brotherly love and the genuine
oneness,is all possible to realise in our experience today,and the Lord is
waiting for us to realise it.
For ourselves,since realising all the above,we have endeavoured to
focus on nothing but Christ,and to emphasise what has been the most precious
to us in the Lord’s recovery,not only knowing about it but also experiencing
and living it.We liik forward to the day when all the churches,including us
in Manchester,can go on in the Lord in peace,and no one would be seeking to
pursue Christ toghther.If we should influence one another,let it only be to
pursue Christ more.Recently in our prayers this phrase has come out very
much, “Draw me,and we will run after You.”Let each of us be so drawn and
attracted to the Lord’s person,that our very being will be such an
encouragement to others also to run after Him.Let us be so drawn and captured
by the Lord that we will have no time or thought to conform others to our
way,but only to desire that others also pursue Christ.If indeed our
experience of the Lord is genuine(and only the Lord knows),if indeed our heart
is drawn to Him and Him alone,then this will surely result in others also
running after Him,and there is no need for us to vindicate our way or our
views.
For this reason I wish to remind everyone who has read up to this
point that the aim of this article is not to convert others to my views.My
only wish is that,if my experience of being brought back to focus on
Christ,through the realisation from the events that have taken place,is
genuinely of Him,then this article may be a little help to others also to
pursue the lord and none other.I trust in the sovereign Lord that what I have
written may not be misused. -Eddie Huang Manchester,England December,1989 Appendis I:The Proper Standing of The
Church From a meeting in
Snaheim,California,August 28,1988 Edited by john Ingalls and Albert Knoch Brother John
ingalls:We brothers do not like to be a mystery to you,and keep you wondering
all the time, “Where do the brothers stand,and what are their feelings?”We
feel that we owe you all some fellowship.We would like to share with you what
should be our standing as a church according to the truth.Truth and confusion
cannot go together. Our standing is
very important,even more important than our condition.When we have a
clear,proper standing according to the truth in so many matters,this will
properly affect our condition.Your who have a family know how important the
proper standing is:the husband has a certain standing;the wife has a
different staning;and the children have yet another standing.Of course,in
your job you had better be clear what is your standing,or you might get
fired!Most importantly,as brothers and sisters in the church we must be clear
what our standing is. I hope that tonight we will all be cleared
up.I also hope that by our fellowship you will realize that we are not
against anyone,neither are we trying to put anyone down.Rather,we have the
best interests of all saints upon our heart,and the best interests of the
church.I also believe that we have the best interests of th Lord upon our
heart.Saints,we are for you.And we believe that we are for the Lord and His
recovery,for His truth. Some of you have
been questioning,What about this?What about that?...What should our standing
be?So,we want to share sixteen points concerning our standing.The first eight
are more on the spiritual side,while the last eight are on the practical
side. 1.First and
foremost is,what is our standing in relation to the word of god?This point
must be first because it is very important,and all that we are going to share
after this is solidly based in the Word of God.It is the truth.Saints,I
believe we all agree that the Word of God should be our sole authority.This
is our constitution.We read in the newspaper often how so many lawyers and
congressmen are continually referring to the Constitution:“What dose the
Constitution say?”Saints,we all should be constantly referring to our
constitution,the Word of God!I feel we need a reinstatement of the written
Word of God as our sole authority.We want to be govemed by the Word of God.I hope
it could be true of us all that our consciences are bound by the Word of
God;not by traditions,superstition,or anything else,but simply by the pure
Word of the Lord.This Word must be our solid basis. 2.Now,based upon
this first point we go to the second,which is our standing conceming the
church.From etemity,the church has been God;s heart desire.he has set His
heart upon this;the church is very precious to Him.Especially in this age in
which we live,the church is central and supreme.No other corporate body is
recognized by the New Testament in this age except the church.Everything is
for the church:both the apostles,the ministry,and we all are for the
church!All creation is for the church.God is working all things in this age
for His church. Furthermore,to
take the proper standing as the church in each locality makes the church
practical.Practically speaking,for us the church is local.The only proper
standing we can see from God’s Word is to stand upon the ground of the one
Body in the locality where we live,to stand upon this precious ground of the
oneness of the Body of Christ.I think this has been constituted into our
being so that we could never,and we would never,give it up.I could never take
any other standing. We do not agree to
be in any kind of sect,system,or division.We just like to be Christians-what
we are by birth-standing upon the ground of the one Body of Christ,loving all
Christians and being united with all Christians in Christians in Christ
alone.We all have only one prcious Head,and we are joined to him as His one
Body.This oneness is where all the blessings are,where so many precious
things are!This which God has ordained in his Word should never be abandoned
by us. 3.The third point
is the genuine oneness:what should our standing and relationship be regarding
this?First,we need a brief definition of what is the genuine oneness.Of
course,this point goes right along with the church.This is also something
most precious,because the lord jesus prayed for this:…that we all may be
one,that we may be perfected into one(John 17:21-23).This very precious
reality is our privilege to enjoy and partake of.Ephesians 4 calls this
genuine oneness two things:the oneness of the Spirit,and the oneness of the
faith.This oneness is something organic,not organized.It could never be
organized,or taught;and,it cannot be forced.This oneness just needs to be
kept,for it is the oneness of the Spirit.We have it in the spirit with all
saints;we just need to be diligent to keep it.How precious is this
oneness.The Lord commands the blessing upon this(Psalm 133).it is a
spiritual,organic oneness,which is totally in the realm of life and truth. We must not build
up any oneness that is outside this realm of life and truth,or we are liable
to build up Babel.(Babel was a kind of oneness of the flesh,outside the realm
of life and truth).The real oneness is of life.Actually,it is just
Christ,Christ being enjoyed and experienced by us.When we are in the real
enjoyment of Christ,we are enjoying the real oneness.Furthermore,this oneness
is our testimony.The Lord jesus prayed that we may be one,so that the world
may know…Oh,this is powerful! Of course our
standing in relation to this oneness is that our spirit could never agree
with division of any kind.We do not like to be involved in any kind of
division.We just like to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond
of peace.And,we like to arrive at the oneness of the faith which is common to
all saints.Our saving faith is common to all believers.We desire to stand
upon this oneness alone.All divisions either come out of sin,selfishness,or
ambition;or,perhaps just ignorance.We must be enlightened to see that we
should not be divided by anything.Spiritual leaders should never divide
us.nothing should divide us;rather,we should keep the genuine oneness of the
Spirit,with all saints.Our oneness should be just as large in scope as the
whole Body of Christ.Any oneness less than that we would not keep. 4.Our fourth point
is along this same line:what is our standing in relation to other Christians?There
are many other Christians beside us.To say nothing about the rest of the
world,just here in Aanaheim there must be thousands of other Christians.What
is our standing in relation to all of them-and I include all who were once
meeting withus,but who are no longer with us.They are all Christians.(They
did not get unsaved!)Plainly speaking,our relationship to them should be that
we love them all.We should love them all and receive them all,and feel that
we really need them all. Lately,I have been
considering this matter:what does it mean to love others?I surely believe it
is that we feel we need them.Oh,we need all other Christians.And we not only
need them,we want them;and,we are very open to them,and we care for them.We
just love them.Saints,I have been convicted by the Lord about my attitude
toward other Christians,and I have been repenting of this.I feel that our
attitude has not been the best:in the past,we have mocked and belittled other
Christians.It is high time we stop this!We must have the proper attitude of
love for all our brothers,for they are all members of the same Body.We are
members one of another,so we must surely love all other members,including all
who formerly met with us.Many who once met with us are still living right
around us.But we have mostly just written them off.We feel,Forget about
them.This is a wrong attitude.Recently a brother who left us ten years ago
called on the telephone.I was so happy to hear from him.he was just reaching
out for fellowship.Brother Al and I went to visit him,and we enjoyed the
fellowship,and had good prayer.He loves the Lord,and is quite much for the
Lord.I became very burdened to apologize for my attitude in the past;and,he
forgave me,I appreciated that. We must have the
right attitude with the proper love for all saints,no matter where they
are.This does not mean that we compromise the truth in any way.No,but we
surely love all Christians.We should never think that we are better;we are
probably worse than some.I am afraid that in the past-and I include myself-we
have had an elitist attitude,thinking that we are some kind of spiritual
elite.This is wrong.If our attitude is such,we are surely laodicea-we are in
a fallen state.Furthermore,what kind of practice is this among us of calling
other saints negative?No!I’ll tell you who is the only negative one:the
divil.If you feel like calling someone negative,tell the devil,You are
negative!We have called some saints negative,but actually,they only have some
very genuine concerns.Why can’t we believe that,and just love them?Oh
saints,let us love all the members of the one Body. 5.The fifth point
is our standing in relation to our vocation.What is our work,our
profession,our calling?In other words,what should we be doing?This question
has been asked：What are we doing here,anyway?Saints,our
vocation is just to build up the Body of Christ.This is our work,our
profession,our service.Tonight,we sang in a hymn that nothing else shall
suffice the Lord,but this.This is what He is doing today,building up His
Body.And this is what the apostles exhorted us all to do.We all have a part
in the building. First Corinthians
3 tells us that we all are building.Everyone is building upon the one
foundation which has been laid.This chapter also warns us to be careful how
we build:we must use the proper materials.Ephesians 4 speaks about the work
of the ministry unto the building up of the Body of Christ,and about the Body
building itself up in love.So,saints,our work,our vocation is to build up the
Body of Christ.Whatever we are and whatever we do should just build up the
Body,and be for the building up.We must not build up anything else. When we speak
about what our standing should be,we also must make clear what our standing
should not be:it should not be to build up any work or ministry.In fact,all
ministry must be for the Body.We sang tonight that all the ministry is for
the churches,not the churches for the ministry.So,our vocation is to build up
the Body.And it is here that we all have a lot to do,to build up one another
in life and oneness,to build up the Body of Christ! 6.Our sixth point
goes right along with this:what is our purpose,or aim?It is to be the Lord’s
testimony,His full expression.The Lord needs His expression one this earth
today,so this should also be our aim.The end product must be that we have a
testimony.We are not here for a work or an activity.(I do not mean that we
should not go and preach the gospel.Don’t misunderstand me.)We are here
simply to be His testimony. I have recently
been reading nehemiah.This book shows jerusalem’s sad case:the walls were
broken down and the gates bumed with fire.nehemiah saw this,and not only was
his spirit stirred up,but his heart was very concemed and
burdened.jerusalem,the Lord’s people,were in reproach.Saints,I honestly feel
that we have been in reproach,with no testimony.The walls are broken down and
the gates are burned with fire!The walls not only speak of separation,but
also of the testimony.I hope that the lord will recover us to build up the
walls of Jerusales,to build up His testimony.The Body needs to be built up so
that we will be a testimony.Dear Lord,recover us!Recover Your
testimony!Saints,this must be our standing,that we just want to the the
Lord’s testimony. 7.The seventh
point is,what is our standing in relation to the ministry?I believe that with
this point there is much confusion.you hear many saints using this phrase,
“the ministry”.But I would say they are mis-using it,and abusing it.They are
not using it at all properly.This kind of speaking, “We are for the
ministry,”or, “They are not for the ministry”has been heard by most all of
us. First,I want to
define what the ministry is according to the truth.Very briefly,according to
