|
注目基督(黃玉恩) 目錄： 一、引言 二、在眾教會間交通的靈 三、誰是教會的源頭？ 四、最妙的道 五、是否分裂的因素？ 六、使徒的種類 七、從眾使徒領受 八、本末倒置、倒果為因 九、「在主恢復中的眾教會」真正的意思是什麼？ 十、從歷史得教訓 十一、個人的見證 附件一：教會當有的立場——一九八八年八月廿八日安那翰教會聚會記錄（十六點聲明，經John Ingalls和Albert Knoch校訂 附件二：朱韜樞及James Reetzke給英格斯等人的聯署信（請參閱本書P.138) 附件三：由波爾等八位弟兄連署「給一九八八年八月廿八日安那翰教會聚會中發言人的公開信」（請參閱本書P.142） 附件四：新約教會的根基——聖靈的主權 譯 序 一九八八年八月廿八日，安那翰教會長老英格斯（John Ingalls）等發表了十六點聲明，包括聖經的權威、教會合一的立場和見證、「職事」的正解、眾使徒的原則、地方教會行政的獨立等真理，願意是為了針對當日的時弊，給聖徒們正確的教導（見附件一）。 翌年二月，朱韜樞和James Reetzke針對這十六點聲明，寫信指責英格斯等弟兄（見附件二）。四月再有波爾（Francis Ball）等八位弟兄連署的函件，進一步評擊英格斯的聲明（見附件三），引起了主恢復中一場真理上的辯論。 以後有人到英國曼徹斯特派發朱韜樞和波爾的文字，導致聖徒的不安，由此引發當地一位負責弟兄黃玉恩（Eddie Huang）寫成本文——「注目基督」，從真理上作出回應，指出主恢復中的病根所在，並見證他如何因轉向基督而蒙恩。 本文切中時弊，剖析入微，而且態度中肯，是一份歷史性的文獻。不過由於篇幅頗長，讀者也可先讀第十、十一兩點，就是「從歷史得教訓」和「個人的見證」這兩章。附件四是作者回應李常受弟兄宣判幾位同工「背叛和發酵」的評論信，內容一針見血，因此一並列在書後。 本書小標題為譯者加上。 一、【引言】 1.【寫作本文的背景】本文源於我給某弟兄的覆信。他曾寄給我兩本小冊，一本署名波爾（Francis Ball）等人所寫的文章，題目是「給一九八八年八月廿八日在安那翰教會聚會中發言人的公開信」（見附件三） 還有一本是朱韜樞和James Reetzke寫給約翰英格斯（John Ingalls）、Albert Knoch、林祥輝、陳實等的信（見附件二）。 我一再尋求，覺得主有帶領，要公開我覆信中部分內容。為叫讀者能瞭解其中原委，謹此稍加闡釋。 我收到上述小冊，起初認為爭辯道理絕無意義，因為辯論只生辯論，永無止境。後來再細讀全文，覺得其中的要點，都是過去幾年間我們深表關注的事。因主的憐憫，藉這些事，我們在曼徹斯特的好幾位聖徒，在主面前清楚看見自己曾偏離主作中心，雖然知道神經營的事，卻未夠活在其中。因此，我決定回信給那位寄給我上述小冊的弟兄，雖然未必能幫助他，但至少讓他曉得我在主面前的感覺。 我寫完回信，在主面前詳加考慮，與聖徒交通，最後決定公開我的看法。因著好些曾影響曼徹斯特教會的事，使我們能有今日的見證；而這些事的原則，與別處地方發生的事雷同。我相信好些人曾有我們的經歷，或正面對我們所經歷過的事。雖然非常痛苦，但最終主把我們帶過來，並使我們從中領悟，一面蒙了光照，一面也得著平安。如此，主的自己變得更為寶貴，更為親切，也使我們更切慕他，更追求他。他使流淚谷變為泉源之地！ 如果還有其他人正在經歷我們的患難，那麼我們所蒙的恩，也可能成為他們的幫助。因此我決心寫出本文。 波爾等弟兄們的小冊，的確觸發了許多討論，但我不過用它們作為討論的引子，本文並無意全面反駁他們的著述。我一開始就無意如此，這原不是我的託付，更多道理上的辯論也毫無益處。 閱讀本文的人，須以過去幾年在眾教會中所發生的事作為背景。我們在曼徹斯特所經歷的事，不是單獨的事件，而是深具代表性的。波爾諸君的文字，僅提供一個方便的起點來討論。 2.【不是「反對職事」，乃是為著那職事】我深知寫出本文，要冒被眾人誤會的危險甚至在主裡最親近的人也會對我誤解。我確曾為此顧慮，猶豫不決。本文的讀者也許誤會我攻擊個別弟兄，貶低論斷某些弟兄們，甚至會認為我反對「職事」，用文字來「反對」，「圖謀毀壞」李常受弟兄的職事。事實絕非如此！ 我無意攻擊弟兄，更無心為誰辯護，我所切慕所盼望的，是本文能為著「那職事」，就是「新約的職事」，那領人到基督面前的職事，而不是攻擊那職事。 我的目的，只是與人分享自己被帶回到基督面前的經歷與感覺。至於李常受的職事，我永遠無法否認，主曾藉他幫助我和眾多弟兄；毫無疑問，主曾把他賜給教會，作為恩賜，開啟聖經，幫助我們看見基督、經歷基督，這一份我絕對不反對，也不會圖謀毀壞。 真的，正因為主曾藉他和別的前面弟兄，在我們中間立下了生命和真理的根基，我們才能有今天的認識。就眾人而論未必如此，但就我而論的確是這樣。 我只要求讀者在未讀完全文，尤其是未讀完末了兩段以前，不要對我的動機先下斷案。請你讀完全文，才決定我是存心清潔，還是攻擊論斷。 我也知道，本文可能揭開新一輪的辯論；許多人認為撰寫和分發這類文章，只會在眾教會中帶來騷擾，而不是平安，正如波爾等人的小冊，曾攪擾我們在曼徹斯特的聖徒一樣。因此若有人感覺本文對他們徒增困擾，我便請求大家不要勉強任何人、任何教會來閱讀。同時我也希望讀這段引言的人，自己來決定是否繼續讀下去。 願主保守，使本文不被用來攻擊或誹謗任何弟兄姊妹，這是我最擔心的事。我只好信靠他主宰的作為。我盼望沒有在結黨的靈裡寫成文，也求大家不要以結黨的靈來讀它、來用它。 最後，我要求讀者存寬大的胸襟，字行間若有太苛刻、太率直的話，務請見諒。我不過盡力坦誠地吐出我的感覺。如果語氣稍欠謙和，就請讀者以及上述兩本小冊的著者赦免我。 二、【在眾教會間交通的靈】 1.【是誰罔顧交通的靈？】波爾等在文中力指英格斯、Otuteye & Knoch等弟兄（以下簡稱英格斯等）公開的發言，所作的不是地方性的事，而是身體性的事（P.1），又說他們罔顧別的教會（P.4），因此違反了眾教會間交通的靈（P.4),沒有尊重與別的教會的交通，沒有考慮到他們的言論會影響到別的教會（P.27）等等。 表面上似乎言之成理，但請讀者回想自一九八六年開始所發生的事。在那一段時期內的風風雨雨，才是導致英格斯等在一九八八年八月起來說話的因由。 我在此要特別追問，所謂「交通的靈」是否波爾等真正關心的事？ 自一九八六年開始，在眾教會中的確發生了好些事。為怕誤信謠傳，我所說的只限於我們曼徹斯特聖徒在場的事，加上從錄影帶或印刷的檔上所看到的準確記錄，包括每年兩季訓練中的言行（尤其是與「臺北全時間訓練」和「新路」有關的「實行」與「交通」），「臺北全時間訓練」，臺北全時間訓練有關的長老訓練，高中生訓練，英國黑池（Blackpool）和在別處舉行的「職事聚會」，以及多次席間的私下談話等等。其間好些言論談到眾教會，尤其是談及眾長老對「職事」以及「新路」的態度，都是語帶鄙視和貶抑的。 那時有人為了對付各地「漠不關心」的態度，便鼓勵受訓者要晉身為特殊人物，比方說，在徵召臺北全時間訓練時，特殊人物是指某些合格的年輕人，他們必須大學畢業，年齡在廿一至四十歲之間，未有孩子。在高中訓練中，那些「將來全心全意全時間的人」會被捧為特殊人物；在「職事站」聚會中，那些有負擔服事「那使徒」的人就會備受推崇，被人另眼相看。 不僅宣傳，更有人談到這些「特殊類別」的人該以何種態度來對待「職事」和「職事站」。他們指令全時間者該去那裡，在本地本國又該作什麼。 不只如此，更有全球性過節的「宣告」，全球祈禱日，有人甚至想定出一九八八年為「歐洲年」等等。（我感謝主，此事未能付諸實行。） 事實上種種言行嚴重影響眾教會，卻根本上未與有關的眾地方教會的負責弟兄們交通。我們還被忠告，那個教會、那些弟兄「漠不關心」、反應冷淡，甚至是反對「職事」的。好些人被定罪為吹冷風、堅持「舊路」、不願放棄地位等等。 以上種種歷史，嚴重損害了教會和聖徒們在基督裡真實的交通。雖然我們只能見證在曼徹斯特所發生的事，但別處傳來的報導，更印證我們的經歷並非孤立的事件。 2.【只許州官放火，不許百姓點燈】相比之下，到底誰真有強烈的身體感覺？誰對別的教會切實關心？誰有交通的靈？他們想到這些言論會傷害眾教會麼？為何當日竟無人挺身指出這些錯事，如今卻有那麼多人，急急責備英格斯等說真心話的人不顧身體感覺，沒有交通的靈？ 無疑地，寄這兩本小冊給我的人（當然是同意作者的感覺的），自己也有分於上述的事。由此可見，波爾等弟兄們真正不滿意的理由，並不是說英格斯等三位弟兄罔顧眾教會，違反了交通的靈、不尊重眾教會間之交通。真正不滿意的理由，其實是他們認為英格斯等弟兄不推行李常受弟兄和他的工作。 多年來人可任意說話，不管多麼得罪眾教會（這不是我的話，而是一位在臺北全時間訓練中受訓者自己的話），不管會多傷害眾教會，只要是「為職事、支持職事」的——對李常受的工作，職事站有或多或少的好處、有促進作用的，就沒有人會說他們缺少交通的靈；而今波爾等急急定罪英格斯等弟兄的話，壓根兒是因為英格斯等不像波爾他們一樣鼓吹李常受的工作。 對我來說，像波爾等人所真正關心的，乃是：到底你是「支持」李常受、「站在他這邊」；或「不是支持」李常受、「不是站在他這邊」。可見波爾等人根本不在乎眾教會交通的靈。 「身體的事」、「交通的靈」等等都是很好很屬靈的名詞，但為何這種論調這麼有選擇性？這豈非古語所雲：「只許州官放火，不許百姓點燈。」容我打個比方，一個人在路上開車，見有輛車越了線，在同一邊向他迎面駛來，於是按喇叭示警；迎面來車的司機竟然指責他，說按喇叭者騷擾他人，缺少關心，沒有顧到別的司機。但他自己魯莽、危險、危害他人生命的駕車方法又怎麼說，若我們定罪那響號示警者是不夠關心，未顧到別人，那麼更應該先定罪那率先魯莽危險駕駛的人。 若要指責弟兄們罔顧別的教會，發出警告，豈不更應該先問：是什麼事導致他們示警？為何他們要先發出警告？ 他們發出的警告，對別的教會的影響，比起那逼他們先行示警的因素，後者的危險性和影響就更大。 當然，有人會說，我所舉的例子「已成過去」。事實上我們也曾被人關照要「忘記」背後。不錯，在一九八七年五月間，李常受弟兄在臺北對全時間者交通到要與自己所屬的教會有交通，那時我也很被他交通的話摸著。可是，話雖如此，根據我的觀察，其後許多人依舊不變，只要你為李常受