God’s Word,the unique ministry is the dispensing of God into His people to
produce the Chruch.This is a simple statement of the truth.now,let me ask
you,Are you for the ministry?This is
the ministry.However,in most cases,I think that when we use this term.we just
mean a certain person’s ministry.No,saints,we all should be ministers in this
one upique ministry.it is not the exclusive ministry of any one person.We
must realize this.Acts 1:17 speaks of Judas having lost the ministry.It says
that he“had his portion in this ministry.”All the twelve had their
portion.And,we all have our portion in this minnistry. You may say, “Well
aren’t there some especially gifted ones who are in this ministry?”Yes,there
are the apostles,prophets,evangelists,shepherds and teachers.But,they are all
plural.This is a corporate matter.There are many in this ministry.And we all
have a share,a portion in this one unique ministry of God being dispensed
into His people to build up the Body of Christ.Hallelujah!I hope that we
could have a new kind of speaking,that when we talk about the ministry,we
will all be clear that we are not talking about any one person’s ministry.If
you are talking about one person’s ministry,then say so.If it’s Brother
so-and-so’s ministry,say “Brother so-and-so’s ministry.”May we all have a
renewed understanding regarding the meaning of the ministry and our part in
it. 8.I now come to
the eighth point:what is our standing in relation to the apostles?According
to God’s Word,apostles are always plural.Recently I liiked up this word in
the concordance.it is used only in the singular when it refers to a specific
person,like“Paul,an apostle of Jesus Christ;”or, “Peter,an apostle of Jesus
Christ. All the other times,it is plural:e.g., “He gave some
apostles…”(Eph.4).There were the twelve apostles,and many other apostles.you
have the apostles’ fellowship,which is s’,not’s.They continued stedfastly in
the apostles’(plural)fellowship,and in the apostles’(plural)teaching.I think
we all need some calibration in this point also.The apostles are
plural.But,I’m afraid that if you asked most saints in the churches today,
“How many apostles are there?”They would say, “One,…only one.”No,brothers and
sisters,there are many apostles today.Some of you may wonder, “Who are
they?”Well,I could tell you a number of them.Anyway,the apostles are
plural,according to God’s Word. Furthermore,the
many apostles,with all the gifted members,are given for the building up of
the Body of Chirst,not for building up their own work,their ministry.They are
for the Body.So what should our attitude be toward these apostles?We should
receive from them anything of life and truth,anything they may have which
will help us and benefit us for the building up of the Body.We all should be
willing to receive from all the apostles. The New Testament
gives us many examples of a number of apostles being in very good fellowship
and coordination.First Cornthians shows that Paul and Apollos were in a good
relationship of mutual respect and coordination.Paul commended
Apollos,calling himself a planter,and Apollos a waterer(I Cor.3).In chapter 16,he
recommended and urged Apollos to go to visit Corinth.Also,in Titus 3:13,Pual
says,When Zenas and Apollos come to you,send them on their way;take care of
them.The apostles had a mutual love and care for one another,and a good
coordination together.Saints,we all surely need one another.And apostles need
one another.No one man is complete or all-inclusive. We must see
another point about the apostles,which Paul emphasized in I Corinthians 4:6,
“Now these things brothers,I have applied to myself and Apollos for your
sakes,that you may learn in us not to go beyond what has been written.”In
other words,do not exalt us,or consider us,beyond what has been
written.And,what had been written?Chapter 4 refers back to chapters 1-3.In
chapter 3,pual said, “I planted,and Apollos watered,but GOD made to grow.So
that,neither is the one who planted anything,nor the one who watered,but the
One who made to grow,GOD.”Do not go beyond that!Then,in 4:1,he continues, “In
this way,let a man so account of us as servants of Christ,and stewards of the
mysteries of God.” Don’t you remember
what was happening in Corinth?They were exalting this one and that one.Some
were saying that they were of Paul,others of Cephas,and others of
Apollos.They were exalting certain ones beyond what had been
written.Saints,we should not exalt any apostle or any servant of the Lord
beyond what is written.If we do,we fall into the very situation of
Corinth,and the result will be the same,division!I hope we would not do
this.Again,I must say that we are not against anyone.We should love,honor and
respect everyone,especially the apostles and ministers which the Lord has
given to His Body.But we should never go beyond what is written. May we all take
the proper standing based upon these eight points.This will save us from many
troubles,and we will be enabled to go on in a proper,good way. Brother Godfred
otuteye:The points which John has just shared are very important for us to
understand the practical things I am going to share.For the Church to go on
we must understand the importance of the genuine oneness of the Body.You
see,some of the items I will mention tonight have already been used by some
as the ground of oneness:e.g.,if a certain person does not practice certain
things,he is condemned as not being “one with the ministry. ”But these things
I will mention are not items of the ground of the oneness of the church.This
is why it is critical that we all be clear concerning them. 9.First is the
church administration.We all sang that line in Hymn 824,Administration
local,each answering to the Lord.We have sung this many times,and we know
it,but we do not practice the reality!This has resulted in a lot of trouble
among us.The spirtitual oversight and practical administration of things in a
local church are the responsibility of the elders there.They must bear the
responsibility for the shepherding,theaching,and practical care of the chruch
in their locality.However do not become a class of people who replace the
brothers and sisters.No,they and the saints should do the Lord’s work
there,with the elders having the oversight over this work under the direct
Headship of Christ Himself. The local church
does not have any headquarters,but only the Headship of the Lord Himself.In
the early days we often heard it said:We have no headquarters;neither do we
have any head office.The local churches should not be subject to any central
control.Saints,the church in Anaheim should not be subject to any
headquarters,head office,or central control,except that which comes down from
the third heavens!However,this does not mean that we do not fellowship with
the apostles who have founded the chruches.We do have mutual fellowship with
others.But in the administration of any fellowship,in the carrying out of
that fellowship,if the elders should decide to carry it out,it is their
responsibility.Please note how in I Corinthians 5,even though Paul told the
church in Corinth that they had to excommunicate that sinful brother,Paul did
not excommunicate him.The church there did it.Paul gave them the
teaching,what was right according to God’s principle;but its out-working was
the responsibility of the elders there with the church. Why am I saying so
much about this point?Because in the last few years we have not practiced
this in Anaheim.I would even say this-and because I am one of the brothers
taking the lead here,the Lord cover me-I would say that to a certain extent
we brothers abdicated our responsibility to the Lord and to the church
here.We came under the influence and pressures of a lot of extemal
things.Many activities of the Lord’s work became the source,directing our
church.There was a period of time here when we were changing course every few
weeks.First we closed the meeting hall down and sent everybody home;then we
called everybody back!However,I am not criticizing anyone else for doing
this.The criticism should mostly be upon us,because we had the responsibility
to see what was right and best for the chruch here;and we were not faithful
to the Lord in this matter. Tonight I am
representing the other brothers here to apologize to the chruch.During these
past months,when we began to see what has been happening to us,we have very
much repented to the Lord.But we owe all of you an apology.We feel that what
we did was wrong,and we should not practice this anymore.Whatever comes out
of the Lord’s speaking anywhere,the brothers taking the responsibility in a
particular church ought to pray and seek the Lord to see if that is the right
thing for their locality at that time.There are many wonderful things in the
Scriptures,and many wonderful things which the Lord’s servants are
speaking;but we do not practice everything at the same time.Some things are
good for this moment,while some will be good for tomorrow;and some things may
not be right for us to do at all.It is the responsibility of the leading
brothers along with the whole church to seek the Lord and His guidance as to
what is right for us in our locality at any particular time. In the
past,certain ones have come to the elders,speaking very strongly, “How come
we are not practicing such and such,because this was spoken last night at
such and such a place?If our church is going to be one with the ministry,we
have to do this right away!”Well,saints,we would like to make it very
clear,that our not practicing what was spoken last night does not mean that
we do not accept it or receive it.However,it may not be the right thing for
us at this time.Too much in the past we have zig-zaged this way and that!We
have wasted and lost a lot of time.Many saints became confused and lost
heart,not coming to the meetings anymore.Some even feel that the elders do
not know what they are doing.And it does look that way. 10.The second
thing I need to share is concerning the Living Stream Ministry Office.In the
last few years this office and its management has been promoted exceedingly
among us,and even exalted among us.This statement was made: “To be one with
the Living Stream ministry Office and its management is to be one with the
apostle.”(This is an exact quote).And,conversely,not to be one with the
living Stream Ministry office is to not be one with the
apostle.Furthermore,in the environment of this kind of pressure and
promotion,we elders in Anaheim joined together with many other brothers to
declare publicly our oneness with this.i believe that when we did this we
were representing you,declaring that the church here was one with the Living
Stream Ministry office and its management.These very things were spoken in
some of our meetings. We feel that we
must address these issues tonight because we did something publicly,and it
was wrong;therefore,we should take care of it publicly.We declared our
oneness with the Living Stream Ministry Office and its management.Then,due to
such promotion,that office beganto exercise a level of influence over some of
the churches-I dare not say all of them,but certainly including Anaheim-and
over the yong peoples work,to a degree that we today consider
objectionable.We do not agree with this,and we also will not stand for
this.Since we declared publicly that we were one with this office,even so ,we
now must make it clear that it is inappropriate for the church as an
organic,divine entity to be one with a business office.These two things are
not compatible! Furthermore,there
have been certain practices and conduct in the Living Stream Ministry Office
which we find intolerable.We want to say here openly that as the church in
this locality,we disassociate ourselves from those practices and that
conduct.Again,the reason we are doing this is because you saints were put
under the impression that because we publicly declared our oneness with this
office,therefore we are one whith everything going one there.This is why we
must publicly undo what we have done.Again,I must confess that the blame for
our church’s improper relationship with the Living Stream Ministry office
must be bome by us elders;it should not be put on the doorstep of that
office.For a period of time,we-and I took considerable lead in this
matter,but all the brothers feel responsible for this,and acknowledge having
done it-we publicly promoted these things and this office.We pressed the
saints and even pushed them to serve there,and to be one with that office and
its management.Even to some extent I encouraged the saints to shut their
mouths,no matter what they saw,or what happened.Forgive us for this!We want
to tell the church that we are sorry. The Living Stream
Ministry Office is a business office,engaged in the publishing,distribution
and sales of Christian literature.Our relationship with that office should
have been at this level,and nothing more.The Living Stream Ministry Office
has no authority over this church.And the church here is under no obligation
to serve there.(Your decision to work there as an employee,or to serve there,is
your own personal decision,not a matter of the church).We hope that this
matter is very clear to all of us now,so that we may go on properly in the
church here. 11.Next,I want to
share regarding matters related to the Life-Studies and to Christian literature
in general:our reading of Christian literature other than the Bible can be a
great help to our spiritual life.In 2 Timothy,Paul asked Timothy to bring the
scrolls which he had left at Troas.he also said, “And especially the
parchments…”You may say that these were all Scriptures;but we could also say
that there may have been other materials which were all Scriptures;but we
could also say that there may have been other materials which were also
helpful to Paul in his work.Anyway,this does indicate that Pual had some kind
of library!Be that as it may,our point is that the reading of spiritual books
is edifying to us.We encourage you to read any Christian literature which you
find edifying,doing so at your discretion.
However,we would like to say that none of us should ever allow these
spiritual materials to become a crutch or a replacement for the reading of
our Bible.It does not matter what material or whose material it is.It is too
easy for these things which are a help to us to become a replacement,just as
spiritual leaders can so easily become a replacement for the lord Himself.We
must never allow this to happen.Furthermore,for anyone to insist that the
saints have to read only the materials published by the Living Stream
Ministry is altogether too much.Anyone among us who holds this concept,or
insists upon this is going too far,for it tums our church into a sect.On the
other hand,to oppose the reading of footnotes,Life-Studies,or books published
by the Living Stream Ministry is also sectarian.We don’t agree with that
either.All of you should have the full liberty to read any Christian
literature which you find edifying.Then,if in a meeting a saint wants to read
a certain point,a footnote,or something which has helped him,we all should be
open to receive it.But we should not insist that everyone do it.We hope that
you all are clear about this matter now. 12.Our next point
is concerning the Booksales which we have here in the hall.We are operating
this service strictly as a non-profit service to you all.Some of you who are
against this may ask me to show you a Bible verse which says we can sell
something in the hall.Well,there is no Bible verse to tell us to use
air-conditioning or electricity!Saints,if you press any point too far,the
whole thing becomes ridiculous.In all of these practical matters,we should
exercise the spirit of generality:i.e.,if a thing is not sinful and it is
useful to the saints,then it is okay. We
have this service as a convenience for you.After the meetings it is much
easier to just go back there and buy any books which you need,rather than
having to go to a bookstore.But during the past few years,especially since I
have been here,we have done far too much advertising and merchandising of
certain books.And in our spirit,when we considered this whole matter before
the Lord,we realized it has been altogether too much.The church meeting
should not be turned into the merchandising of any materials.Things have
their place,and it is not appropriate to do this here.So we will continue
this service,but we will no longer advertise or promote any books.All of you
are free to go afterward to see what is new,what is old,or what is
what.Also,you who do not agree with us having a booksales service,you are
free not to use it;you may go to any bookstore outside to buy.But as a
convenience for you who want to get materials here,whether they are published
by the Living Stream Ministry or by anyone else,we make this service
available to you. 13.Another point
we must make clear to you concems the semi-annual trainings.many saints have
attended these trainings at one time or another and have received help from
them.However,we now feel that from this time onward we will no longer
interrupt our church life during the trainings.Of any of you wish to attend a
training,feel free to do so.That is your own personal decision.And if there
is a video training,we will make a room available in the hall for you who
wish to attend.But for you saints who do not attend a training,our church
life will continue on a regular schedule during the time the training is
taking place,so you may attend the meetings here.We brothers think this is
fine and good.We will not close our doors,or stop any meetings,or do anything
which will disturb our schedule.If we are in Ephesians during the training,we
will continue in it.But I say again,if you want to go,just to;if you don’t
want to go,don’t go;and you may attend the regular meetings of the church
here if you wish. 14.Another point
we must cover is,what is our standing in relation to the other churches?we
should respect and highly esteem all other churches,whether they are samll or
large.And we should have full fellowship with all of them with a good traffic
between us and them.After all,we are members one of another,we are all of the
one Body of Christ.however,we here do not want the elders of any other
churches to be telling us what to do.I feel very sorry that we have let this
kind of thing happen here in Anaheim. When I was in
lrvine,I remember telling some brothers: “Never come back from visiting
another church and put our church down because of what you have seen
there.”This kind of thing used to happen a lot.If we see something good in
another church,we might minister that to the saints,but we should not compel
the church in our place to begin right away to practice like some other
church.No,we should seek the lord about thhis matter:what does He want for us
in our locality? 15.Another point
we must clarify is regarding practices:e.g.,to practice things like
door-knocking.I am mentioning this matter because this happened recently:last
year our church almost had a division over this!So we must state that in all
these matters we must practice generality with all the saints.Any practice
which is not sinful,we should not oppose;but,neither should we impose
it.There should he no persuasion and no opposition,no insisting and no
resisting,in any practice.i can testify that shortly after I was saved,I did
a lot of door-to-door preaching of the gospel,and a lot of people got
saved.There is nothing wrong with preaching the gospel in this
way.however,when we brothers said that everybody had to practice this
way,this was altogether too much and was against the principle of
generality.Tonight,we would like the church here to be clear that we stand
against this kind of thing.We should not force anyone to do anything in
practice. I also remember
clearly how last year,for many meetings,those who were going out
door-knocking literally took over the church meetings.They gave testimonies
about this and about that;but the rest of the church became totally disgusted
with this.Saints,these kind of things should not have happened to us.We are
surely open to receive from those who practice a certain thhing,but it should
not be forced upon anyone.We must be very general regarding any practice. 16.My final point
is conceming this matter of the Gospel.We brothers really hope and pray that
out of your enjoyment of the lord,you all will preach the gospel to your
neighbors,to your friends and to people around you,preaching it widely,and
preaching it daily!However,we must make it clear that there is no one
particular way in which we must preach the gospel.Any proper way is good.(We
should not appreciate using rock-n-roll,or movies,or any worldly means to
attract people to the Lord;but,any proper way of preaching is okay.)If you
invite people to your home,that is good,and to go to their home is good.But
none of us should insist upon any particular way of gospel work,or it will
again cause division in the church.No,the church is one Body;it is organic
and living! These are the
practical points we brothers wish to share with you.Again,we are sorry for
the things which we have done wrongs,and we ask the Lord and you all to
forgive us.Furthermore,our reason for having this fellowship is not to
vindicate anyone or to condemn anyone,or to do anything for ourselves.We are
having this fellowship for the purpose of bringing us all back to the Lord
Himself.he is our head,He is our center;and He should be the entire,unique
content of the church life!We hope that the things we have briefly mentoined
will clear up the past so that we all can go forward together positively as
the church in our city. Brother Albert
Knoch:It is so good to hear tonight’s fellowship,and I just want to confirm
by a testimony the clear standing which the brothers have presented.I
recently visited some churches in Europe.They don’t know about all the
turmoil we have been in,but I believe that all of them would agree with our
standing here tonight.There is nothing wrong with what has been shared;the
Word of God teaches these truths.Of course,we are not here to oppose anything
which the Lord has given us through the years.But I must say that as I
listened to the fellowship in the localities in Europe,I heard just about the
same things.They are asking:“Are we really the local church with a general
standing,open to every Christian in our city?Or,are we a sect?”They,like
us,are concerned,because through their practices over the past few years-and
they were trying to follow what they considered the up-to-date,present move
of the Lord-they found out that gradually they were becoming a very special
kind of “church”,not a local church(i.e.,in their meetings they read only
certain materials,etc.) I don’t know
exactly how the Lord will bring us out of this condition we have gotten
into,but I do feel that what the brothers have shared about the proper
standing and practices will help a lot.When I was in Europe,in a church
meeting there,even though I could not understand their language,I realized in
my spirit that anything which is not Christ is just not the church!The church
is just Christ.Oh,saints,any fearfulness on our part has to be taken away;we
must not be afraid of just following Christ,and of having Him alone as our unique
Head!I saw some saints who were not following the ministry the way we thought
we had to.I saw these saints enjoying the Lord so much,loving Him and serving
Him,and being more fruitful than myself,even leading many to the Lord and
bringing them into the church life.They are open to Brother lee’s ministry,as
well as to ministry from many others.They just enjoy them all and use
whatever they can.When a certain practice comes,they just look to the
anointing within them;and,if they feel led to do it,they just do it .If they
don’t feel led to,they just don’t do it.They are under no obligation to
please anyone but the Lord Himself.They all come together to enjoy Christ and
share Him for the building up. I feel I also have
to apologize to you for my part in all the promotions and the things which I
have done and said.Our heart has always been to do what is good for the
building up of the church.But we have realized that we must not bring in
anything except Christ.I do appreciate this word about the New Testament
ministry being all our responsibility:even if you are with just one other brother,and you are in your
spirit ministering Christ,you are ministering the New Testament ministry to
him!You are building up the church at that time,and you are being perfected in
the ministry. Oh,saints,the Lord
has put us all on the ground of the oneness of His Body in this locality,and
we just have no way to leave.We have to stay here until we are keeping the
oneness of the Spirit and arriving at the oneness of the faith,until we grow
up into the full reality of the One who said that He would build His church.I
am very aware that the one whom the Lord jesus called a stone,was just a few
minutes later called by Him,Satan!Thus,whenever we get into our natural
man,we are capable of all kinds of mistakes and of doing much
damage.Nevertheless,we must still stay together on the ground of oneness in
our locality until all these things are dealt with,and we have the pure
church (the Bride),which is just the Lord Himself built up in us,through
us,and with us! AppendixⅡ:A Letter from Titus Chu and James Reetzke February 12,1989 John ingalls,Albert Knoch,Philip
Lin,Minoru Chen The church in Anaheim 1855 West Ball Road Anaheim,CA 92804 Dear Brothers. We
feel compelled,brothers,to write this letter to you because of concerns we
have as a result of the printed materials and audio tapes that have been sent
out since last October until now.These were sent out from some in your church
to many individuals of different local churches.As your co-workers in the
Lord’s Recovery for these many years we are concerned both with their content
and the disturbing effects that they are having.What purports to be local
concerns do in fact exert an extra-local influence and interference.We would
like to stand with all churches,including the church in Anaheim,but due to
certain actions taken and decisions made by you brothers,we find it difficult
at this time.it would seem that you are calling upon all the other churches
to ratify your stand. How can a few elders speak for all of the
elders in your locality?