說話，作什麼事情都沒有問題，都能接受。 比方說，在一九八七年夏季訓練看，有人鼓吹，甚至勉強合乎「特殊類別」條件的人，去臺北參加全時間訓練。我找不到一句話容許（不用說「鼓勵」）這班人先與所屬的教會有交通，也隻字不提他們應去尋求主的帶領才作決定；這些都發生在李弟兄五月交通的話之後。施訓者真有人關心眾教會間交通的靈麼？ 3.【論到李常受，你們的意見如何？】時到今日，許多人的所作所為仍繼續印證這原則。寫給英格斯等弟兄們的兩本小冊的作者正是其中表表者。他們提到許多問題的背後關鍵點，歸納起來也不過一句話，就是「到底你支持李常受或是不支持李常受？」套入聖經的話，「論到李常受，你們的意見如何」？ 說真的，我們從前彼此親密相愛的聖徒，今天在基督裡的交通根本蕩然無存。好像某些人來到曼徹斯特看望聖徒的家庭，用心已變，存心只為說服我們，勸大家要像他們一樣來跟隨李常受弟兄，根本不是為尋求在基督裡的交通，也不像聖徒間應有的光景。 幾個月以前，有人來曼徹斯特看望聖徒們的家，分發那兩本小冊，說是波爾和朱韜樞等人所寫的。這使有些聖徒感到煩惱，也傷了他們，因為他們根本連英格斯等的交通檔也一無所知。這同時也傷害了我們，使我們不能再平安享受主，因為這些「看望」要逼聖徒們「對某些事表態」（表明立場），而這些事明顯對教會生活是無關緊要的。 若事先與此間弟兄們尋求交通，難處大可避免。為何他們沒有應用波爾等人所講的，「要與眾教會交通，要關心人，要顧及人，要事先想到後果」呢？這不是再次證明分送這些小冊的人，認為只要是站在李常受這邊，為他說話、贊成他，就可任意而行？但是任何人不推崇李常受，那麼他所說的話就要放在顯微鏡下細察，看看是否順應「交通的靈」。他們的理由，究竟是真正關心教會、顧到教會？冷眼旁觀的人豈難看穿，李常受在我們中間已成了彼此爭論的焦點？ 三、【誰是教會的源頭？】 1.【教會的存在豈能歸功於人！】在波爾等人所寫的小冊第十五頁，說「安那翰教會的存在，全是因為李弟兄」（owes its existence to Brother Lee）。朱韜樞等的小冊更進一步地說：「事實上你們安那翰弟兄們，並安那翰教會的存在，豈不是因他的緣故麼？」英格斯、Otuteye和Knoch等弟兄以及安那翰教會，自然該為此而申辯。可是我認為波爾等人這樣的說法壓根兒就是錯誤的！將一個教會的存在歸功於某人，真是大錯特錯！ 回顧歷史，主作工的道路總是高過我們的道路，一切榮耀都該歸給他。耶路撒冷教會並未受彼得指導，根據統計與研究，策劃福音化埃提阿伯與非洲。但是到了元首命定的時候，他打發了腓利，用人無法想像的辦法，對一位沒有人知道會經過那裡的太監傳道。腓利既非「頭號使徒」，也非「使徒長」，而是在廚房服事的小弟兄，但卻是聯于升天元首的肢體，也是回應主呼召的人。並且緊接著太監受浸之後，主並未打發腓利去繼續栽培造就，興起在埃提阿伯的教會，反而「聖靈將腓利提去…太監就歡歡喜喜的走路」。 請問，早期在埃提阿伯的基督徒，他們的存在，究竟該歸功於誰？歸功於太監？腓利？當然只能歸功於主，他是元首。 2.【倪弟兄的例子】再引另一例子。在倪柝聲弟兄被囚以先，他計畫了福音化全中國的大舉，他曾說，如果我們忠心，全中國要在十五年間被拿下來。他也開始有訓練中心，訓練同工，給他們「初信造就五十二題」，好在眾教會中教導眾聖徒。 為這偉大的國家，有何等了不起的計畫，有轟轟烈烈的福音和造就工作。但計畫尚未展開，全中國已經失去了。當共產黨剛要渡江時，江南的眾教會禱告求主擋住共產黨，像紅海埋葬法老的軍兵一樣。 主聽了這個禱告麼？共產黨佔領了全中國，眾地方教會和一切的工作，表面看來全都了了，聖徒所見，一片荒廢。可是今天在中國有數以百萬（千萬）計的基督徒，真正在宗派之外，只奉主名聚會，不高舉任何人，只高舉基督。這是誰作的？這不是出自倪柝聲的計畫；若是那樣，也許我們都要說這在中國有數以百萬的聖徒，他們的存在都當歸功於倪柝聲了。 是教會的元首作成這一切，榮耀全都歸他。 倪弟兄和眾弟兄們的勞苦，的確已撒下種子，主也自有賞賜。但是主作工的法則，是要叫人不能誇口說，在他之外海有誰是任何教會的源頭，因為他是妒嫉的神。如果我們的勞苦滿有果效，賞賜是在主那裡，也只從主得到賞賜。但願我們不再稱許自己的工作，也不再讚美任何人的工作，願一切榮耀都歸於元首。 3.【弟兄會的例子】數月前，我們讀過啟示錄一至三章，主對非拉鐡非和老底嘉教會所說的話，尤其摸著我們。如果非拉鐡非的預言頭一個應驗的，主要是應驗在弟兄會身上，那麼他們的歷史必定又有意思，又深具教訓。 弟兄們（弟兄會）起頭只有一個念頭，就是離開所有別的名，只在主名裡聚集，並根據他的應許，求他同在，接納所有在基督裡的信徒，絕無半點意思想發起新運動，也未想過用偉大的方法拓展福音的工作。 主卻在他們中間行了大事。一切不是出於組織，而是主親自運行。回顧他們的早期歷史，就發現他們並不覺得自己有什麼了不起的，也不知道為主作了許多，更不會自覺比別人強，唯一感覺就是歸回到主的名裡，回到身體的合一。而主對他們所說的話，乃是「我知道你的行為」；但他接下去並沒有列舉他們的豐功偉績，而只說「你略有一點力量，也曾遵守我的道，沒有棄絕我的名」。主的稱讚並不在他們的行為（工作），而是他們與主之間的關係，而他們所顧念的，也不是自己的行為（工作），而是與主的交通。 後來，弟兄們自覺比別人強，遠比別人知得多、作得多，這時他們就已經變成老底嘉，主把他們吐出去了。 4.【保羅的例子】當然，有人會引用保羅對哥林多人所講的話為例子，說他們在基督裡正是他作使徒的印證，是他在基督耶穌裡用福音生了他們。但保羅也說過，我栽種了，亞波羅澆灌了，「惟有神叫他生長」。可見栽種的算不得什麼，澆灌的也算不得什麼，只在那叫他生長的神。 不錯，保羅的確曾為他是哥林多人的使徒一事申辯，但是他之所以這樣作是為愛他們，因為他們被猶太教人引誘，離開了對基督的享受，離開了神新約的經營。難道波爾等弟兄們對英格斯等弟兄的關心，也是如此嗎？誰能真說英格斯等三位弟兄所講的虎啊，表明他們失去了對基督的享受，離棄了神新約的經營呢？ 容我再問，究竟波爾等人真正關心的是什麼事？他們的負擔是為顧到那三位弟兄以及聽他們話之人的屬靈光景麼？ 我看他們最關心的事，最主要的負擔，是「別人是否支持，是否贊同李常受弟兄」，因為對波爾等人，沒有使徒李常受，就沒有安那翰教會。 當然有人會爭辯說，「你們的存在是由於他」（Owe him your existence）這句話，不該拘泥字面的解釋，正如保羅自認生了哥林多人，不該領會作他是他們生命的源頭一樣。我不想像法庭審案一般查究每一字句的用意，只想問他們這種說法到底所關心的是什麼？ 我不能代英格斯等在安那翰的弟兄們答辯，但是就我們在英國切身的經歷，我們能與他們講同樣的話。我們不是存心想要破壞教會與任何弟兄的關係，只是要把眾聖徒帶回到基督身體的元首，那獨一的源頭。 四、【最妙的道（The most excellent way）】 1.【是道路，不是方法】在廿九、三十頁，波爾等弟兄曾作如此申明，「聖經中挨家訪問傳福音的方法，遠比任何方法更高明」，「將福音送到他們的家中，是更妙的道」（more excelling way），「我們尋求更好的（作法）」，「若不採用最好的辦法（best way），便是傻瓜。」 「更妙的道」（more excelling way）」一語，當然是源自林前保羅所說的「最妙的道」（most excellent way），從前後文可看出，他們比較聚會中「更大的恩賜」時，表明了同樣想法。保羅所說的最妙的道到底是何所指？從十二章到十四章上下文看，他所關心的，是哥林多人說方言並濫用恩賜對於教會建造毫無益處。他也有負擔讓哥林多人看見為神說話、悟性的話語和知識的話語的重要。按理說，保羅應該接著談到如何才是達到這些「最妙的道」最上好的方法，比方說，可以教大家在會中怎樣實行人人為著神說三分鐘話，如何每人預備一段聖經來彼此對說真理，又或者是輪流準備某一段聖經的講章等等。可是保羅並沒有暗示有何「方法」能達到人人為神說話，達到「兩三個人為神說話，其餘的就當慎思明辨」的光景。 那麼保羅提出的「最妙的道」是什麼呢？乃是愛。哥林多人在次要的恩賜上彼此爭競，卻不用更好的恩賜彼此建造，壓根兒是缺少愛。他們所缺少的，不是知識或口才的訓練，保羅說到他們在他裡面凡事富足，口才知識都全備。保羅沒有教他們如何增長知識、操練口才，他只說到愛。哥林多人誤用恩賜，根本原因是缺少愛。這才是保羅所關心的。 為此我重新看最妙的道的「道」字的真正含意。英文的「道」（way），不論是字面解或引伸的解法，都是指路徑、旅程，也可解作方法和手段。不過根據Vine的新約字典，希臘文的「道」是「可道思」（hodos），除了字面上指路徑或旅程之外，只可引伸為一種行為、一種思想觀念。所以有愛的道路、義的道路、真理的道路、主的道路，而反面的有巴蘭的道路、該應的道路。約十四章六節，耶穌說「我就是道路」也是這一個字，但卻沒有一處像英文的way一樣，可解作手段和方法，更沒有像「十種開家的辦法」或「六種領人受浸的方法」一樣的意義，希臘文說到手段和方法，是用「塞普斯」（tropos）。有趣的是，這字在腓一18用上了：「…或是假意，或是真心，無論怎樣，基督究竟被傳開了…。」林前九22也用了另一個助語詞「板圖斯」（pantos），可譯作「用盡方法，千方百計」。「…向什麼樣的人，我就作什麼樣的人，無論如何，總要救些人」。 保羅說到愛的道路，不僅是更佳的道，而是更妙的道，他用「可道思」（hodos）。而說到用何方法傳福音，保羅非常包容，他願意用各種方法，視乎福音的物件是誰。無論如何總要救些人，他願意用各種方法救人，除了罪惡的方法之外；他也從不高舉任何一種作法過於別的方法。同樣，他也沒有要求全教會所有肢體都用同一種方法，來運用最好的恩賜建造教會。他向人人推薦最妙的道，那就是愛。 傳福音時，我們應該強調對罪人的愛，強調他們對福音的需要，正如神愛沉淪的罪人，神尋找他們，主耶穌親臨人間拯救我們，這樣的道路就是「可道思」（hodos），是最妙的，也是唯一的道路。 2.【強調方法可能帶來分裂】但若果我們強調「登門造訪」、「叩陌生人的門」、「只用某一本小冊子」，限制時間、用詞程式等等，這便是強調方法而不是強調道路（「可道思」）。我當然不是反對這些實行和方法，因為這些都不是罪惡的，然而這是方法，不是「可道思」，因此我覺得在傳福音的方法上無需要重這個輕那個。 回頭來看噶夫瑞（Godfred Otuteye）所說的話，看看他為何會觸怒波爾等人。他說：「我們必須說清楚，我們傳福音並沒有一種特別非此不可的方式。任何正常的方式都可以。」 稍明事理的人若明白過去的歷史，都知道這些話是為針對過去的弊端，就是過份高抬某種特定「方法」。噶弟兄不是說到愛的道路，而是說在傳福音的事上，別要求人人跟我們的標準看齊。他是指著不同的傳福音方法說的，為何波爾等人誤解噶弟兄的意思呢？這些飽學之士居然故意混淆英文的「道」（way）字的兩種意義，豈不知聖經說到「實行」和「方法」，是不會高舉這個方法過於那個方法的。 也許有人認為我在咬文嚼字，其實不然。從過去的經歷和見聞來看，有必要把上述的字意弄清楚。 教會歷史上曾有不少有識之士，因為高舉某些非必要的事，帶來教會分裂，事例不勝枚舉。當「新路」在曼徹斯特推行得如火如荼之際，一般人都以為叩門和家聚會等「方法」（tropos）就是「道路」（hodos），如同把希伯來書中「又新又活的路」與進入美地的「路線」混為一談一樣。這樣的說法，暗示那些不採用那些手段、方法來傳福音的人，便不在至聖所和美地之中！