The administration of the church in Anaheim has been with five
elders.Why then do two or three elders purport to speak for the whole
church?Considering the seriouseness of the issues raised and the stand that
was taken,dose it not demand a basic agreement among all the elders?Since the
beginning of the Lord’s Recovery in this country,among the local churches,it
has been our practice that no decision of so serious a nature should be made
without a consensus of all the elders.We have always highly prized the
oneness among those taking the lead.Whenever there have been different
views,the Lord has been sought in prayer,even with fasting,until all the
elders were of one mind.Any operation outside of such a oneness is a proof
that we are short of truth,lacking in life,and caring for our work above the
Lord’s Testimony.Such a violation of this principle also has set a bad
example for the churches today as well as for new churches in the future. What is the relationship of the church in
Anaheim to Brother Lee? We are
wondering,brothers,why you have treated the relationship of the church in
Anaheim to Brother Lee as something so common and general.You state,“We will
announce the meetings of Brother Lee and other servants of the Lord which we
deem appropriate…”Is it not a fact that through the past years he has had a
close and intimate relationship with the church in Anaheim?Was it not Brother
Lee who raised up the church?Has it not been our brother who ministered tirelessly
and unselfishly from the beginning?Did not our brother appoint you as
elders?Has he not considered the church in Anaheim his church base out from
which he has gone to carry out the ministry committed to him by the Lord?Is
it not a fact that you brothers and the church in Anaheim owe him your
existence?Both the facts and our conscience testify that he is the begetting
father of the church in Anaheim,as well as numerous other churches,and the
travailing mother for our growth that Christ could be formed in us. We have commonly
maintained that Brother Watchman Nee was the one used by the Lord to bring
His Recovery to China.As you,John,stated in a conference in New Zealand in
1981.Brother Nee“was an important vessel in the Lord’s Recovery and a great
gift to the church.”It has also been our understanding and experience that
Brother Witness Lee brought the Lord’s Recovery to the United States.His
teaching was the same as Brother Nee’s which we all acknowledged as from the
Lord and which we all received.This was a continuation of the one flow of God
on the earth from the throne.in comparing these two brothers,you,John stated
in the same conference in January 1981, “Nee saw it (the pattern of the
church life),like Moses saw the vision on the mountain,and Lee put it into
practice,like Joshua who brought the people into the good land.”You further
said of the life-study messages begun by Brother Lee in April 1974 that they
“are a rich supply of life and truth to the local churches and to all the
Lord’s children,the whole church of God.”We heartily agree with these
statements of yours which,in
essence,you expressed on many occasions. Our
concern,however,is whether or not this is still your position regarding
Brother Lee.Do you still maintain,as we do,that God’s oracle today is with
Brother Lee?If not,then where is God’s oracle today?upon what kind of
“recovery”do you base your church life today? John,you
enumerated many items revealed by God through Brother Nee as well as many
revealed through Brother Lee.As to the items of revelation given through
Brother Lee,you said also in 1981 in New Zealand, “We were amazed at the
riches that were pouring out of this man.”We do concur with this.We would
testify that the churches in the Lord’s Recovery have been greatly enriched and
the saints perfected by all these items of revelation.We would humbly
ask,however,whether or not there has been some other items revealed by the
Lord through you,or the leading brothers with you? Why was the title of the paper changed
from “The Standing of the church in Anaheim”to “The Proper Standing of the
Church?” You originally
spoke on August 28,1988 on behalf of one local church.The transcript of what
three of the five elders spoke was titled, “The Standing of the church in
Anaheim.”Now an eight-page revision of this is called, “The Proper Standing
of the Church.”Do you now consider that you are some what the voice for alll
the local churches universally?We are concerned about this.We are not sure
what churches you can speak for as we do not know which churches were
actually raised up by your labor. We are also not
clear why,at this point in time,you are making issues of the Word of God,the
apostleship,the genuine oneness,and other matters.We and the churches we
serve,have always had such teachings which have been the basis for our
practice.Your statements only tend to damage the oneness between Brother Lee
and the churches and among the different churches.That you would change the
title causes us to wonder whether you ever intended to speak merely for the
church in Anaheim.Dear brothers,you should not speak for all of the churches. Shouldn’t we be
open to the fellowship from all the brothers,from those with whom we have
labored in the Lord’s Recovery,and sepecially from the one who has raised us
up? As you surely
recall,I,Titus,made a special trip to California last September and tried for
five days to see you,John.Eventually I was able to have only three to four
hours of fellowship with you.At that time I assured you that I honored your
leading before the Lord. Also,I strongly
encouraged you to have fellowship with Brother Lee.Certainly such a brother
who has spiritually raised us up and is more mature than we all are in the
Lord can afford us much helpful fellowship.I realize that you had already had a number of sessions with Brother
Lee.However,they appear to be more sessions of demand rather than times of
spiritual fellowship.Even now I would repeat what I said to you face-to –face
that it would always be of a profit to you personally and to the church you
serve to seek for fellowship from such a brother.your failure to seek out
such fellowship comes as a surprise to me. Further,you recall
how I wept in your presence as I cautioned you that what you were doing would
eventually damage the Lord’s Recovery.To confirm this fellowship,I called you
long-distance in October with the same exhortation.Brother,I am disappointed
that you did not take this fellowship. Why has no
definite stand been taken by the elders in Anaheim with regard to rebellious
actions in the meeting and to the circulation of the divisive tape? In reference to a
meeting of the church in Anaheim of which we have received a tape,we have
some concerns to fellowship with you.Having received a tape from an anonymous
sender with an Anaheim address,it was a shock to us to realize that such a
meeting,fully dominated by the Evil One,could have taken place in one of the
churches in the lord’s Recovery.It is so evident from the tape that such a
meeting was one void of life,love,light,and truth.How else can we view such a
meeting where persons refused to stop talking even when admonished by the
elders,the elders themselves are rebuked,and saints are accused of sins
publicly with their names named?We realize that you elders tried to stop such
fleshly speaking and rebellious actions but to no avail.Our
concern,though,brothers,is that although you“publicly denounced and
rebuked”such persons,yet,to our knowledge,no disciplinary action has been
taken against those speaking such things in the meeting as well as those who
are circulating the tape of this meeting. Three elders of
the church in Cleveland have received two separate copies of the same tape
from the same P.O.box address.How subtle!Is not this designed to produce
division among the elders in other localities and confusion among the saints? We wonder whether
those rebellious ones are taking advantage of the lack of oneness among the
elders to produce the same kind of confusion found in Anaheim in other
localities.Why was not a formal letter of apology written to all the churches
and a formal disclaimer made to this kind of circulation so that the
eldership could become healthier and the other churches
protected?Brothers,how we pray for you and uphold you before the Lord so that
your spiritual perception can become
normal and healthy,and the damage to other churches could be limited. We are further
concerned about your statement that you would “encourage the saints who were
offended and grieved by other matters shared in that meeting to go directly
to the brothers themselves according to the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 18.”To
our understanding,Matthew 18 does not apply in this particular
incidence.Those rebellious ones have not offended ones in private,rather,they
have spoken out against God’s delegated authority in Anaheim and against the
members of the Body.This is a matter that should be taken care of by the
elders as Paul admonished in 2 Thes.3:6(ataktos)and I Cor.5:11(loidoros). Once the churches
are raised up by the apostles and elders are appointed,what,if any,is to be
the continuing relationship of church with apostle? It would seem that
we have an instructive illustration in the relationship of the apostle Paul
with the church in Ephesus.He preached the gospel to those in Ephesus and
many believed(Acts 19:18).A church was raised up with elders(20:17).Paul was
with them from the start(20:18)for three years (20:31)laboring among them
night and day declaring to them the whole counsel of God(20:27).Paul was with
them as a slave,serving with humility,tears,and trials(20:18,31).He was there
as an apostle perfecting the saints(Eph.4:12) .As with the church in Thessalonica,he was
there as a father with his own children(1 Thes.2:11).We would testify the
same for Brother Lee.Since the beginning of the church life in this country
in 1962,our brother has labored didigently,unselfishly,with humility and
tears in spite of much opposition at times and many trials.He has opened to
us the whole Word of God and,especially,has helped us to see the economy of
God,our human spirit,and many other truths from God’s Word.Without our
brother’s ministry to the churches,how would we have known God’s New
Testament economy?The Lord’s anointing upon our brother today is as rich as
ever.he ministers today the Lord’s burden for the building up the Body of
Christ.This was your realization in the past and we trust that is still is.
Brothers,in conclusion.We would assure you that we are for you and do
pray earnestly to the Lord for you.We would like to believe you when you say,
“We are for the Lord and His recovery,for His truth.”The Lord’s Recovery iin
this country has been pure from the beginning.From the time of Brother
Nee,for over 60 years,every point of truth and every aspect of the Recovery
we practice today have been tested and tried,but they are still standing.The
Recovery has remained pure.We thank the Lord for this.We trust that the Lord
would give you wisdom that you would neither damage your ministry in general
nor the building up of the church in Anaheim.We would also hope that other
churches will not be frustrated.may we all know more,in our experience,of
Christ and His cross.May the enemy be exposed for his stratagems against the
Body.Finally,may a sweet fellowship be restored among all the elders and
churches,where all speak the same thing and all are attuned in the same mind
with a genuine love among all the brothers. Your brothers in Christ. Titus Chu James Reetzke.Sr. Appendix Ⅲ:An Open Letter to the Speakers in the Meeting of
the Church in Anaheim on August 28,1988 An open Letter to the Speakers in the
meeting of the Church in Anaheim on August 28,1988 April 10,1989 Dear Brothers John Ingalls,Godfred
Otuteye,and Al Knoch, On
August 28,1988,during a church meeting,you put forth sixteen points
concerning“the standing of the church in Anaheim,”Your speaking was recorded
and transcribed,the transcript was duplicated,and copies were mailed to many
brothers and sisters,often anonymously.The distribution of this material,for
which you must bear responsibility,has been a cause of disturbance to some
saints and some churches far away from Anaheim.Because of this
disturbance,because certain aspects of this material are contrary to the
truth,and especially because we regard your sixteen points as a covert attack
upon the ministry of our Brother Lee,we have prepared this letter.