這是仇敵分裂我們的詭計。 我絕不反對進家傳福音。我的經歷反而告訴我，家訪傳福音大有益處。記得初時實行叩門，所摸著我的是對滅亡罪人的愛，需要為他們禱告，要俯就他們，把福音傳給他們，正如主為我們所作的。我的天然不喜歡如此作，但當日實行，仍然滿有享受。不過後來我們得了「幫助」，被教導要不擇手段，嚴守同讀小冊子、呼求禱告、示範和受浸等程式，我便十分反感。因為「不擇手段」實在罔顧聽者的光景，違反了俯就罪人的傳福音原則。雖然如此，只要別人認為這些戒律有用，甘心情願去行，我仍不表示異議；但我絕不認為方法本身有什麼過人之處。 或者有人又會爭辯，指我所講的情形不過是我們實行「新路」時「不得其法」。不過這種講法並不準確，也並未回答我所提出的問題關鍵，不論推行新路的人原意是否這麼極端，也不論我們實行是否得法，都不是問題的關鍵。這些不過是一種手段、一種方式，不應有「更妙的路（more excell-ing way）」的說法。如此高舉某種方法，結果就在製造分裂。 3.【保羅絕不高舉方法】回到保羅在林前的話，他願人人都為神說話，卻沒有發明一種方法去成就這事。我們不難想像他可以發明什麼方法。他若真的提出方法，哥林多人又不顧一切的推行，當日的哥林多教會必然更嚴重分裂！因為偏離愛的道路。這豈不正是我們的情形？最少在某些教會中已經如此。 保羅為了解法哥林多教會的紛亂，提到最妙的道，乃是愛，而不是用方法來限制人說方言，或鼓勵人為神說話。這事不是意義深長嗎？哥林多人誤用恩賜，原因不正是缺少愛嗎？推行「新路」時的根本問題，難道不也是缺少愛嗎？那時不是有人說，即使犧牲一些聖徒，也要堅持到底嗎？這些問題豈不正是噶弟兄所關心、所提出來的嗎？ 下面我還要請波爾等人看看李常受自己如何在「帶領及工人的原則」一文中說到方法（ways）的問題： 「別強調你的道路（way）、方法和作法比別人的更好，即使真的如此，也不要誇口…不要說你的方法比別人的更先進、更完美。不要說別人在某事上偏離了，而你卻走在最妥當的路上…經常有人說自己走得正確，而且要求別人跟他們一起走，這樣作法立刻引起紛亂，破壞自己也破壞別人，最終破壞主的恢復。」（長老訓練第四冊62、69頁） 諷刺的是噶弟兄要說的情況，李常受自己早已準確料到。奇怪的是噶弟兄的話居然會觸怒波爾等跟隨李常受的人。到底誰更忠於李常受的教訓呢？ 在這點上，波爾等人強烈批評噶弟兄，認為他暗示「新路中極為有益的實行」——家訪——可能導致教會分裂。換言之，他們認為高舉某種實行不可能引致分裂。這樣的說法極其驚人，因為連保羅、亞波羅、磯法等主的僕人的名，甚至基督的名，也會被誤用而引致分裂，何況高舉方法，豈不更可能引來分裂嗎？是否因為這些方法是我們所尊敬的某人所發明的，就盲目相信，以為不可能引來分裂呢？若波爾等的意思，是說這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，那我會說，噶弟兄的話中，並沒有指這方法本身是有分裂性的。 我們不能空談理論，也要眷顧事實。好些地方教會，包括曼徹斯特在內，分裂的原因就是有人把某些方法吹捧到天上有地下無（雖然這不是根本的難處，這點我稍後再行交待）。波爾等說這些事的責任在三位弟兄身上，而不是外來因素，分明有意回避事實的真相。我重申我不能替安那翰教會的弟兄們說話，但最少我們的情況的確是受外來的影響所困擾。有關例子我已在「眾教會交通的靈」的那一段提出過。 4.【病根：只在意是否支持李弟兄】也許仍有人覺得我是為「更妙的路」這句話下微言大義，大作文章。我再說明我不是辯論文詞，因為這些言論不過是病症。我在意的是病源、病根。 容我再看事件背後的深義。波爾等人真的不知聖經對方法和實行，只從大處落墨？他們難道從未讀過前面所引李常受的話？難道他們自己服事教會時，沒有遇過人出於好意要推行某種作法，結果破壞和分裂教會？否則他們為何急急批評噶弟兄？噶弟兄的話最多只可算是沒有推行新路，他們卻指他「反對新路」，真是匪夷所思。這不是很清楚嗎？任何客觀的讀者都能看出，噶弟兄是警告高舉「方法」的人會引起分裂，波爾等人卻真的相信「新路」不可能導致教會的分裂？這事背後真正的原因何在？ 關鍵豈不正是因為「新路」是李常受所提出的，而這些弟兄們只關心別人是否支持、贊同李常受，抑或不支持、不贊成李常受？ 李常受豈不是已成了爭端的中心點嗎？ 答案是肯定的。我只說我們本地的經歷，正當「新路」推行得如火如荼時，很多人都抱一個態度——凡是李常受和他任命的施訓者所說的，都一味照做。從早到晚，我們都聽到「順服」、「合一」、「不吹冷風」，要為不順服和不合一而「認罪」。但他們卻不是指在靈裡的順服主，與主合一，而是指要與李常受一夥的指令合一。人們雖然覺得一九八七年臺灣訓練中的畢業「盛大演出」和中學生訓練有極不妥當之處，但還是認為李常受既在其中，這是他的訓練，一切便無問題。 由此可見，很多人（我們自己也曾一度如此）著緊的不再是主在靈裡的帶領，而是諸般實行是否出於李常受。 親愛的聖徒，請忘記誰發明種種方法，忘記哪種方法更高明。這些事何時變成這麼重要？我們為此辯論已經是我們的大錯了。知識叫人自高自大，惟有愛能建造人。若果我們真的愛聖徒，便不會讓任何事分裂我們，那管這是多好的、多合乎聖經的。在愛裡行事，必定會顧到「最小的弟兄」和「似乎軟弱的肢體」，過於關心方法。讓我們都實行最妙的道——愛。 五、【是否分裂的因素？】 1.【交通的基礎——是否推崇某人的職事？】同樣，波爾等人又說到另一點，說「李弟兄從不是分裂的因素」，也否認「分裂是因有些聖徒高舉李弟兄」。 這是極其大膽的說法，因為保羅、亞波羅、磯法，甚至基督的名也可能造成分裂。我想李常受弟兄本人也難於說從來沒有因人吹捧他而引致分裂，否則他為何在過去數年提醒別人不要高舉他？ 最近有人警告聖徒不要訪問曼徹斯特教會，因為她已不再「跟隨、接受職事」。發出警告的人不是說我們偏離了基督、離開神新約的經綸、離棄了新約職事的目標；只因我們沒有全力推薦全體聖徒去讀李常受最新的信息（但我們也從未反對或禁止人去讀）。 這樣的警告豈不是把教會分門別類？把是否推介李氏現時的職事、工作，作為交通的基礎，說明最少對某些人來說，李氏已成分裂的因素？ 我確信提倡「與職事合一」，要求與李常受和他的職事站合一，就是問題的癥結。稍後我會回頭再說這方面。 六、【使徒的種類】 1.【使徒分類，動機何在？】波爾等人長篇累牘，說到使徒的定義和種類。若果不是當前形勢嚴峻，問題嚴重，我們覺得這類講法十分可笑。但事實上我憂心忡忡。主的恢復中，幾曾有此必要按法理來爭論使徒的身份？從前我們輕看基督教人士對「使徒」一詞的用法，因為他們自詡為現代使徒，甚至以使徒的地位作為轄管別人的權柄。 李常受弟兄曾說及，有人問他是否覺得自己是使徒，他說，我心中暗笑，因為他們用同一字眼，但有不同的定義。今天我們是否同樣以法理的地位和眼光去看使徒一字呢？是否又認為使徒是人可獲得的官方的、永久的地位？ 有關使徒的地位，爭論由來已久，我不敢自詡為專家，不過就是孤陋寡聞的我，也覺得波爾等人冗長的爭論言不及義。 首先，把使徒分類令屬靈事物流於官派和僵化，重蹈前人的覆轍。若果真有「第一類」使徒，是由主親自任命和啟示的，我就要說這等使徒已隨約翰的去世不復存在，因約翰之後啟示已經完成，再無需要增加什麼。往下的世紀，主會藉已啟示的光照我們，但不會再有新的啟示。波爾等人又怎可說「我們難道不把李弟兄當作頭一類使徒」？ 再者，他們說有「第三類使徒」，這類使徒是由主親自設立的使徒所偶產生的，不能與第一類使徒同等地位（equal standing），因此第三類使徒該由設立他們的使徒帶領及指導作工。其實什麼叫作同等地位呢？這種譯法本身已具有濃厚的聖品階級色彩。這是何等嚴謹的階級制度！ 若果第一類使徒隨約翰的過去而消失，那麼第三類使徒也隨第一類使徒的下一代過去而不復存在了。波爾等人的譯法，便與今天的情況毫不相干，認真說來，我們也可說李常受是由倪柝聲而來，所以李常受也只是第三類使徒。以此推論，連倪柝聲也不過是第三類使徒而已！又怎可以說倪柝聲去世之後，一個本來屬於第三類的使徒就搖身一變，像以利沙披上以利亞的外衣，成為第一類使徒呢？ 據我對聖經的認識，我找不到任何非常肯定、確定、僵化的、法定的證據，能支持次等使徒由高等使徒設立的理論。新約明文說到十二使徒（apostles，眾數），巴拿巴和保羅在使徒行傳也被稱為使徒（眾數用法）。所以使徒明顯不僅十二位，而是指任何被主差派為他作工的聖徒。 2.【使徒職分的傳遞：並無「專利」】保羅在林後也說到兩位有恩賜的弟兄，是教會的使徒。在腓立比書也有以巴弗提是「你們的使徒」。當然這兩個例子可能是指被教會差派的聖徒，而不是奉派完成主的使命，作主工的聖徒。新約裡當然有很多無名使徒。其實根據李常受的教導，所有人均可成為使徒，主要的根據是以弗所書第三、四章，升天的元首在他的得勝升天後，把恩賜直接賜給教會。可見主在肉身和化身那靈時，都設立使徒執行他的旨意。在第一世紀後，他仍繼續把使徒當作恩賜賜給身體，為著建造教會。不過重點是這些恩賜都是由升天元首而來，至於說元首授權某人（甚至是他親自設立的使徒），按手傳遞使徒的職分，正如波爾等人所說，「產生其他使徒」，卻是毫無根據的。 若把使徒的定義局限於被主差派的工人，而剔除了林後和腓立比書中被教會差派的使徒，那麼除了元首以外，無別人可以差派使徒。 當然也有人爭論說，保羅也差遣提摩太和提多到外地去。但是否保羅的差遣將他們構成主的使徒呢？ 如果提摩太和提多是使徒，其根據定是按照以弗所書四章所說的，是由於元首給身體的恩賜，而不是由於保羅的設立。 這樣說並不是抹殺保羅給他們許多的幫助和帶領。保羅在主裡較長進，數次差遣他們出去作工。但不能憑此便說是保羅設立他們，他們使徒職分的證明只是因保羅的差遣，該受他的帶領和指導去作工。這是很危險的推論，會取代主直接的帶領，並由元首把恩賜賜給教會的原則。更嚴重的，是取代了個別肢體直接向元首該負的責任。這不僅是使徒們的本份，也是每個肢體的責任。如果人人不向元首負責，只有使徒向主負責，恐怕便是教皇制度的翻版！雖然不能否認提摩太和提多的確從保羅得著幫助，但他們有使徒般的服侍，是因元首把他們作成使徒的恩賜，他們當向元首負責，而不是向「產生」他們的「人」負責任。 若接受波爾等人的推論，那就真是危險之極。若當日提摩太和提多二人和保羅同在耶路撒冷城，他們便應理直氣壯，不管良心的反對，跟隨保羅進聖殿去還拿細耳人的願了。若是他們不肯，我們可以質問他們，你們豈不是因保羅，就是那頭一類使徒所產生的麼？你們豈可不跟隨他的帶領嗎？同樣，我們也可說，巴拿巴在行傳起頭的時候，就得到耶路撒冷眾使徒很多的幫助（連他這巴拿巴的名，也是在那裡得的），而使徒中為首的乃是彼得。 這樣，巴拿巴跟同彼得在加拉太二章中裝假也是應當的了！如果這樣，那裡還有聖靈在每一個肢體裡的膏油引領呢？神應許說「從至小的到至大的，都必認識我」，又將怎樣？