Whether you realize it or not,what took place in Anaheim on August 28
was not merely a local church matter but also a Body matter,that is,a matter
affecting other churches,even the whole Body of Christ on earth.Brothers,we
are grieved by the spirit of your speaking when we read the
transcript,especially by the innuendos and implications,all of which we feel
are aimed at Brother Lee.Therefore,as those in the other churches who are
burdened for the building up of the Body,we feel that we must present to
you,by means of an open letter,this response to your sixteen points. 1.Your Standing Concerning the Word of God We cannot agree
with Brother John’s call for a reinstatement of the Word of God among us,as
though the Word of God has lost its standing in the first place.We do not
feel,as Brother John does,that we have left the Word of God as our proper
standing and have gone astray to some other basis.We have always based our
standing on the Scriptures.And we have full conviction that our present
standing and practice is still based on the Word of God. We
do not agree with the innuendo that what the churches have partaken of in the
past few years in the ministry of Brother Lee is also a departure from the
Word of God.We are convinced by our examination of the Scriptures that what
the churches are beginning to see and experience is absolutely scriptural and
of great benefit and progress to the Lord’s recovery. We
in the lord’s recovery have always had a deep and proper respect for the
Bible as the written word of God.We have never given any other writings a
standing equal to that of the Bible as the Word of God.In this regard we
would like to echo what Brother Lee has said on the matter,not only as a
declaration of our respect for the Bible,but also as a reminder to you
brothers of what Brother Lee has long held and taught among us:
The whole Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim.3:16).Do not take any word
other than the Bible as the Word of God;otherwise,you can the led into
heresy.Apart from the Bible,you have no sure Word of God.Whatever is in the
Bible,you may rest assured,is the Word of God.(Life Messages,Message
Twenty-four,pg.216) 2.Your Standing
Concerning the Church You point.out that
the standing of the church in Anaheim concerning the church is “the ground of
the one Body of Christ.”By such a statement do you mean the ground of the
oneness of the unique,universal Body of Christ expressed in each locality?If
so,such a standing is common to all the local churches in the Lord’s
recovery.Any other standing on this matter is a radical departure from the
standing revealed in the New Testament and maintained in the Lord’s recovery
throught all the years. Standing on the
ground of the oneness of the Body of Christ entails a number of matters
related to the practice of the church life according to the way ordained by
God and revealed in the New Testament.Of these matters we mention only three. First,this
standing implies that our goal in the church life should not be to build up a
congregation as an organization but to build up the one unique,universal Body
of Christ as a divine organism.If a local church takes the way of
organization and not the way of the divine organism.If a local church takes
the way of organization and not the way of the divine organism,what is built
up in that church will not fit in with the organic nature of the one
Body.Since we stand on the ground of the oneness of the Body,we should have
that practice,revealed by God in His Word,which is in accord with the organic
nature of the Body of Christ. Second,standing on
the ground of the oneness of the Body entails a consciousness of the whole
Body and not only of the church in our locality.Our oneness is not merely a
matter related to the locality we are in,as your phrase“the ground of oneness
in locality”would suggest,but is rather the oneness of the entire Body of
Christ expressed by all the local churches on the earth.If we are truly
conscious of the Body,we should not do anything locally that will be
injurious to the Body universally.In other words,we should care fro the sense
of the Body and we should consider how our actions locally will affect the
other churches.We believe that such care and consideration were seriously
lacking in what you did on August 28. Third,if we care
for the building up of the Body as an organism and not for the building up of
a congregation as an organization,and if we are conscious of the Body and
have an earnest care for other churches as expressions of the Body and not merely
a consciousness of and concern for the situation in our own local church,we
shall have an excellent relationship in fellowship with the other local
churches.We believe that what you did on August 28 was localistic and in
violation of the spirit of fellowship among the churches. 3.Your Standing Concerning Genuine Oneness In your discussion
of genuine oneness,you are subtly attacking Brother Lee and his ministry.This
is indicated by statements like, “[Genuine oneness]could never be
organized,or taught;and,it cannot be forced,” “We are liable to build up
Babel…(Babel was a kind of oneness of the flesh),” “…our spirit could never
agree with division of any kind…”“All divisions either come out of
sin,selfishness,or ambition;or,maybe just ignorance,” “Spiritual leaders
should never divide us.”The clear implications of this language are that
Brother Lee,as a spiritual leader,is a factor of division and also that those
that are one with him are involved in division. We wish to say
that Brother Lee has never been a factor of division and that he has never
done anything to gain a personal following.On the contrary,he has taken the
lead not only to proclaim but also to practice the genuine,organic
oneness,which is the oneness of the Spirit and the oneness of the faith and
of the full knowledge of the Son of God.We testify that we are one with our
brother in Christ Jesus and that we endeavor to labor together with him for
the building up of the Body. Furthermore,we
would also like to point out that your teaching on oneness is different from
the apostles teaching.According to the New Testament,the oneness of the
Spirit must be kept by all genuine believers,while the oneness of the faith
and of the full knowledge of the Son of God is something at which we all must
arrive.In teaching the truth concerning oneness,it is vital that we clearly
distinguish,as the Bible does,between the oneness of the Spirit,which we
should be diligent to keep,and the oneness of the faith and of the full
knowledge of the Son of God,at which we must all arrive. 4.Your Standing
Concerning Other Christians You say, “In the
past we have mocked and belittled other Christians.”An attitude of mocking
and belittled other believers certainly is not the attitude prevalent in
other local churches.We reject any intimation or suggestion that,to use your
words,the saints in other churches regard themselves as “somekind of
spiritual elite,”or that it is our practice to mock and belittle other
Christians. Regarding your
standing in relation to other Christians,you speak of the the “practice of
calling other saints negative,”You claim that the only negative one is the
Devil,and then you go on to say that those who have been called negative
“only have some very genuine concerns.”The implications of this notion are serious
and far reaching,for they open the door to all manner of destructive speaking
under the guise of having a genuine concern.You have already senn what has
happened in your church meetings when the saints have the license to be in
the flesh and speak whatever they desire under the pretext of sharing a
concern. The New Testament
may not use the word “negative,”but it does have much to say about unhealthy
and improper speaking (e.g.Matt.12:36; Rom.16:16-17; 2Tim.2:14,16-18; Titus
1:10-11;3:10-11).The use of the word “negative”is open to consideration,but
it is clear in the New Testament that certain kinds of speaking are damaging
to the church and to the saints and must be rejected.There is a great
difference between the speaking that expresses a concern in love,in
wisdom,with forethought,and with a pure motive and spirit and the speaking
that ,under the guise of a genuine concern,spreads words of
deception,discord,and death.Brothers,there is a proper biblical and human way
to handle genuine concerns,but you have not taken this way(cf.A Timely
Word,by Brother Lee,pgs,41-44). 5.Your Standing
Concerning Our Vocation With regard to
statements made concerning our vocation as believers,we reject the
implication that we in the local churches have devoted ourselves to any other
calling than that of building up the Body of Christ.We deny that we have
drifted away from building up the Body to building up a work or ministry.Your
words indicate to us that you brothers feel that Brother Lee’s recent
ministry on “the new way”is far away from our proper vocation of building up
the Body and is instead his attempt to build up his own work or ministry.This
we reject as lacking in an understanding first of what Brother Lee is
ministering and second of what the Bible reveals concerning the proper
building up of the Body of Christ. Brother Lee’s
recent ministering has the goal of bringing all the saints in the Lord’s
recovery into their organic function as members for the building up of the
Body of Christ.His urging us to meet in our homes,in small groups,in
districts within the localityk,and as the church together is ushering in a
practical way for all the saints to function and enter into the practical
building work.We consider his ministry to be an excellent example of the functioning of one given by the Head to the church in
order to perfect others unto the building work of the Body of Christ. Further,Brother
Lee’s ministering is an attempt to cause the churches to answer the charge
given by the Lord concerning the world around us.We are convinced,through his
sharing during the last four years,that according to the standard of the
Bible we have indeed been slack in our responsibility to disciple all.We feel
that his ministry has equipped us greatly to bear the Lord’s burden for
mankind and His burden for the members of His Body.We believe that the Lord
has given us,through His servant Brother Lee,the scriptural way to meet for
the best benefit of all the members and the way to reach the sinners for the
best release of the Lord’s burden.Are you rejecting what the Lord would have
on the earth-a Body full of functioning members and a church fully burdened
to cooperate with the Lord to make fallen sinners the sons of God?We reject
the implication that Brother Lee’s ministry and our attention to it are
anything but a walk worthy of our calling.our vocation,as saints. 6.Your Standing
Concerning Our Purpose In your sharing
you state that our purpose or aim is to be the Lord’s testimony.His full
expression,and then you go on to say that “we have been in reproach,with no
testimony.The walls are broken down and the gates are burned with fire! ”This
is an untrue representation of the situation in the Lord’s recovery.Whereas
we continually labor to strengthen,enrich,and build up the Lord’s testimony,we
categorically deny that this testimony has been lost.The fellowship of many
brothers from different countries given on November 27,1988,in
Pasadens,California and published in the book Further Light Concerning the
Building Up of the Body of Christ show that the Lord’s testimony is still
with us. Further,you say
that we are not here for a work or activity.By stating what you feel we are
not here for,it seems you wish to indicate again that our work in the Lord’s
move is misguided.You say that we are here simply to be His testimony.But to
be the Lord’s testimony we must coordinate with Him in His work on the earth
.Did not our Lord Himself work on this earth to accomplish His ministry?Did
He not say that he worked and His Father still worked(John 5:17)?Is he idle
on the throne today and fully happy with His testimony on the
earth?No!Therefore we labor and struggle even as Pual did(Col.1:29)so that
the Lord may get what He is after.All that we do must be for the lord’s
testimony,and all our activity must be not of ourselves,but in Him.We will
labor,toil,struggle,and strive;we will be active,moving,and busy in the lord
so that every saint enters into his function and all the sinners called by
God are brought into Him. “Do business until I come”is the charge we have
from the Lord. 7.Your Standing
Concerning the Ministry During your
sharing,a simple statement of what the unique New Testament ministry is was
put forward.With the simple form of this statement issue can hardly be
taken.But the unique New Testament ministry is a more detailed matter than
this simple statement allowe.From a very broad perspective,the ministry is
indeed,as Brother John said, “the dispensing of God into His people to
produce the church.”But with the ministry there must be the God-ordained way
to effect this dispensing. You brothers seem
to perceive the merit of Brother Lee’s ministry in the broad sense of the
term,in the sense that it is a dispensing of God into His people to produce
the church.Yet by your statements of disagreement you reject the way of this