一旦接受了上述有關使徒類別的觀念，就可以罔顧自己向主所當盡的一切責任，因為我們可以說，我作這個作那個，都是聽從「頭一類」使徒。這個第一類使徒一向是服在主的元首權下，我們也信是如此，那麼我們跟從他的帶領也必不會錯。甚至有人說，他的良心既然平安，我們的良心也就平安（以他的良心作我們的良心）！我恐怕我們中間的確有這種事了。 3.【是恩賜，不是地位】數世紀以來，人對「使徒們」的定義已經爭論不休，我無意多加辯論。只是因已過數年所發生的事件，叫我深刻覺得，主賜給身體的恩賜，原本是為著「功用」（functions），而我們卻把功用改成了「地位」（Positions），甚至成了正式的地位。 我的膀臂無疑的是身體上的大恩賜，有很大的「功用」。假使我說，膀臂真強壯，支配著手與指頭，因此認為膀臂具有「地位」，手和指頭必須服從它，聽它的支配，就等於否認了真正的元首主權。 不僅如此，假如我再對其餘的肢體說，雖然你們各有功用，卻不當說，我比膀臂走得好，嗅得好，看得好，聽得好，你們雖具有不同的功能，卻都當服在膀臂之下。我再進一步想，膀臂既是這麼強壯，和頭又是這麼相聯，這麼可靠，任何肢體若服在它以下，藉著它，必定自然而然的服在真正元首之下了。（我既非說笑，也非誇大其辭，這種說法許多讀者都不會陌生。）這就完全偏離聖經，把元首賜予的生機功能，變成了制度的、法定的、機械式的地位。若是如此，不管膀臂站住或跌倒，不管膀臂是否仍舊強壯，是否聯于元首，已不是關鍵。我們有這種想法的人，便已偏離了元首的主權。 事實上，元首也許可膀臂犯錯誤，膀臂也不一定常聯于元首，這些事實不過是在他主宰之下，顯明我們的錯誤。關鍵在於我們到底是把元首賜給身體的恩賜當作功用，為此感謝他？還是把他們推上制度式的地位？當我讀過波爾諸君的小冊後，發覺他們對使徒職分的觀點，實在已根深蒂固，認為有些人可以獲得權柄，把低於自己的人立為使徒，這種想法太官式、太過法定、太機械式了，簡直把恩賜看成地位而非功用。 4.【新約的領袖：非正式、非永久、非組織性的】波爾諸君的「使徒論」，通篇沒有說到元首的權柄和他所賜的恩賜，以及各人「對他」所當有的責任。我不想辯論道理，在主的工作中，我贊成年幼的應當順服年長的，卻不是按官式的和法定的方式。我不太在意波爾諸君是否道理正確，而是說，我們言論中所著重的，顯明我們心之所擊，心之所想。若是看見使徒的職分乃是元首賜下的恩賜和功用，為要建造他的身體，我們必然著重主的元首地位，凡事上都要長到他裡面。另一方面，若是對使徒職分的領會只看成地位，自然會著重使徒的不同「等類」，就如是否某一類使徒有權柄產生新的使徒，新使徒有沒有舊使徒同等的地位？當受誰的領導，又當聽誰的吩咐。 我的話暫停於此，而將李常受弟兄的著作中，抄錄一段如下： 「神的新約經營中，神兒女中的領袖並非正式的、永久的、或是組織的…。神所以這樣定規，為要把人對領袖的看法擺在一邊。舊約時代的君王都是一個接續一個，從來沒有在同一時間中有三四個王。但是在新約時代，主並非只揀選一位使徒，而是十二位，以後他又加了別人如保羅、巴拿巴、提摩太等。我認為有好多使徒…。長老也是多數的，清楚說明在教會中並沒有固定的領袖。」「你不可以僅憑一個弟兄口所出的要求，就採取行動，或就認為是那樣。每一件事都要問主怎麼說，聖經怎麼說，而不是某個弟兄怎麼說。」 「我們以為我們的肩、臂、手和手指等都是『小頭目』（subheads）。絕對不是，我們只有一個頭，向身體上的一切肢體直接發號施令，並非通過『小頭目』…。不要以為肩或膀臂等乃是小頭目，身體唯一的頭乃是基督。」 「神的兒女在神今天的新約經營中，絕不當有一種天然觀念的領袖。我們不當在眾使徒中有什麼正式的、永久的、組織性的領袖…。因此，所有的使徒，所有的地方教會，所有的長老，所有的工作區域，都是在同等的水準位置上。」 （真理信息第三篇，22、24、25、26、27、29頁） 可以用以上的一段話，來察驗波爾諸君的觀念是否正確。這些觀念包括：「第一類使徒」產生「第三類使徒」，而「他們的地位，與產生他們的使徒並不相等，他們應當受第一類使徒的帶領並指導。」 七、【從眾使徒領受】
1.【接受使徒的條件：膏油塗抹，對照聖經】波爾諸君講論使徒的職分時，又把英格斯的話，妄自解釋成有意叫「聖徒應該照自己的喜好去挑選自己喜歡的使徒」，並且說英格斯的意思是教唆人「各按自己的立場，大可選擇性的接受保羅的職事」。如此曲解別人的話，做法很像從前好些人寫書攻擊地方教會時一樣，似乎引用別人的話，好像別人真是那麼說的，卻是故意改動幾個字，使那句話的意義愈能挑起人的反感愈好。 英格斯原本這樣說：「我們當從他們（使徒們）接受任何出乎生命和真理的供應，凡是他們所有的，且能幫助我們，使我們得著益處為著建造身體的，我們都接受。」波爾諸君卻私自添上「當照自己的喜好」來接受使徒這一句，而事實上話中絕無此意。單從英格斯的話看，並沒有明確的說聖徒當照著什麼標準，來從使徒的話中得幫助，但是他的確說到「任何出乎生命和真理的」，以及「凡…能幫助我們使我們得著益處，為著建造身體」的，這是英格斯所提出接受使徒的條件。這話豈不正對嗎？每一個重生了的信徒，既是身體上的肢體，有生命的感覺，裡面有膏油的塗抹，能認識生命和真理，能察覺什麼是對身體的建造有益的，這樣的講法又有什麼不對呢？ 再者，英格斯所摸到的頭一點，乃是神的話語的權威。照著上下文來看，他是盼望聖徒當跟隨主的引領（在靈中，也按聖經的明文），也考慮到教會當時的需要。請問勸告聖徒要按照靈裡的膏油，也照著聖經的話來接受對教會最有益處的，又有什麼錯呢？ 我好像也把自己的話套在英格斯的話上了。但是從上下文看來，我更正確的表達了他的語氣。波爾等諸君卻故意曲解英格斯的意思，替他的話加上了「隨他們的喜好（來接受使徒）之語。當然，對某些武斷的宗教人士來說，別人靈裡膏油的塗抹，只不過是「隨他們的喜好」，任意作事。所以我對於波爾諸君之曲解英格斯的話，也不覺詫異了。（比照一句名言：我信的是真理，你信的是迷信。） 2.【察驗使徒，有何不妥？】我也要將問題轉到另一面。波爾諸君的意思豈不是說：我們大可罔顧裡面的感覺，也不要管聖經怎麼說，只要某人是使徒，就只管接受，把自命使徒之人的話生吞下去嗎？（容我也效法他們，強解別人的意思！）若是如此，以弗所的教會如何能查驗那些自稱是使徒，其實卻是假使徒的人？主又為什麼稱讚他們？（當然，有些人會說，他們既是假使徒，查核他們當然又作別論。但是若不照著靈裡的膏油塗抹，並對照神的話，何能分辨出誰是假使徒呢？）聖經為什麼又說庇哩亞人賢明，因為他們查考聖經，查驗保羅的教導是否正確？ 最諷刺的，就是早年有許多人從基督教團體出來，進到地方教會中，並見證如何受李常受弟兄職事的吸引，雖然不同于傳統的教訓，但比照聖經，發現他傳講的都是又純正又合乎聖經的。這是對李常受弟兄的職事最佳的辯護。（當然，不僅道理上合乎聖經，供應生命上也完全準確。）我回想一九八三年的時候，有一次李弟兄當著眾弟兄面前，與一位元來訪的記者談話說，正因上述原因，他的職事廣為福音派聖徒接受並跟隨。 如今聲稱忠心跟隨李弟兄的波爾諸君，卻因英格斯說：要照著聖經和裡面的膏油，從使徒領受有益的幫助，便竟然如此不悅！其實英格斯的提議，跟我們起初接受李弟兄的原因並沒有兩樣，若是波爾諸君反對英格斯所說的，豈不是破壞了這一個基礎？ 到底誰在破壞、損毀李弟兄的職事？如果李弟兄的教導仍然合乎聖經，供應生命，為什麼英格斯的話會被視為反對他的教導？ 3.【長老不能（毋需）斷定真理？】還有相關的一點。波爾諸君宣稱，「長老可以教導聖徒，但是不能斷定真理，不能辨明真理，因為這樣的功用是使徒才有的恩賜」。又說「在地方教會中，長老不需要斷明（define）真理，因神命定由使徒來作這事」。首先我要說，在啟示錄之後已毋需任何長老或使徒去定義任何真理，所有的真理都已經定了。關於斷定、辨明聖經所已定義的真理一事，我實在不敢相信波爾諸君會說不需長老來斷定真理！再請細讀庇哩亞人和啟示錄第二章以弗所教會的例子，還有主斥責別迦摩、推雅推喇教會容讓巴蘭、耶洗別的教訓，很明顯地，從聖經辨明真理，拒絕錯誤的教訓，不僅是長老的責任，也是我們每一個信徒的責任。這不正合乎教會是「真理的柱石和根基嗎」？ 關於這一點，解釋上不夠準確仍非致命傷，而藏在某些人心底，叫他們說出錯誤言論的緣由，才是最要命的。在我看來，人要劃分誰應該斷定、辨明真理，誰不可以作這些事，就是以法定、官樣、機械的態度去看身體的恩賜，特別把身體的恩賜看成地位而非功用，這正是病症之所在。正如我身體上其他肢體，用不著去幫忙開門，因為手可以開門。但是若我手上拿著東西，或是手受傷了，那麼我的手臂、手肘及腳都可以幫忙開門；其他肢體根本毋須考慮這是不是「自己的功用」。有需要的時候，元首可以照著他所揀選的，叫身上任何一個肢體來滿足這個需要。 4.【丟棄異象，高抬神的用人】有人也許認為這會製造混亂，但是治亂的良藥不是外面的分門別類（以毫無生命的制度來止住混亂），卻是每一個肢體都要服在基督的元首地位之下。為什麼波爾諸君絕口不提肢體要長到元首裡？人人都長到元首裡，各肢體的功用便正常、合適；反之若違反了基督元首的地位，那所謂「正確的」、「功用上」的分工配搭，也就絲毫不能派用場，不過是以組織來代替生機的身體。在中古時期教皇及主教自命能「辨明、斷定真理」，而馬丁路德也要起來辨明真理，難道他是錯了嗎？路德可曾想過斷定真理是否自己的功用呢？身體的元首豈不正是照他的揀選，在這肢體裡運行來與他配合嗎？ 我再說，不要單單注意目前諸多紛擾的事件，雖然看來既複雜又重要，更要想到背後的原因。為什麼要談論使徒的種類？為何要談到誰該受誰待領？為什麼要劃分誰的功用是斷定真理？為什麼不說肢體當在元首的主宰下，在生命裡盡功用，卻要強調地位呢？我們豈非丟失了中心異象，就是基督照著每一個肢體功用的度量，把自己分賜給他們，藉以建造身體？多年來，我們聽了不少，也傳講了很多關於神的經營，到底真正活在其中有多少？到末了我們所說的並不能算數，惟有我們的所是的才能算數。過去我們很寶貝神經營的啟示向我們打開了。但是我們如何寶愛法？是生活、事奉都受此異象規正呢？還是高抬被主使用、向我們打開啟示的「人」？只求保住那被主使用，將神經營的啟示向我們打開的「人」的地位，行事卻與他的經營背道而馳，可算是最大的諷刺。 八、【本末倒置、倒果為因】 在「使徒」這個題目上，我還發現一個要點，就是波爾等人怎麼會認為英格斯自命是第一類使徒。只要看英格斯的話，就會知道，他強調使徒是有恩賜的肢體，為著建造身體，著重說到恩賜的功用而不是「地位」。英格斯所以說到使徒是複數的、教會對眾聖徒的態度、哥林多教會的情形，以及保羅教導人說不要越過聖經等等，從其上下文來看，是有人過份高舉「與某使徒的關係」、「跟隨某使徒」、「與某使徒合一」等等。因他們以某人為「那使徒」，於是便用各種口號，去鼓勵眾聖徒不加思索地跟從這位弟兄所講的，也跟從這位弟兄及其職事站所選的施訓者。 1.【聖經強調眾使徒】在這種背景下，英格斯才會說到在新約聖經中，除了特別指明某人外，使徒這個字常以複數出現；他也說到該如何從眾使徒領受生命及真理，有趣的是，波爾等人竟然扯出英格斯是否自命為使徒，這簡直毫不相干。公正的讀者在讀了英格斯的話後，難得會下結論，說他們在宣稱自己的使徒地位，並與李弟兄同等。（我確信對大部分的聖徒而言，「同等地位」這一類講法簡直陌生。）我也不信有人聽了英格斯的話，就會認為他真是這樣的一個使徒了。英格斯的目的，明顯是希望聽者皆能認識使徒是從元首來的恩賜，為要叫身體得著建造，使眾人能明辨、能領受出乎生命和真理的東西，而不要高舉推崇某一個人的地位。文中沒有蛛絲馬跡顯示他是指著自己說的。 當然，有人也許要辯駁說，誰能洞察人心呢？話裡沒有這個異象，難保發言者無此意。英格斯的用心何在，只有他自己才能回答。不過既然不知道別人心裡真實的動機，就不要去臆測，否則保羅在安提阿責備彼得一事，我們也可指責他是為自己求地位了？誰敢保證這不是他當時隱藏的動機？同樣的，我們也可以說，庇哩亞人天天查考聖經，要看保羅的教導是與不是，動機是要造就一個「本地的」使徒。這種猜測對基督的身體也是毫無益處的。 我並不是要為英格斯的動機辯護（如我所說的，他自己會表明），只是在已過數年中，在我們的經歷裡，這種猜疑別人的動機的事太普遍了。每逢有弟兄提醒眾人，若高舉「那使徒」和他的職事站（甚至將眾聖徒和眾教會按此分門別類）會造成分裂，他就會被指控「為自己有所貪求」。若有人表示擔憂高舉「新路」會出亂子，就會被認為「吹冷風」、「想保住在舊路上的地位」。若有人說到權力集中會生出難處，就會被控為高舉地方教會的自主權。 這些指控只是想本末倒置，倒果為因，從根本的問題上分散人的注意力。英格斯所談的難處，是有人凡事過份高抬了「那使徒」。波爾等人不提他真正的負擔和用意，卻指英格斯在宣稱自己的使徒地位，真是全然離題了。他們豈非以己之心，度人之腹？ 九、【「在主恢復中的眾教會」真正的意思是什麼？】 波爾等人說：「在主恢復中的眾地方教會，樂於接受李弟兄的職事，作聖徒結實豐足的（屬靈）滋養來源」（P.19），「…時到今日，眾地方教會均寶貴這份職事」（P.18），「（水流職事站）的服事對主的權益，關係重大，所有教會的聖徒都因此獲益無量，不容爭議」（P.21）。 這到底代表多少「地方教會」（或稱「在主恢復中的眾教會」）的意見，有多少教會同意，實在無從稽考。但是肯定無法代表今天全地所有教會，甚至不能代表所有的美國的教會。除非對他們來說，「地方教會」已不再是所有站在地方合一立場上，接受所有信徒，和眾教會有交通的教會，而只是那些接受並推薦李常受當前職事的教會。 1.【「地方教會」的定義：接受李常受的聚會？】果真如此，「主的恢復」一詞的含意，就不再是指「經過許多世紀荒涼墮落後，主再來重建和恢復的工作」；反而變成特殊的名稱，只用于追隨李常受及其職事站的人。按這定義，他們所謂的「主的恢復」，便不再是我心目中的主的恢復，而是宗派了！ 我無意追究實際上有多少處教會贊成這種想法，只是要指出波爾他們的心底話——地方教會的定義，是接受李常受的職事，這幾乎已成教會中最重要的事。 我無意定人的罪。多年來我們可能或多或少，不自覺的抱此信念。道理上雖然認定合一的立場是地方教會的基礎，但實行上，尤其是在對待別的基督徒，很多人都有強烈傾向，覺得地方教會的立場，就是接受李常受的職事。 我們大可辯稱，說只有李常受的職事建造教會，其他人的職事製造分裂；又或者說在法理上「站住立場」是不夠的，還需要「在靈中站住立場」，甚至以為不接受李常受的職事，就不可能有真正建造，難得屬靈長進。最近，更有人根據各地教會、眾聖徒與李常受之間的關係來把教會分類。這種作法正是源於上述觀念。 波爾等弟兄的文字正有這種想法，我不是挑剔他們行文用字粗心大意，這不過是枝節的事。但把「接受他的職事」列為教會中必須接受的條件，正是現時諸般難處的因由！我會就此進一步詳加探討。 十、【從歷史得著教訓】 貫串全文，我力圖找出當前教會諸般問題的癥結。我雖然針對波爾等人的文章，作為討論的「引子」，但我無心爭論對錯，免得爭論不休。他們的文章，不過是冰山露出的一角，冰山本身才具有既隱藏又強烈的毀滅力，這方面才是我們應當竭盡心力，仔細思量的。 我多次自省，倘若諸般問題不過是病症，疾病的本身是什麼？問題的癥結何在？ 1.【合一的根基：是基督？還是李弟兄？】我相信，問題的癥結是在於「合一」：「什麼是我們今天的合一？」 我們的合一是否單純基於基督，或者另有別種的合一？（不管稱之為「與職事是一」、「跟隨職事」或「與使徒是一」）。雖然有人提到「眾教會交通的靈」、傳福音的方法、使徒的「種類」與地位等問題，但我已說過，這些並非波爾等人真正關心的。他們雖然把問題「倒果為因」，指控英格斯等弟兄批評影射，暗中破壞李常受弟兄的職事，可是沒有面對那導致這些弟兄們挺身說話的難處。 我深信引起當前困局的，不是所謂的誣衊者（倘真有其人），而是那班推崇、高舉李常受職事的人！不是受指控的人在摧毀李常受的職事，而是他們，正是對李氏推崇備至的那些人，他們的摧毀其職事！ 作為新約職事的一部分，李常受的職事多年來解開聖經，讓人看見、讓人經歷神新約的經營。他的職事受敬愛，為大多數聖徒所接受。雖然回頭來看，或許就著神新約的經營來說，我們知識雖多，經歷卻十分有限。（從目前那些自命精通神經營的人的所作所為，可見一斑！） 其實，主既把李弟兄作為恩賜賞給身體，特別在解經方面把基督啟示出來（新約職事的標記，見林後三章），無論有多少的攻擊和暗中破壞，他這一份也不能被摧毀。 歷史正是良師。路德無疑是基督身體上的恩賜。他在新約的職事中佔有重要的一席。若有甚麼瑕疵，就是他晚年顯出的自義和自私。 典型的例子，是路德拒絕接受慈運理（Zwingle）和瑞士改革派為弟兄，只因為他們對主的晚餐（擘餅）的看法，比路德本人的觀點更準確。同樣，在上個世紀，達秘大有恩賜，但排斥異己，若有弟兄在真理上有不同見地，他就要革除，甚至革除仍然接受這些弟兄的教會；達秘若非變成這樣，他昔日的職事和服事，對弟兄會的益處就必更大。 歷史證明，若有人成了主的僕人，除了他自己以外，沒有人能真正摧毀他的職份。 2.【教皇路德：歷史的教訓】有關路德和瑞士改革派的爭論，就是有關基督的肉身和血，在主的晚餐（擘餅）中的意義，現摘引米勒（Andrew Miller。譯者注：米勒為倪弟兄推崇的教會歷史編者，見「教會的正統」一書P.60）所著「教會歷史」中數段如下： 「神按著自己的美意，為了廣傳真理，為了完成他恩典的旨意，曾經否定了無益的辯論。路德罔顧神昔日在會議中施行了憐憫，他根本只顧一己的名譽，但神卻顧念改教的進展。 何等可欺，人的本相何其墮落、何等自私！改教初期的路德，如今安在哉！從前路德大量寬宏、心存體諒，為什麼如今轉眼就墮落至此，成了最偏執、最頑固的人呢？答案顯而易見——從前他用信心為神站住，現在卻高傲自視，站在一黨之尊的領袖地位。這段歷史不僅說出路德心靈上異常的改變，也道出古今很多傑出人物可恥失敗的因由！ 「昔日在沃木斯舉行帝國會議時，還有在其他不同的場合，路德幾乎獨力為神的真理爭戰，對抗撒但的謊言；但在馬爾堡（譯者注：Marburg，路德與瑞士弟兄們決裂的地方），他卻以自己的新教條，為撒但的謊言而戰，對抗神的真理！ 「也許有人認為路德是憑良心，為真理打仗。或許如此，但應記得，他拒絕心平氣和地研究真理，拒絕對『這是我的身體』這幾個字一切合理的解釋，只顧維持一派之尊的地位和權勢。這些事顯明路德和德國同人，對廣傳福音毫不關注，對改教成功也不關心。因此，路德偉大、蒙福的工作，竟因他輕率提出歷來最荒謬愚昧的教條，蒙受玷污破壞。 「從史家引述對路德的評述嗎，可見在屬靈的事上，成為一党一派領袖的地位與危險： 『在馬爾堡，路德就是教皇！』 『被公認為福音派領頭的人，其身份地位卻如專制君主。為維持他屬靈的地位，竟製造偏見，使人相信他本人絕無錯誤。路德若向人承認自己在教義上有錯，他在人心目中絕對無誤的虛假形像便會消失，建基於那假像上的權柄，亦會隨之消失，至少在群眾中，他失去了權威。因他相信自己有地位，也盼望自己佔有一個地位，故必須為每項曾向其子民公佈的教義，以最崇高的語調，竭力辯護…。』」 3.【摧毀別人職事的捷徑：奉他為「一派之尊」】我引述史家對路德的評述，可能惹人非議，指我影射別人。我無意自辯，主也知道我的心。但我懇請公正的讀者從歷史中吸取教訓，因為不參照歷史的殷鑑，勢必重蹈覆轍！ 正如路德的事，道理對錯固然關係重大，昔日雙方均可表示這樣爭辯，是按良心行事。但要緊的是當瑞士弟兄們願意平息干戈，為著福音和改教的崇高目標，同心宣告在基督裡合一，不再爭辯；而路德竟然拒絕承認他們是弟兄，也拒絕承認他們是屬基督的。 今天也是一樣，誰對誰錯固然重要，但更重要的是人的態度與存心。字裡行間，誰真心引領讀者在靈中、在聖經中認識主？誰表達了對每一肢體，甚至最軟弱的，被視為消極份子的愛心和關懷？而誰卻在他們的言行中，意圖維護「一派領袖」的權柄與權力？ 聖徒們，你若真的賞識某弟兄的職事，真正愛他，懇請不要把他奉成「一派的領袖」，因為這樣作，鑒定速速摧毀他的職事。我重申，攻擊者、誣衊者、誹謗者都不能摧毀任何人的職事；但聖徒若狂熱地推崇人，以為在墮落過的人身上仍有絕對無誤的可能，這些人才會真正摧毀某人的職事！ 有人或者批評我不公平，要波爾等弟兄單獨負起推崇「一派領袖」的責任。我知道這事其實涉及更多人，但本文目的不是追究責任——這方面我留待歷史和主去判斷。我最巴望的，只是我們不要再推崇個人。要回轉，歸向基督，他是獨一的元首。波爾等人的文章，不過讓我有機會說出當前的危機。 4.【新約中的那職事：順從神不順從人】我雖然駁斥波爾等弟兄，但倘若他們的動機，是希冀聖徒均接受他們覺得有益的職事，好叫人得著幫助，那麼我便心感同情。假如時光倒流三年，我也會像他們那樣慷慨激昂，堅決推崇、維護李常受。理由很簡單，因為那時我也相信他的話語代表了今天新約中的「那職事」。 但人該從歷史中吸取教訓。鑑古知今，我想向波爾等弟兄剔除如下問題：路德的確在那職事裡佔一份，但假如你活在他的時代，會否毫無保留地跟隨他（並推薦別人跟隨）？即使他排斥弟兄，也同樣跟隨他排斥弟兄？達秘革除弟兄、革除教會，你又是否跟從？當然，你們很可能這樣做；假如有弟兄、有教會感到不能再推許路德或達秘最新的講法，因為二人都攻擊未能與他們完全一致的人，那麼，你們是否認為，這些不贊同路德和達秘的弟兄和教會，是不再跟隨新約的那職事呢？ 弟兄們，事關重大，你們所作的必須在主面前交帳，不僅為著自己，更因為你們影響了那些尊敬你們、跟從你們的人。你們有沒有充份的把握，相信現在所作的會幫助與聖徒更注目基督？而並不是僅帶人走你們所走的同一道路，去跟從一個你們所尊敬的「人」（不管他曾如何被主大用）？ 弟兄們，請不要忘記，我們的主是忌邪的神！ 十一、【個人的見證】 1.【弟兄會敗落之始：從「合一」轉到「純一」】我最近重讀自己的筆記。回想一九八七年許多紛亂的事。