ministry.In your sharing,you say that our standing “should not be to build up
any work or ministry,”that “we are not here for a work or an activity,”and
that“we are not here for a work or an activity,”and that“we are here simply
to be His testimony”;later you go on to say that“the many apostles,with all
the gifted members,are given for the building up of the Body of Christ,not
for building up their own work,their ministry.”By so saying,you imply that
Brother Lee’s ministry is a mere work or activity,that it is self-seeking and
self-building,that it is a departure from the simplicity of being the lord’s
testimony,and that it is distant from the true work of ministry,the building
up of the Body of Christ.You declare that we in the local churches can simply
be the Lord’s testimony and that we are not here for a work or an activity.In
doing so,you implicitly deny a way for the ministry to be carried out and
make the accomplishment of God’s purpose among the churches a spiritual dream.Every
productive endeavor must have a way,and from the revelation in the Scriptures
we see God gives a way through the ministry,not only a vision.It appears that
you are denouncing the way put froth in the ministry of Brother Lee and,by
doing so,wish to cast doubt on his ability to lead us in this new way.But you
do so against his abundant fruitfulness in the Lord’s labors over amny years. It is difficult
not to perceive some contradiction in your speaking.If Brother Lee’s ministry
is selfseeking and self-building,if it is contrary to the building up of the
Body,if it attempts to make the churches dissimilar from the Lord’s
testimony,why has it so struggled and so risked all that it has achieved in
order to bring all the saints into their organic function?In opening the way
for all the saints to function and in strongly urging all the saints to meet
in their homes,there is a way for all of us to arrive.We beg you,brothers,let
us go on together in peace toward this goal. 8.Your Standing
Concerning the Apostles Regarding the
apostles,you say, “According to God’s Word,the apostles are always
plural…There are many apostles today…Icould tell you a number of them.”You
emphasize the biblical fact that the apostles are plural.In so doing,you seem
to assume that these apostles are of the same kind and have the same
standing.By making this assumption you fall to recognize the truth revealed
in the New Testament regarding the different kinds of apostles. The New Testament
indicates that there are three main kinds of aposties.First,there are the
apostles appointed directly by the Lord and those constituted directly
through the Lord’s revelation.The former include those like Peter and
John(Luke 6:13;Acts 1:26;4:1a,33,35);the latter include those like Paul and
Barnabas(Acts 14:14;Rom.1:1;Gal.1:1;1Tim.1:1).Second,there are the apostles
perfected by others –those like Apollos(1 Cor.4:9a,6; Acts
18:24-26).Third,there are the apostles produced by the Lord’s directly
appointed apostles-those like Timothy,Silas,and probably Titus(1 Thes,2:6;1:1a;Acts
15:40;Titus 1:5-9;1Tim.3:1-7).Those apostles who are of the first kind are on
an equal standing and are not under another’s leadership.Those apostles who
are of the second kind may have an equal standing with those of the first
kind.However,those of the third kind are led and directed in their work by
those who produce them.Regarding their apostleship,they are not on an equal
standing with the first kind of apostles.The elementary fact of the apostles
being plural should be understood in light of this truth concerning the
different kinds of apostles.For a further development of this matter we
recommend its source,Brother Lee’s recent book A Timely Trumpeting and the
Present Need. You claim that
there are “many apostles today”and that you can tell us “a number of
them.”What kind of apostles are they?If they are of the third kind,they
should not conduct themselves in an independent way in the work,much less
start another work,a work of their own.Do we all not regard Brother Lee as an
apostle of the first kind?It is likely that the “many apostles today”to whom
you refer have been produced by Brother Lee’s ministry and therefore are
apostles of the third kind.As such,they are not on an equal standing with
Brother Lee and should be under his leadership and direction in the work. Concerning the
apostles,you also say, “the many apostles,with all the gifted members,are
given for the building up of the Body of Christ,not for building up their own
work,their ministry.”Here we have another innuendo,for this remark is aimed
at Brother Lee.You are implying that he is not building up the Body of Christ
but is instead building up his own work,his own ministry.We wish to testify
on behalf of our brother that his ministry is absolutely for the building up
of the Body.The truth that“ministry is for the churches,not the church for
ministry,”a truth that you have used in an apparent attempt to discredit
Brother Lee,came to us through him,and his practice has always been in
keeping with this truth.Brother Lee’s recent speaking on the Body of Christ
as a divine organism and on the God-ordained way to build up the Body is a
fresh proof that his unique goal is not the building up of a work-it is the
building up of the Body.In this matter we are one with him and seek to emulate
his example. You refer to
certain New Testament examples of a “number of apostles being in a very good
fellowship and coordination,”pointing out that Paul and Apollos“were in a
good relationship of mutual respect and coordination.”This brings you to your
realpoint: “The apostles need one another.No one man is complete and
all-inclusive.”Here we have yet another innuendo,another dart thrown at
Brother Lee.The truth is that Brother Lee lives and moves in the Body;he
knows through years of experience the reality of genuine fellowship and
coordination.Do you? You mention the
relationship between Paul and Apollos and not,as would have been much more
appropriate,the relationship between Paul and the apostles produced by
him.Under Paul’s direction and leadership in the work,Paul and his co-workers
had an excellent relationship.In this relationship,which was between an
apostle of the first kind and apostles of the third kind,there was no
confusion or disorder.Paul could send a co-worker to a certain place,but a
co-worker could not send Paul anywhere.Paul could leave a co-workder in a
particular locality,but a co-worker could not do the same with Paul.Because
the different in standing was recognized and respected,the relationship
between Paul,an apostle of the first kind,and Timothy and Titus, apostles of
the third kind, was most pleasant (Phil.2:22; 2Tim.1:2;1Tim.1:2;
Phil.2:19,23:1Cor.4:17;1Thes.3:2,5;1Tim.1:3;2Tim.4:9,21;Titus1:4;2Cor.12:18a;Titus3:12;2Cor.8:23;12:18b). Why do you ignore
the matter of Paul’s relationship with his co-workers and emphasize instead
the somewhat problematical case of Apollos’s relationship with Paul?Apollos
might have had some fellowship with Paul,but it is questionable whether
Apollos had much coordination with him.Brother John,do you cite the case of
Paul and Apollos because you regard yourself as an apostle of the first or
second kind and therefore as one who need not submit in the work to the
leadership and direction of an apostle of the first kind?Brother,allow us to
say,in frankness and love,that we cannot recognize you as such an apostle.If
you are an apostle,you are not on the same standing as Brother Lee.Since you
were produced by Brother Lee’s ministry,you should work joyfully under his
leadership and direction.In saying this we are neither exalting Brother lee
nor demeaning your portion in the New Testament ministry.Rather,we are simply
speaking the truth,applying the truth concerning the different kinds of
apostles to today’s situation. In your words
about not exalting the apostles you are in fact saying that certain saints
are exalting Brother lee and are thereby causing division.We reject this
accusation.We honor our brother’s standing in the Lord,we receive his
ministry,and we submit to his leadership and direction in the work,but we do
not appraise him beyond what he is in the Lord. Your final point
concerning the apostles is your attitude toward the apostles.You ask: “What
should our attitude be boward these apostles?”You answer: “To receive from
them anything of Life and Truth,anything they may have which will help us and
benefit us for be building up of the Body.”This sounds good,but it has at
least three serious negative implications. First,your
speaking implies that in matters of life and truth you consider the churches
and the saints to be above the apostles,thereby encouraging the saints to
pick and choose,according to their preference,what they will receive of the
apostles teaching.According to this concept,the churches established by Paul
should have taken the standing of receiving Paul’s ministry in a selective
way,accepting only those things which they regarded as being of life and
truth.if this is now your standing in relation to the apostles,we are no
longer clear what teaching you will accept and what you will reject.Taking a
specific example,will you receive the truth,revealed in the New Testament and
taught in A Timely Trumpeting and the present Need,concerning the different
kinds of apostles and their relationship with the churches they have
established and the elders they have appointed?The apostles teach the same
thing in every church(1 Cor.4:17;7:17;11:16;14:33b;16:1),and this should
include the church in Anaheim.Since the church in Anaheim,in a very
particular way,owes its existence to Brother lee,we would be surprised if you
would no longer receive his ministry. Second,your
attitude toward the apostles implies that you are not genuinely open to be
perfected by the apostles,who have been given for the perfecting of the
saints(Eph.4:11-12).Those who receive the apostles ministry in a selective
way cannot be perfected by the apostles.Furthermore,those who take the
apostles ministry in a selective way actually close themselves to the
specific and particular supply that is available to them through the apostles
as joints of the rich supply(Eph.4:16). Third,your
attitude toward the apostles implies that you do not recognize the spiritual
authority of the apostles,the authority of the apostles,the authority which
the lord has given them“for building up and not for overthrowing”(2
Cor.10:8;13:10).Apostles do not control churches,but their ministry to the
churches,especially when there is disorder(1 Cor.11:34),is with God-ordained
authority.Your attitude toward the apostles seems to be one of not
recognizing their authority in the Lord’s ministry and in the commission
which they have received from the Lord. 9.Your Standing
Concerning Church Administration Our writing to you
is not an attempt to interfere in the affairs of the church in Anaheim.but is
rather a reasonble response to the lawless distribution of your statements
concerning your stand in church affairs.Had the publication of your standing
been confined to your locality,things would be different. Particularly in
the matter of church administration,that is ,in the execution of that
administration,we must not interfere.But we are not altogether without some
ground to speak in this matter.The basis for the administration of one local
church is the same basis for the administration of every other local church.While
administration is indeed local,it is nevertheless of the same kind as the
administration in all the other localities.This point cannot,we believe,be
disputed. We press this
point because it seems to us that the administration of the church in Anaheim
has become different in kind from the administration of the other local
churches and because the bold and reckless distribution of this new stand is
a direct attack upon what we have been practicing in the Lord’s recovery up
to this time. Local
administration is not without its limits,and this,because the elders,into
whose hads local administration is entrusted,are not without their limits.it
is common knowledge among us that elders are persons appointed by the
apostles(Acts 14:23;Tit.1:5,who serve based upon their maturity.They are not
of necessity apostles,prophets,evangelists,or shepherding teachers.If it so
happens that anelder is also a gifted member in the sense of Ephesians
4:11,his function in oversight obtains by virtue of his maturity in life and
his appointment by the apostle,not by virtue of his being an
apostle,prophet,evangelist,or shepherding teacher.Because the elders need not
necessarily be gifted ones in the sense of Ephesians 4,we must assume that
their responsibility is not primarily for the spiritual matters in which the
fifted ones of Ephesians 4 function.otherwise how could God entrust to them
something for which He has not properly equipped them?Obviously,they must be
spiritual,for the maturity that makes them elders is not just a human maturity
equips them for only certain matters.Theirs is not an all-inclusive
leadership for their locality.Though they may relate the truth to the
saints,they do not ascertain,discern,and define the truth,for this is the