八七年四月，事情變得那麼糟，我才敢向自己承認實在出了亂子。那時我自忖：「在主的恢復中究竟發生了什麼事？」 我不斷思量，五十年後歷史家會怎樣說，會怎樣判斷現在發生的事？當他們評論「地方教會運動」時，會作何評注？ 我們都盼望這一代能把主帶回來，就無須讓歷史評斷。但世代以來，愛主的人都盼望主在他們那一代回來，包括弟兄會的信徒，也包括倪柝聲弟兄。當時我特別想到在弟兄會中間所發生的事。 不久以前，我讀到一本小冊子，是「公開弟兄會」一位聖徒所寫的歷史，對弟兄會的事有公允的看法。歷史上，各種新運動的興起都由於主啟示出新亮光，這些運動通常以新啟示的真理作為中心，同意的便起來跟從，也可能意味著排除那些不贊同的人。作者說，弟兄會的興起情況迥異，他們的特點是合一，不是因為彼此都同意某一項特別的真理。他們的合一，不是以彼此都贊同的事物為根據，乃是根據基督的身體。對他們來說，信徒都是「弟兄」，他們也真有弟兄相愛的實際。 不過作者繼續說，弟兄會逐漸變質，由著重「合一」（unity）改為「純一」（purity），就是指從分裂和宗派的「罪惡」中分別出來的純一。「合一」是拒絕分裂，但「純一」卻是拒絕所有不肯起來拒絕分裂的人，兩者差之毫釐，謬之千里！不久之後，弟兄會不再接納所有信徒，卻強調從宗派中出來，甚至拒絕與任何繼續在分裂中聚會的人有交通。作者認為，這標誌著弟兄運動敗落之始。 該作者看透歷史，直指問題的根源。讀到上述內容，我禁不住想到昔日弟兄們（會）必為很多「事端」困擾，誰對誰錯，作這作那，諸多問題。但一百五十年後史家看得一清二楚，整個見證敗落的根源便再清楚不過了。 那麼，我們又如何呢？今日許多事端困擾，諸如叩門、看錄影訓練、去臺北、要不要主日聚會、一人講道或是眾多申言者、為別人洗們…等等，很多人為這些事辯論。追本朔源，這些事情的根源是什麼？五十年後，若有中立客觀的史家檢討往事，會對現時在我們中間所發生的事有何觀感？（在我們中間無疑發生了一些事情，或好或壞，實在已改變了主的恢復。） 我不是問基督教裡攻擊我們的人到底要怎樣說。我是指真正客觀的學者，一個教會歷史學家，當他回顧我們今日的所作所為，會指出什麼是今天變動的根源呢？這個「改變」雖然難以察覺，但卻是根本的變更（fundamental change）。我們的變，是正如弟兄會那樣在本質上改變了？還是僅止於實行上的改動，像（李常受）所說，「因為科技進步，不再坐牛車，改乘珍寶客機」？今日的改，是大聚會改為家庭聚會，一人講論改為人人教導、人人學習（例如讀真理課程），把福音愛筵改為叩門等等呢？還是在關鍵性的真理上，最要命的事上變了質呢？ 2.【我們的特色：生命與合一】倘若「合一」是弟兄會初期最鮮明的特色。試問將來史家又會怎樣寫我們？地方教會最鮮明、最重要的特色是什麼？從某方面看，是地方合一的立場。這無疑是主恢復中寶貴的一項。但這個合一不是外面的規範，叫人依照「最正確」、最合聖經的方法來實行教會生活，更該是出自裡面的生命。 按著我們以往的教導，這個合一，特別是約翰福音第十七章和以弗所書第四章所提到的合一，乃是出於三一神，而三一神的本質（nature）就是一。我認為，這就是主恢復中最重要的特色。我們不僅要完全明白聖經，實行上正確無誤，更要作一班遺民，恢復神的經營。這羣少數的人絕對是在生命裡認識神，活出基督，在他元首權柄之下，在生命上與他合一，作他的肢體，藉此神能得著一個真正合一的彰顯，成為一個金燈檯。 這樣的啟示，在基督教中久已喪失多年，沒有這種恢復，新郎（基督）就沒新婦（教會）。特別在一九七八年的風暴影響眾教會之後，又那時至八零年代初期，在我看來，三一神的分賜，並因這分賜而產生的合一，成為地方教會中最鮮明，最著重的要點。（八一和八二年長老訓練時著重說到的「中心的異象」正是明證。）當然，這僅是我個人的感受。你可以說，這一點從始至終都是地方教會中最鮮明的特色，李常受弟兄到西方之後，這方面的教訓也是他職事的重心。但在一九八七年四月，我自忖，這些關乎恢復的命根，是否已有了改變？抑或諸般的變動僅是實行上、外表上有些改進？那時激進的實行引起很多爭論，我們也難免被周遭急劇發生的事所蒙蔽。 3.【從「與地方上所有聖徒合一」變成「與李弟兄合一」】如果近年來我們的基本重點未變，恢復中的特色沒有改變；如果生命和合一沒有改變，事情就不會引起我們警覺。但隨著時間的過去，我發現在主恢復中的最根本的重點的確變了——從「與地方上所有信徒合而為一」，作為教會的根據，改為「與職事合一」，高抬主所用的人，一位主曾用來開啟他的經營的「人」，作為合一的依歸！這是根本上的改變，不僅僅是實行上的更改。一切實行（甚至最微小的細節）的根據，都是「李常受弟兄這樣說」或「他屬下的施訓者這樣說」，而且人人必須跟隨。 不錯，沒有明文規定眾教會、眾聖徒必須如此這般的行，但若有人表示異議，便被指為「吹冷風」、「漠不關心」、「把持地位」。這些話若非心理壓力，就是要所有人一致跟隨，成為一個模樣。更重要的，是有人明明鼓吹「與職事是一」（oneness with the ministry），罔顧與眾聖徒的合一，甚至犧牲與所有在基督裡的信徒的合一。 我看過一九八七年夏季訓練的錄影，其中有一聚會中，眾人被鼓勵到臺北接受全時間訓練；我也看了中學生訓練的錄影。我當時想，任何客觀的人都會同意，有人確實高舉某類特殊人物，其範圍狹于包括所有信徒的教會。那段日子裡，我幾乎聽不見我所寶貴的中心異象，就是主最重要的恢復，反而聽見很多推薦李常受弟兄、他的職事和職事站的話。 「神的經營」這類詞語，也被用作強調李常受弟兄的工作。不錯，他曾開啟我們，但到一個地步，這些屬靈名詞已不再用來幫助眾聖徒經歷屬靈的事物。像波爾等人的小冊正是很好的例證：我們能從小冊中找到多少成份，其用意是引領讀者在生命中認識主？多少是要人順服基督元首的地位？多少是助人活出肢體的實際呢？而其中又有多少成份，要引領讀者跟隨李常受、推崇李常受，甚至到一個地步，要和作者們看齊呢？相較之下，英格斯等人的話，豈非把眾聖徒引回專注基督、聖經、生命和真理嗎？ 比這些更壞的是很多的「密談」。有人根據各地教會和弟兄們與李常受的職事站的關係而分類，結果是在聖徒之間，在教會和教會之間造成隔閡，破壞了合一和交通。那些密談常改頭換面，用「與使徒是一」、「眾教會與使徒的關係」、「服事職事」（serving the ministry）等說法來提出來。 4.【差之毫釐，謬之千里】我的結論，是八七年四月發生在教會中叫我困擾的轉變，乃是從強調「眾聖徒的合一」變成了強調「與職事合一」（a shift from the oneness of all believers to a “oneness”with the min-istry）。 表面看來，兩者非常接近：一個是真正的合一，出於三一神的分賜；另一個是高抬一個「人」，就是一個主曾使用的人，這個人曾帶來啟示，把三一神分賜給人這啟示，告訴我們。直接誒就如弟兄會中「合一」（unity）與「純一」（pu-rity）的問題。二者表面上並無分別，性質卻背道而馳。我終於明白，強調基督以外的任何東西，作為合一的條件，不管多麼屬靈，都必會成為分裂的因素，破壞了在基督裡的真正合一，就如白日過去，必有黑夜來臨。 過去我以為消極的事只是個別事例，大概是教會急進的青年誤解真理，行事極端。我曾相信，倘有的主的恢復中較成熟的人知道這些事，他們會全力制止，但可惜至今這個希望全部落空，反之那些「成熟」的、成長的人，正是最熱心鼓吹這些不當行為的人。 最新的事例，是波爾等弟兄的小冊（著者之中有我所尊敬、認為是「較成熟」的弟兄），無論就其內容，以及他們分發這些文字的不當手法，都不過是冰山露出的一角，也是我們過往幾年所觀察到的典型例子，對波爾和與他們同一見地的人來說，問題的關鍵其實乃是：「到底別人是贊成李常受和他的職事，還是不贊成李常受及其職事。」對他們來說，真正的問題不是英格斯弟兄缺少「交通的靈」、不明白聖經真理，而是那三位弟兄不像他們那樣推崇李常受。 局外人讀到雙方的文字，實難明白真正的爭端是什麼。關於聖經、關於教會的立場、關於合一、關於傳福音，雙方的立場並無重大分歧。唯一的差異乃是：「論到李常受，你們的意見如何？」 5.【關鍵：人偏離基督作元首】回復一九八七至八八年那一段時期，許多紛擾的事正如火如荼，我像進了滿長而漆黑的隧道。很多次我曾燃起了希望，以為不久會有「解決」的良方，可是每次以為是到了隧道的盡頭，卻不過是迎面而來火車頭的燈光。我終於認識，我所等候、所尋找的「光」，是建基對別人的信心的沙土上，定規帶來失望。我開始看見關鍵乃是人偏離了基督作元首，不再以基督為唯一的目標。我們雖聽過、曉得很多有關神的經營的事，但其實不夠活在其中。 當然，認清事實真相後所帶來的失望嗎，很容易使人感到美景完全破滅了，以為主在我們裡面所得的，已歸徒然，以為我們所見的「異象」是虛空的，遙不可及，永難達到。但因著主的憐憫，他的光照不僅暴露、不僅殺死，也如常的引我們悔改歸向他。何等喜樂，何等平安，歸向那曾出重價，又住在我們裡面的那一位，我們忽略他已經太久了。但他不斷耐心等候我，
歸向他。對我來說，這樣重新碰著主（幾乎是從頭再認識他），給我充分的把握，重溫我們最高的啟示：葡萄樹與枝子、基督作元首、我們是他身體上的肢體、神聖的恩膏塗抹、弟兄相愛和真正的合一，都能在今天的經歷中實現。主正等待我們付諸實行。 6.【竭力回轉，專注基督】我們自從有了上面的認識，便再不管別的，只竭力專注於基督，只看重主的恢復中最寶貝的要點，不僅要明白，更要經歷和活出所看見的異象。盼望有一天所有教會，包括我們在曼徹斯特的教會，能在平安中、在主裡向前，沒有人存心影響別人，要求別人跟從或不跟從某種作法，反而同心追求基督。我們若要彼此影響，是要使彼此能追求基督更多。 最近在我們的禱告中，有一句話常常出現，就是「吸引我，我們就快跑跟從你」。讓人人都被主的自己緊緊吸引，使我們成為別人的鼓舞，使別人也追求基督，讓我們被主緊緊吸引和俘虜，到一個地步，再沒有心神去管別人是否走我們的路，是否和我們的作法一致，只望別人也追求基督。假如我們對主的經歷是真實的（只有主知道），若我們的心只被他所吸引，必定會使別人也追求他，再也無需辯白自己的道路和看法。 為此，我願意提醒讀者，你讀到這裡，該明白本文並非要說服人贊同我的觀點。藉著以往所發生的事，我被引領再專注於基督，我唯一的盼望，是藉我自己的經歷幫助別人。但願本文能些微的幫助別人，不追求別的，只追求基督。 願我所寫的不被誤用，我為此交托掌管一切的主。 黃玉恩（EDDID HUANG）
一九八九年十二月
英國 曼徹斯特 【附件一：教會當有的立場——一九八八年八月廿八日安那翰教會聚會記錄（十六點聲明，經John Ingalls和Albert Knoch校訂）】 John