gifted function of the apostles.Similar statements could be made concerning
the function of prophets,evangelists,and shepherding teachers.God gave ones
gifted in these spiritual matters to the Body ,while He gave elders for
administration in the local shurch.This then should help us to see what the
limit of local administration is.For example,in a local church there is no
need for the elders to define truth,for God has given apostles for that very
purpose.But practically speaking,there is no way for a local church to have
the proper local church life without the coordinating function of the
overseeing elders;this the apostles can never do.Elders take the lead among
the saints in the administration of matters related to their locality.but
follow the lead of the gifted ones in presenting the spiritual matters
related to the church as the Body of Christ. In the standing
that you brothers wish to make in the church in Anaheim,we perceive a
departure from God’s arrangement.The very basis for the meeting of August
28,1988,is a questionable exercise of local administration.When has a local
church in the Lord’s recovery ever risen up to establish a standing for
itself on such points as the Word of God,the church,the oneness of the
Body,and so on?It has never happened because such an action demonstrates a
kind of local administration that goes beyond the limits of proper
administration in that it assumes the function allotted to the apostles.Such
an action also indicates an independence from the other local churches that
has never existed before.Some years ago,a statement of our standing and
belief was released in the booklet The Beliefs and practices of the Local
Churches.This was a corporate effort produced by a group of co-workers in the
Lord’s recovery.It expressed the standing of the local churches as the
various manifestations of the one Body of Christ.What happened on August
28,1988,was of a different nature.It was the declaration of one local church
to establish its own standing apart from,different from,and without regard
for the other local churches of the Lord’s recovery.We cannot sit back and
silently observe the undermining of what has been held precious by all the
local churches up until this time.And even more so.the distribution of this
transcript without restraint is an attempt to invade the Lord’s recovery with
this erroneous exhibition of local administration. Finally,we wish to
declare our disagreement with the apparent underlying reason for your
standing on local administration.Brothers,has an unhealthy desire to cast off
the influence of Brother Lee’s ministry motivated your statements concerning
local administration?If so,this is a further indication of your departure in
the exercise of administration from that of the other local churches.The
local churches in the Lord’s recovery welcome the ministry of Brother Lee as
a soled and substantial source of nourishment for the saints.For a church to
stand on the right to local administration so that it may cast off the
ministry of nourishment from our apostle Brother Lee is an abuse of what the
Lord has ordained as the principle of local administration.If you wish to
cast off the ministry of the apostle who established the church in Anaheim
and brought you into the eldership,we would remind you what a normal,healthy
relationship with that apostle should be.This we find in Acts 20,when Paul
called for the elders of Ephesus.Paul,their apostle,gave warning of wolves
who would not spare the flock and of men from among themselves who would draw
away the disciples from the teaching he had delivered.In addition,he
presented himself as the good pattern to be echoed in their
church(vv.33-35).The exhortation to those elders was in every way related to
the apostle’s ministry,both in its content and its manner.There should be no
careless casting away of the ministry of the apostle who establishes us as
churches.We reprove your standing declared on August 28,1988,and reject the
attempt to sow this seed of rebellion among the churches by the distribution
of this transcript. 10.Your Standing
Concerning the Living Stream Ministry Office In presenting this
point Godfred stated that you brothers in Anaheim “pressed the saints and
even pushed them,”and you also promoted,exalted,and developed an improper
relationship with the Living Stream Ministry office.He further said that the
blame for this “should not be put on the doorstep of that office,”but rather
“must be borne by us elders.”Yet what should have been a straight-forward
repentance and confession of improper behavior on your part is used as a
cover for yet another attack on Brother Lee and his ministry.Your implicating
“many other brothers,”blaming“the environment of …pressure and promotion,”and
making other accusations is not proper of elders asking forgiveness and
expressing sorrow for their wrongdoing.Brothers,you know better than
this.If,as you say,you have been so wrong and improper in your handling of
the affairs of the church in Anaheim,what standing or right do you have to
accuse or condemn others? Further,from your
words we wonder whether even now you have a clear and proper understanding of
the nature and function of the Living Stream Ministry office.Brother Lee has
said that “the Living Stream Ministry office is only a business office to
serve my ministry for two things:to publish the messages in book form and to
distribute these messages in both video and audio tapes.That is all the
ministry office should do and nothing else.I did not have much time to check
on everything related to the office in the past,but the ministry office has
always had this specific function and no other function.This little office is
a Levitical service serving my ministry to put out the word of God in print
and through video and audio tapes.”(A Timely Word,pg.39).From this it is
clear that this office is constituted of a group of brothers and sisters who
are performing a Levitical service for Brother Lee’s ministry.To declare our
oneness with the Living Stream Ministry office means that we are one with
Brother Lee and with these saints for the carrying out of that service entrusted
to them by him for the furthering of the Lord’s work.That this service is
vital to the lord’s interests and that the saints in all the churches have
benefitted immeasurably from this service is beyond dispute.Why should we not
declare our oneness with the living Stream ministry office for this work?To
make this oneness mean something other than this is an unworthy distortion of
the meaning of oneness. For you to
declare“The Living Steam Ministry office has no authority over this church
”is merely to repeat what Brother Lee has made clear on numerous
occasions.Not only so,the Living Stream Ministry office has no authority over
any church.It has its vital sphere of service to all the churches.It also has
had its own separate business administration from the time it was established
many years ago.Brothers,we have all been engaged together for many years as
co-workers in one work to further the Lord’s recovery on the whole earth.In
this work the Living Stream Ministry office also has its particular part.We
fear that your action means that you brothers no longer care to work together
to this end.We hope this is not the case. Brothers,having
gone too far in one direction and causing distress to the saints there,you
now go too far in the opposite direction.The result this time is even more
serious,affecting not only the saints in the church in Anaheim,but causing
damage and distress in other places as well. 12.Your Standing
Concerning the Life-studies and Other Christian Literature Concerning the
Life-studies and Christian literaure in general,you make a number of
points,and we should like to respond to each one. First,you warn the
saints not to allow“spiritual materials”such as the Life-studies“to ever
become a crutch or a replacement for the reading of our Bible. ” “It is so
easy,”you assert, “for these things which are a help to us to become a
replacement,just like spiritual leaders can so easily become a replacement
for the Lord Himself.”This,of course,is aimed at Brother Lee and at his
ministry.You imply not only that,for many,Brother lee has become a
replacement for the Lord but also that his writings have become a replacement
for the Bible.If this has been the case with you,you should repent and have a
change;but with regard to ourselves and others,this has not become the
case.Concerning the Life studies Brother Lee has said, “The Life-study
messages are rich,but not one of them is as rich as the Bible”(Life
Messages,Message Twenty-four,pg.217).We agree.The Life-study messages are
indeed rich,but they surely are not as rich as the Bible.We appreciate these
messages,but we certainly do not regard them as equal to the Bible,much less
take them as a replacement for the Bible.Brother Lee has always pointed us to
the Lord,and his writings,far from being a replacement for the Bible,have
opened the rich “mine”of the Word so that we may further explore this mine
and dig out more riches. The help we
receive from these messages is built upon and is a further development of the
saints study of the Word for two thousand years.Brother Lee has taken the
lead to say that we are “standing on the shoulders of all those who have gone
before.”We agree.He has also said, “Whatever we minister is the result of the
past two thousand years of church history.We give credit to all those who have
preceded us.But by His mercy the Lord has shown us the proper way to open up
the Word,not being deficient and not going to excess”(Life Messages,Message
Forty-eight,pg.416).We heartily affirm this word.Our testimony is that the
Life-studies are neither a crutch nor a replacement for the Bible.Rather,the
Life-studies show us the proper way to open up the Word without deficiency
and without excess. We are thankful
that the Life-study of the entire New Testament is available to the Lord’s
people.We unreservedly endorse Brother Lee’s fourfold purpose in this
Life-study:to present the truths contained in the new Testament,to minister
the life supply,to solve the common and hard problems contained in the new
Testament,and to open up every book of the new Testament by giving a thorough
interpretation of it.This Life-study is filled with the revelation concerning
the processed Triune God,the living Christ,the life-giving Spirit,the
experience of life,and the definition and practice of the church.We are sorry
that you brothers no longer share our appreciation for this outstanding help
in knowing the Word of God. Second,you
indicate that some“insist that the saints have to read only the materials
published by the Living Stream Ministry.”The key word here is “insist.”This
certainly has not been our practice.We recommend Brother Lee’s writings and
we encourage the saints to read them,but we do not insist that they do
so,much hess that they read nothing else.From the time he first came to the
United States,Brother Lee has specifically recommended a number of writings
of others for us to read.However,this has not been without proper discernment
and sound judgment. Third,you
encourage the saints to read any Christian literatrue which they find
edifying,doing so at their discretion,affirming that all the saints “should
have the full liberty to read any Christian literature”which they find
edifying.It has been our consistent practice for many years to honor the
freedom of the saints,not lnly in the matter of reading but in all matters
pertaining to their personal Christian life.We do not exercise control over
what the saints read.However,it is proper for the leading ones or older
saints to recommend spiritually edifying literature to those who are younger. Fourth,you
encourage the saints to read in the church meetings excerpts from materials
that have “helped them,”and then you say, “We all should be open to receive
that.”Yes,the saints should have the liberty to share what has helped
them.However,we reserve the right to reject whatever is unhealthy or
untrue.We cannot be open to receive all manner of strange,deviant teachings
simply because certain saints feel they have been helped by them.We cannot
tolerate the distribution of unhealthy material in the church meeting hall,as
was done in Anaheim.We are free to read whatever spiritual literature we
choose and to speak about it;we are also free not to receive any material
that we consider unhealthy. Fifth,your
attitude toward Brother Lee’s writings in particular and Christian literature
in general indicates to us that,for you,Brother Lee’s ministry has become
common,ordinary.The effect of your speaking is to disparage and depreciate
Brother Lee’s writings,as evidenced by the strong insistence of some saints
in Anaheim to get rid of all Living Steam Ministry publications.Do you fail
to perceive the great worth of his ministry,which ,as he himself has said,
“stands on the shoulders”of the great teachers of the past?We appreciate and
value Brother lee’s materials and his ministry and do not regard them as
common.We continue to bear witness that his books are the most enlightening
and the most life-giving materials available for knowing the biblical
truths,for living the Christian life,and for practicing the church life. 12.Your standing
Concerning Book Sales The matter of book
sales is closely related to the previous point and thus merits only a brief
comment.You intend to continue to make books available in your hall as a
service to the saints.However,you will no longer engage in what you call the
“advertising and merchandising of certain books,”meaning,of course,Brother
Lee’s books;for,you go on to add,the “church meeting should not be turned
into the merchandising of any materials.”To this we have a twofold response. First,we reject the
accusation that we engage in “merchandizing”when we announce the availability
of Brother Lee’s books or recommend them to the saints.Whatever your practice
has been in Anaheim,it is not the practice in the other churches for the
church meetings to “be turned into merchandizing.”We receive Brother Lee’s
ministry and recommend it to the saints for their spiritual growth and
building up of the Body,but this is altogether different from merchandizing. Second,your policy
regarding book sales indicates that you now have a low estimation of Brother
Lee’s ministry and that you no longer wish to be identified with it.You
evidently feel that you can no longer recommend Brother Lee’s materials to
the church in Anaheim.Brother Lee’s recent ministry on the building up of the
Body of Christ has been of tremendous help to us,and we are saddened by your
unwillingness to recommend this needed ministry to the church in Anaheim. 13.Your Standing
Concerning the Semi-annual Trainings Although you
acknowledge that many saints have received help from the semi-annual
trainings conducted by Brother Lee,you have decided to no longer interrupt
your church life during the trainings.As elders in a local church,you have
the right to make such a decision.However,your decision indicates some very
important things.First,your decision indicates that you consider these
trainings an interruption to your church life instead of a blessing and a
supply.Second,your decision seems to indicate that you no longer hold Brother
Lee’s ministry in high esteem.Third,your decision indicates that you no
longer hold Brother Lee’s ministry in high esteem.Third,your decision
indicates that you have actually turned away from Brother Lee’s
ministry.Fourth,your decision indicates that you do not have an adequate concern
for the welfare of those saints in Anaheim who do recognize Brother Lee’s
standing in the Lord and who desire to receive his ministry.Fifth,your
decision indicates that you do not have the proper concern for the other
churches or consciousness of the Body.Sixth,your decision indicates that you
do not understand that certain local matters are also Body matters and have
an impact not only on the church in Anaheim but on all the
churches.Seventh,your decision indicates that you have adopted an attitude of
apparent neutrality toward the person of your spiritual father.Actually,your
attitude is like that of an older brother in a family who encourages his
younger brothers and sisters to be indifferent in their feeling toward and
relationship with their father.Under the cloak of being general and of
respecting the liverty of the saints,you dishonor the one to whose ministry
the church in Anaheim owes its existence.Brothers,although we honor the local
administration of the church in Anaheim,we feel sorrowful for your turning
away from Brother Lee’s ministry and we cannot be one with you on your
standing. 14.Your Standing
Concerning the Other Churches Concerning your
standing in relation to the other churches,you make three points:first,that
you “respect and esteem highly all other churches”;second,that you
advocate“full fellowship”with and“a good traffic between all the
churches”;third,that you“do not want elders from other churches
telling”you“what to do.”Did your speaking on August 28 display a respect for
and fellowship with the other churches?Did you,caring for the welfare of the
one Body,have “full fellowship”with the other churches about what you
intended to do on August 28?Did you take forethought as to how your speaking
would affect other localities?Do you realize how much disturbance the
surreptitious sending of the transcript has caused to saints in other
churches?Have you had full fellowship with the other churches about the
effect of the distribution of this transcript?Do you think that your attitude
and actions have helped to produce“good traffic”between the churches?These
questions deserve your answer.We have no intention of telling you brothers
what to do,but since we are one Body,we would like to have genuine fellowship
with you.We earnestly desire“full fellowship”with you,but your lack of
concern for the other churches both during your speaking and afterward has
served to hinder this fellowship.It seems that you care only for yourselves
and for some with you,and not for the whole Body.We are deeply saddened by
this grievous situation and long for it to be rectified according to God. 15.Your Standing
Concerning practices We in the Lord’s
recovery are by no means practice-centered;on the other hand,we are not
without our practices.The practices that we have are ones that help us in our
spiritual life and function,and for them we are grateful to the Lord.We agree
with Brother Godfred that no healthy practice should be opposed nor
imposed,and yet we are saddened that such a pure and proper practice as visiting
people where they are with the Lord’s gospel has been so mishandled in
Anaheim that your church“almost had a division [of some of you]over
this.”From your own admission,the mishandling is the sole responsibility of
you brothers,for you confess that“we brothers said that everybody had to
practice this way.”This was indeed an improper imposition of practice on your
part.We want to make clear that such an imposition should not be done in the
local churches. On the other
hand,we wish to also declare that we whole-heartedly agree with the practice
of knockintg on people’s doors to bring the gospel to them.We believe that
this is the proper application of the Lord’s own practice of going to the
sinners to reach them with the news of salvation.We do not impose this on any
saint,but we do recommend it as a God-ordained way to bring the gospel to
men. We feel that in
your speaking there is the attempt to undermine the Lord’s move in the new
way.It seems you wish to imply that the practice of visiting people in their
homes,a greatly advantageous item of the new way,can be divisive.Is not this
a rejection of and an attack on the ministry of Brother Lee?Actually,by your
own admission,it was your improper way of imposing,insisting,and forcing that
caused your problem in Anaheim,not the biblical practice of going to preach
the gospel to people in their homes,as taught by Brother lee. 16.Your Standing
Concerning the Gospel Your final point
concerns the gospel,and with it we certainly do not take issue.Our feeling
concerning the gospel has been expressed adequately in the preceding
section.We agree that“there is no one particular way in which we must preach
the gospel,”but we also recognize that gospel-preaching by the biblical way
of visiting people in their homes is far superior to any other way.In your
view are all ways to preach the gospel equally effective?Are no ways betters
than others,and these we wish to pursue that all men may be saved.We feel
that vringing the gospel to people in their homes is the more excelling
way.Just as there is a more excelling gift for the church meetings,we believe
there is a more excelling way for the gospel-preaching.Certainly there are
many ways to present the gospel,but we seek to excel;we do not wish to
emulate the sad history of Christianity.We could wait for another Pentecost
day with the multitudes being saved,but as we wait we will daily see men
slipping into perdition without our preaching,men who could be transformed by
God into living stones for His building.We are fools not to take the best
way,and even to encourage others to take the best way.Are we not for the
profit of our enterprise with God?If the biblical way of visiting people in
their homes is not a superior way,why are many groups of Christians outside
of the local churches turning to it? In closing,we ask
you brothers to realize that this letter is the product of much consideration
and fellowship.After waiting a number of moths,we now present to you what we
believe to be a thorough,thoughtful,reasonable,and fair response to your
sixteen points.We do not write in a critical,judgmental spirit.Rather,out of
a concern for the welfare of the Body and with a desire to speak a word of
truth on behalf of the ministry of Brother lee,we have written this
frank,open letter in a spirit of genuine love.We earnestly care for the
church in Anaheim and for you brothers.Therefore,we urge you to reconsider
your speaking on August 28 and to regard seriously the problems caused and
the damage done by the distribution of the transcript.Please deal with this
matter thoroughly,as befits thouse sho serve the Lord,caring not only for
your own feeling but also for the feeling of the Body.For the Body’s
sake,brothers,we appeal to you,imploring you to hear us and to consider
before the Lord all that we have presented to you in this letter. Francis Ball Jeel W.Kennon Titus Chu David Lutz Les Cites Benson Phillips Eugene
C.Gruhler James Reetzke,Sr AppendixⅣ:A Letter from the Author 25th March 1990. Dear Benjamin,Peter,and other brothers, As I mentioned to
Peter on the phone,WL’s strategy seems to be to put up a pretence that the
problem is to do with a few brothers who have conspired to destory his
ministry and influence saints negatively towards him.To those who have not
known(or did not want to know)the many approaches these brothers,and
others,made to him and his reaction to them,his present account may seem a
very plausible story（and no douby many want
to believe him,as I did）.While he is
trying to put across this impression he is also using many lies to discredit
these brothers. However,we have to be careful not to degenerate to his
level,as if the battle were between him and these brothers.If the saints get
this impression then they will be misled by him to believe that these
brothers all have a personal grudge against him for one reason or other,and
are therefore“rebelling”.So I think we should not encourage this impression
by defending these brothers or attacking WL and his associates in any
personal matters.The only issue is the truth.To me the problem from the
beginning is that he wants to establish his own authority,in a way that is
beyond the Scriptures,and therefore the problem is from his,not from these
brothers.This is the thing that we have to make clear to the saints.While we
may tell them that those of us who knew a number of facts from early on
realise WL’s account is false,we should nevertheless point out that,even if
his plausible account were true,the present emphasis and leading that he is
giving is still totally against the truth.They are definitely going in a way
that negates the Lord’s direct leading in the spirit of every member and in
every church,and the direct responsibility that each individual and each
church has to Him.Both of these are crucial pillars in God’s economy in the
new covenant,and herein therefore is Satan’s strategy.Even if WL were
pure,even if he never did and allow to be done the many divisive things,even
if indeed John So,John Ingalls,Joseph Fung and Bill Mallon were as he
describes them,the central issue remains that we cannot tolerate a system
where a deputy authority,a commander-in-chief,a master-builder is declared,in
short,a system where(a)all the churches are unified into one global
movement,subordinating the needs of the local saints and the Lord’s leading
locally to a global strategy declared by this deputy,and(b)each saint submitting to this
deputy and his appointed representatives tiwh absolute obedience,irrespective
of their own conscience and inner anointing.We have to point out that whether
this deputy’s leading is right or not is then secondary;even if he were
always right,his global strategy always works,obedience to him and his
representatives always result in the “right”action,we still cannot build up a
system where every saint and every church is expected to submit to the
“right”leading of this one,for this is totally agianst the new
covenant.Yes,by giving every church and every saint the privilege,the
liberty,to follow the Lord’s leading within,we run the risks that some may be
wrong,some may not be mature enough to discern the Lord’s speaking,even whole
churches may suffer spiritual decline because of this,but this is precisely
the rish that Lord,the sovereign Head of the Body,has chosen to take in the
new covenant,and who are we to try to change it?The alternative,that many
throughout the centuries have tried,of installing some system where everyone
and every church follow certain“right”ones who are infallible,is indeed far
more dangerous,for it undermines the very root of God’s new testament
economy. The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with you.My prayers are with you. Your brother |