Ingalls弟兄：我們弟兄們不願意對你們大家成為一個謎，一直令你們納悶不解，「到底弟兄們的立場是什麼？他們的感覺又怎樣？」我們覺得對你們眾人缺少一些交通。我們盼望根據聖經真理跟你們交通到，作為一個教會我們應有的立場是什麼。真理和混亂是不能並存的。 我們的立場是非常要緊的，甚至比我們的情況更要緊。當我們根據真理在許多事上有了一個清楚、恰當的立場，這會影響到我們的情況。你們中間凡有家庭的都知道這個恰當立場的重要性：丈夫有某種立場，妻子另有一個立場，孩子們又另有一個立場。當然，在你上班的地方你最好能清楚你的立場，否則你也許會被老闆解雇。而最重要的，身為教會裡的弟兄姊妹們，我們必須清楚什麼是我們的立場。 我盼望今晚我們大家把事情都弄個清楚。我也盼望藉著我們的交通，你們能瞭解我們沒有意思反對什麼人，或想打倒什麼人。我們心中懷著為眾聖徒的最高利益，也為教會的最高利益，我也深信我們的心也是為著主的最高利益。聖徒們，我們是為著你們的，並且我們相信我們是為主和主的恢復，並為他的真理的。 你們有些人一直在問說，這件事怎麼說？那件事又怎麼說？我們該有怎樣的立場？現在我們就要與你們交通十六點關乎我們的立場，前八點重在屬靈一面，後八點是重在實行一面。 （一）第一，也是最首要的是對於神的話，我們的立場如何？這必須是第一點，因為這是非常重要的，我們下面所要交通的話是完全根據神的話。那就是真理。聖徒們，我信我們都同意神的話應該是我們獨一的權威，這是我們的憲法。我們在報章上常常讀到好些律師、國會議員不斷引用憲法說：「憲法怎麼說的？」聖徒們，我們必須不斷來引用我們的憲法，就是神的話！我覺得我們需要一個重新的申明說聖經是我們獨一的權威。我們願意受神話的支配。我盼望這在我們眾人身上都是真實的：就是我們的良心是被神的話所約束；不是被傳統、迷信、或任何別的事物所約束，而只受神純淨的話所約束。這話必須是我們堅實的根基。 並且我也希望我們眾人都學習用神的話來試驗每一件事，將每一件事帶到神話的光中，正如庇哩亞人在行傳十七章十一節所行的。那裡說這地方的人賢于帖撒羅尼迦的人，甘心領受這道，天天考查聖經，要曉得這道是與不是。主在這事上稱讚他們。庇哩亞人是用聖經來察驗保羅所講的道。也許保羅會對他們說：「嘿，慢慢來，你們豈不曉得我是使徒麼？你們怎麼可以來查證我講的話呢？」不，他們仍舊用聖經來查證他的話，並且他們這樣查證蒙了主的稱許說他們是賢明的。聖徒們，我們眾人必須如此行，盡力凡事察驗，神的話也吩咐我們這樣行（帖前五21）。神的話必須在我們中間居最高地位，它必須是我們堅實獨一的根基。 （二）現在根據這第一點我們要來看第二點，就是關於教會我們的立場是什麼？從永世教會就是神的心愛。他的心就在這上面，教會之於他是極寶貴的。尤其是在我們所處的這時代，教會是中心，也是最重要的。在新約中，在這時代除了教會之外沒有任何別的團體是被承認的。一切都是為著教會：無論是眾使徒，是那職事，以及我們眾人都是為著教會的！一切受造之物都是為著教會。在這時代，神正作工使萬有為著他的教會效力。 再進一步說，作為每個地方的教會，若採取一個恰當的立場，會使教會更為實際。就實際來說，對我們而言教會乃是地方的。從神的話中我們看見，唯一恰當的立場乃是在我們所住的地方站在一個身體的立場上，就是站在這寶貴的基督身體合一的立場上。我想這事已經組織到我們這人裡面了，因此我們永不可能也永不會放棄這一個。我永遠不會接受任何別的立場。 我們不同意有分於任何宗派、系統、或分裂的組織。我們只願是一個基督徒——這是我們與生俱來的身分——站在基督一個身體的立場上，愛所有的基督徒，也只在基督裡與所有的基督徒聯合為一。我們只共有一位寶貴的元首，我們與他連結作他的一個身體。這個合一乃是一切祝福的所在，許多寶貴的事物全在這裡面！這是神在他話語中所命定的，我們永不可拋棄。 （三）第三點是真正的合一：關於這一點我們的立場和關係又該如何？首先我們需要對什麼是真正的合一下個簡要的定義。當然，這一點與教會是連在一起的。這也是非常寶貴的，因為主耶穌曾為這事禱告過：……叫我們合而為一，使我們完完全全的合而為一（約十七21～23）。這個非常寶貴的實際是我們可享和有分的特權，以弗所書四章稱呼這真正的合一有兩種說法：那靈的一以及信仰的一。這個合一乃是生機的，不是組織的。這是永遠組織不起來，教導不出來，也勉強不來的。這合一只需要被保守，因為那是聖靈的合一。我們在靈裡與眾聖徒共有這個一，我們只需要竭力保守它。這個合一何其寶貴。主在合一上命定了他的祝福（詩篇一百三十三篇）。那是一個屬靈生機的合一，它全是是在生命與真理的領域中。 我們絕不能在這生命和真理的領域之外建造任何種的一，否則我們所建造的可能是巴別（巴別可說是在生命和真理的領域之外，一種屬乎肉體的合一）。真正的合一是出於生命的。實際上，它就是基督，基督被我們享受並經歷。當我們在這真正對基督的享受裡，我們也就享受了這個真正的合一。再者，這個合一就是我們的見證。主耶穌禱告說，使我們合而為一，好叫世人知道……哦，這是非常有力的見證！ 當然，對於這個合一我們的立場乃是我們的靈永遠不能贊同任何種的分裂。我們不願有分於任何種的分裂。我們只顧在和平聯索中保守那靈的合一。我們也願達到眾聖徒所共有之信的合一。我們得救的信仰乃是一切信徒所共有的。我們只願站在這個合一上。一切分裂都是來自罪惡、自私、野心或無知。我們必須蒙光照看見我們不能被任何事物分裂。屬靈的首領永不能分裂我們。沒有什麼可以分裂我們；相反地，我們必須保守與眾聖徒在那靈裡真正的合一。我們合一的大小範圍，應當恰恰等於基督的整個身體。任何少於這個的合一，我們都不要。 （四）第四點也在同一條線上：我們與別的基督徒的關係，我們的立場又如何？在我們之外還有好些基督徒。時間其它地方不必說了，單在安那翰一地就有成千成萬的基督徒。對於他們眾人——包括那些曾與我們一同聚會而現今不再和我們在一起的人——什麼是我們的立場呢？他們都是基督徒。（他們並不是未得救的人！）簡單的說，我們與他們的關係是我們該愛他們眾人。我們應該愛他們眾人，也接納他們眾人，並且感覺我們的確需要他們眾人。 近來我曾考量這件事：到底愛眾人是什麼意思？當然我信它就是我們感覺需要他們。哦，我們需要所有其他的基督徒。我們不只需要他們，我們也實在要他們；並且我們向他們非常敞開，也關心他們。我們就是愛他們。聖徒們，我過去對別的基督徒的態度曾被主責備，我也曾為這事向主悔改。我覺得我們過去的態度並不好：在已過我們曾嘲笑、藐視別的基督徒。現在正是我們該停止這種態度的時候了！我們必須以正當愛的態度來對待我們所有的弟兄們，因為他們都是在同一個身體上的眾肢體。我們乃是互相作肢體的，所以我們當然該愛所有別的肢體，包括那些曾與我們一同聚會的人。好些曾與我們一起聚過會的人還住在鄰近的地方，但我們幾乎把他們全部從往來的名單上劃掉了，我們覺得，最好把他們都忘了罷。這是一個錯誤的態度。最近有一位離開我們十年之久的弟兄打電話給我，我聽到他的聲音實在歡喜，他就是來尋求交通。Albert弟兄和我去看他，我們享受那個交通，也有很好的禱告。他愛主，也實在是為著主。我有很重的負擔為我過去的態度向他道歉，他也原諒了我，我也欣賞他的態度。 我們對待眾聖徒必須有一個對的態度好和適當的愛，無論他們是在那裡。這並不表示我們在真理上有所妥協。不，但我們確實愛所有的基督徒。我們永遠不認為自己比別人強；也許我們比有些人更差。我怕在已過（包括我自己的內）我們有一種優越感，自認我們屬靈高人一等。這個錯了。如果我們的態度是這樣的話，我們十足就是老底嘉——我們是在一個墮落的光景裡。還有一件事，我們中間不知從那兒養成的習慣，稱別的聖徒是消極的。不能這樣！我告訴你們誰是唯一消極的：就是魔鬼。如果你感覺喜歡稱呼某些人是消極的，你就去告訴魔鬼說：「你總是消極的！」我們曾經稱某些聖徒是消極的，但其實他們心中只是有一些非常真誠的關懷罷了。我們為何不能相信這些而愛他們呢？哦，聖徒們，讓我們愛這同一身體上的眾肢體罷。 （五）第五點是對我們職業的立場。我們的工作，我們的正當，我們的呼召是什麼？換言之，我們該作什麼？有人曾問說：我們到底在這裡幹什麼？聖徒們，我們的職業只是建造基督的身體。這是我們的工作，我們的正業，我們的事奉。今晚我們唱的詩歌說：除此以外沒有什麼能滿足主的。這是他今天所作的，就是建造他的身體。這也是使徒們勸勉我們去作的。我們都必須有分於這個建造。 林前三章告訴我們說，我們眾人都在建造。各人都在這一個已經立好的根基上建造。同時這章聖經也警告我們要謹慎怎樣建造：我們必須用對的材料。以弗所書四章說到那職事的工作，為的是建造基督的身體，以及身體在愛中建造自己。所以弟兄們，我們的工作，我們的職業乃是建造基督的身體。無論我們是什麼，我們只該是建造身體，也只為著建造。我們絕不該建造別的東西。 當我們說到我們的立場該如何的同時，我們也必須表示清楚我們所不該有的立場：我們不該建立任何工作或職事。事實上所有的職事都該為著身體。今晚我們唱的詩歌說：職事乃是為著眾教會，不是眾教會為著職事。所以，我們的職業乃是為著建造身體。我們在這裡有好些事要作，在生命與合一裡彼此建造，以建造基督的身體。 （六）我們的第六點正與這點並行：我們的目的或目標是什麼？就是為作主的見證，作他的完滿表現。主今日在地上需要有彰顯，因此這也該是我們的目標。最後所產生的結果必須是我們有一個見證，而我們就是他的見證。我們在這裡不是為一個工作或活動。（我並不是說我們不需要出去傳福音，不要誤會我的話。）我們在這裡單單是為作他的見證。 最近我讀到尼希米記，這本書說到耶路撒冷悲慘的情形：城牆破裂倒塌，城門被火燒毀。尼希米見到這情況，不只他靈裡被激動，他的心也非常關切，有負擔。耶路撒冷，神的百姓都蒙了羞辱。弟兄們，老實說我覺得我們是在羞辱中，失去了見證。城牆已倒塌，城門被火燒毀。城牆不只說出一個分別，它也是一個見證。我盼望主恢復我們來建造耶路撒冷的城牆，建立他的見證。身體需要被建造，好叫我們成為一個見證。親愛的主阿，恢復我們！恢復你的見證！聖徒們，這必須是我們的立場，我們只願成為主的見證。 （七）第七點是我們對職事的立場是什麼？我信我們在這一點上相當的混亂不錯。你們聽見好些聖徒用「職事」這個字眼。但是我要說他們錯用了這個字，甚至是濫用它。他們完全沒有正確的使用這個字。比方：「我們是為職事的，」或者「他們不為職事」這種說法，我們大家幾乎都聽說過。 首先，我要對什麼是職事按照真理下一個定義。簡單地說，按照神的話，那獨一的職事乃是將神分賜到他子民裡面而產生教會。這是真理的一個簡單說明。現在讓我問你們，你們是不是為著職事？這就是那職事。可是我想當我們用這個字的時候，絕大多數的意思是指某一個人的職事。弟兄們，這個錯了，我們都該是這獨一職事裡的眾執事。這不是任何人獨佔的職事，我們必須瞭解這一點。行傳一章十七節說到猶大失去了職分。那裡是說他「在這職事裡原有他的一分」。所有的十二使徒都有他們的那一分。並且我們在這職事裡也都有一分。 也許你要說，「在這職事裡豈不是有一些特別有恩賜的人麼？」不錯，有眾使徒，眾先知，眾傳福音者，眾牧人和眾教師。但他們都是多數的。這是一件團體的事。在這職事中有好些人。而我們在這一個獨一的職事中，就是在將神分賜到他子民中以建造基督身體的職事中都有一分。阿利路亞！我盼望我們能有一種新的說法，當我們談到那職事的時候，我們都清楚我們不是談到任何個人的職事。如果你是在談某一個人的職事時，就請清楚表明。如在指某某弟兄的職事，就說「某某弟兄的職事」。但願我們對於那職事的意義都有一個更新的領會，並且我們也都有一分在內。 （八）我現在來到第八點：我們對眾使徒的立場又如何？按照神的話，使徒總是多數的。最近我從聖經彙編查看這個字，發現只有提到特別某一個人時才用單數，例如「耶穌基督的使徒保羅」或「耶穌基督的使徒彼得」，此外所有提到使徒的地方都是複數的，例如「他所賜的有眾使徒」（弗四章）。在聖經裡有十二使徒以及許多別的使徒，還有使徒們的交通，不是單個使徒的交通。他們都恒心遵守使徒們（多數）的交通和教訓。我想我們在這點上也都需要有一些的校正。使徒們是多數的。但是我怕今天如果你去問教會中大多數的聖徒說：「到底有多少位使徒？」他們會回答說：「一位，只有一位。」不，弟兄姊妹們，今天有好多位使徒。也許你們中間有些人會問說：「他們是誰呢？」我可以告訴你們一些使徒。無論如何，按照神的話使徒是多數的。 （九）再進一步看，眾多的使徒加上所有有恩賜的肢體，是神所賜下為著建造基督的身體，而不是為著建造他們自己的工作，他們的職事的。他們乃是為著身體的。因此，對於這些使徒們我們的態度應該如何呢？我們當從他們接受任何出乎生命和真理的供應，凡是他們所有的且能幫助我們使我們得著益處為著建造身體的，我們都接受。並且我們都該樂意從所有的使徒領受幫助。 新約聖徒給了我們許多榜樣，好些使徒們之間有非常好的交通與配搭。哥林多前書給我們看見保羅和亞波羅有很好的關係，他們互相尊重並配搭。保羅稱讚亞波羅，他自稱是栽種者，而稱亞波羅是一個澆灌的人（林前三章）。在林前十六章裡，他再三的勸亞波羅去看望哥林多教會。在提多書三章十三節保羅說，當亞納和亞波羅來的時候，你要為他們送行，並要顧到他們的需要。使徒們是彼此相愛相顧的，並且有一個好的配搭。聖徒們，我們的確彼此需要，使徒們也彼此需要。沒有一個人是完全或是包羅萬有的。 關於使徒們，我們還需要認識一點，就是保羅在林前四章六節所強調的：「弟兄們，我為你們的緣故拿這些事轉比自己和亞波羅，叫你們效法我們不可過於聖經所記。」換言之，就是不要高抬我們或看我們過於聖經所記的。聖經所記的是什麼呢？第四章是回頭提到前面三章，在第三章裡保羅說：「我栽種了，亞波羅澆灌了，惟有神叫他生長。可見栽種的算不得什麼，澆灌的也算不得什麼，只在那叫他生長的神。」所以意思就是不要過於這裡所記的！然後在四章一節他繼續說：「這樣，人應當以我們為基督的執事，為神奧秘事的管家。」 你不記得在哥林多發生了什麼事麼？他們高抬這個高抬那個，有人說我是屬保羅的，有人說我是屬磯法的，又有人說我是屬亞波羅的。他們就是在高抬某一個人過於聖經所記的。聖徒們，我們不該高舉任何一個使徒或任何一位主的僕人過於聖經所記的。如果我們這樣做，我們就是落到哥林多人的光景裡，結局必然是一樣的，就是分裂！我盼望我們不會這樣做。我再說，我們不是在反對任何人。我們應該受、尊重和敬重每一個人，尤其是主賜給他身體的眾使徒和眾執事。但是我們絕不可越過聖經所記的。 但願我們都能根據這八點，站在一個對的立場上。這會拯救我們脫離許多的難處，使我們能走在一條恰當且美好的道路上。 Godfred
Otuteye弟兄：剛才John弟兄所交通的八點，對於瞭解我在下面所要講的實行的事是非常重要的。為要讓教會能往前，我們必須瞭解真正身體合一的重要性。你將看見，今晚我所要交通的有些點已經有人把它們當做合一的根基，比方：如果有某人不實行某些事，他就被定罪為不「與職事合一」。但是我所要提起的這些事，並不屬於教會合一根基的項目。因此我們大家都能弄清楚這些事是非常緊要的。 九、首先是教會的行政。今晚我們都唱了詩歌第五百九十八首，那裡說：「地方行政雖獨立，各向元首負責」。這一首詩歌我們已經唱了好多遍了，我們也知道它，但我們並沒有實行它！結果就在我們中間帶來好些難處。在地方教會裡屬靈的監督和實際的行政管理應歸該地長老們負責。他們必須背負當地教會牧羊，教導，並實際照顧的責任。可是，所有的信徒也都該和長老們一起做當地的主工。長老們不可成為另一階級的人來取代弟兄姊妹們。不，他們與眾聖徒一起做當地的主工，而長老們在基督他自己頭首權的引導下監督這個工作。 地方教會並沒有任何總部，只有主自己為元首。早期我們常常聽到這樣的話：我們中間沒有總會，也沒有總部。地方教會不該受到中央的控制。聖徒們，安那翰教會除了接受從三層天來的帶領之外，不該受任何總部，總辦公室，或中央管理的轄制。不過，這並不就是說我們不與那些創立教會的使徒們有交通，我們彼此之間是有交通的。但是任何有關行政的交通，在執行實現那個交通時，究竟該不該這樣作，那是長老們的責任。請注意在林前五章裡，雖然保羅告訴哥林多教會他們該將那個犯罪的弟兄革除，保羅並未親自革除他，乃是那裡的教會作這件事。保羅給他們教訓，說明按照神的原則該怎麼辦，但辦理那件事乃是當地的長老們和教會的責任。 我為什麼對這點將這麼多話呢？因為在已過幾年間，我們在安那翰並沒有這樣實行。我甚至要這樣說（因我是帶頭弟兄們中間的一個，求主遮蓋）我要說，我們弟兄們竟至某種程度，放棄了我們對主和對這裡的教會的責任。我們屈服在許多外界事物的壓力和影響之下，好些主工作的活動成了指揮我們教會的根源。在這裡有一段時期，我們每隔幾周就改變我們的作法。首先我們關閉會所，打發大家回家；然後又把大家叫回來！不過，我說這話不是在批評任何人這樣作。大部分責怪應歸在我們身上，因為我們有責任去看究竟怎樣才對本地的教會是合適並最好的；可是在這事上我們向主不夠忠心。 今晚我代表其餘的弟兄們向教會道歉。在已過幾個月中，當我們開始查看在我們中間所發生的事情時，我們實在向主悔改，但我們仍得向你們眾人道歉。我們覺得我們做錯了，並且我們今後絕不該再這樣作。無論在何處有主的話語出來，在各個教會負責的弟兄們應該禱告尋求主，看看這事是否在這時刻適合於他們的地方。在聖經中有許多美好的事物，也有許多美好的事是主眾僕人今天所說的；但我們並不能在同時去實行每一件事。有些事對這時刻是好的，可是有些事要明天作才好；也許有些事根本不適合我們去作。這是帶頭弟兄們的責任，帶著全教會一同尋求主和他的引導，看看到底這時什麼是我們這地方所該作的。 在過去，有些人曾來見長老們，非常強的責問說：「昨晚在某地所說的這件事，我們為什麼不付諸實行？如果教會要」與職事合一「的話，我們應該馬上實行！」聖徒們，我們必須把它弄個清楚，我們不馬上實行昨晚所提說的事，並不就是說我們不接受它，只是它可能在這時刻對我們並不合適而已。在已過我們有太多變來變去，一下這樣，一下那樣！我們浪費了太多的時間。許多聖徒覺得困惑，灰心，也不再來聚會了。有人甚至覺得長老們根本不知道在幹什麼，因為看起來情形就是如此。 十、第二件事我要交通的就是關於水流職事站。在已過幾年裡，這個職事站以及它的管理階層在我們中間被過分地推銷，甚至在我們中間被高抬。曾有這樣的說法：「與職事站並它的管理階層合一，就是與使徒合一。」（這是逐字逐句引用的話）。反過來說，不與職事站合一就是不與使徒合一。更進一層，在這樣一種壓力和捧場的環境之下，我們在安那翰的長老們，曾和其他許多弟兄們聯合一起發表聲明，宣告這樣的合一。我相信當我們這樣作的時候，我們是代表你們，宣告這裡的教會是與職事站和它的管理階層合一的。這些事曾在我們幾次聚會中說過。 我覺得今晚我們必須抓住這些問題予以解決，因為我們過去是在公開的場合聲明的，那是一個錯誤的聲明，因此我們必須公開地更正它。我們曾宣告我們是與職事站和它的管理階層合一的，因著這樣的高抬，職事站開始對一些教會發揮某種程度的影響力——我不敢說對所有的教會，但確實是對包括安那翰教會在內的一些教會——也影響到青年的工作，其影響的程度，我們今天認為是不能接受的。我們不同意這個，並且我們也不能容忍這個。由於我們曾公開地宣告與職事站合一，就是因為這樣，我們現在必須把它擺明清楚，一個活的神聖實體的教會與一個事業辦公室合一是不相稱的。這兩者是不能相容的！ 再者，在水流職事站裡面有一些實行和行為，我們發覺是無法忍受的。我們要在此公開地說，作為本地的教會，我們從此斷絕與那些實行和行為的關係。我再說，我們所以這樣作，因為你們聖徒們有一種印象，由於我們曾公開宣告與這職事站合一，因此凡職事站所作的我們都與之合一。這就是為何我們必須公開取消我們所作的聲明。我再說，我必須承認對於教會與職事站那個不正常的關係，錯在我們長老們身上；那個聲明不應該放在那辦公室的門口。有一段時期，我們——我個人曾在這事上帶頭主張，當然弟兄們也都覺得有責任，也承認是作了這事——我們曾公開鼓吹這些事並高抬職事站，我們強迫聖徒，甚至把他們推到那裡去服事，並要他們與職事站和它的管理階層合一。甚至到某種程度，不論聖徒們在那裡看見什麼，或是那裡發生了什麼事，我們都叫他們閉嘴不言。為這事情赦免我們！我們要告訴教會說，我們對不起你們。 水流職事站是一個營業辦公室，從事於基督徒刊物的出版、分發和銷售。我們與它的關係應該僅限於這個範圍，不能再多。職事站無權管轄這個教會。而在這裡的教會也無義務去那裡服事。（你決定以一個雇員的身分在那裡工作，或志願去那裡服事，乃是你個人的決定，與教會無關）。我希望這件事現在已向大家交代清楚，好叫我們能在此地教會中正常往前。 十一、下一件事我要交通的就是有關生命讀經和一般基督教的刊物。除了聖經之外，我們讀基督教的書報對我們的屬靈生命會有很大的幫助。在提摩太后書裡，保羅要求提摩太將他留在特羅亞的書卷帶來。他又說：「更要緊的是那些皮卷……」也許你要說這些都是聖經；但我們也可以說它們也許是另外的一些材料，也對保羅的工作是有幫助的。無論怎樣，這表示保羅有他的藏書！根據這推定的事實，我們的點乃是說閱讀屬靈書報對我們是一個造就。我們鼓勵你們去讀任何的基督教書刊，只要你覺得它具有造就性，你就可以照你自己的識別判斷去取捨。 但是我們原對大家說，我們不可有人容讓這些屬靈的材料成為一個拐杖或取代了我們的讀經，不管這是什麼材料或是誰的材料。這些幫助我們的東西很容易會變成一個頂替，正如屬靈領袖很容易會成為主自己的一個頂替一樣。我們絕不容許這樣的事發生。再進一步說，若有人堅持聖徒們只能讀水流職事站出版的書籍，這就太過份了。在我們中間任何人持有這種觀念或堅持這樣作的，這就超越了限度，它會把我們的教會轉變成一個宗派。另一方面，反對讀注腳、生命讀經或水流職事站所出版的書籍的，也是宗派性的作法。因此我們也不贊同。你們大家應該有完全的自由去讀任何你們發覺有造就性的基督教書刊。然後，若在一個聚會中有一位聖徒想要念某一點、或某一個注腳、或某些幫助了他的話，我們眾人都該敞開來接受它。但是我們不應堅持每一個人都照樣作。我們盼望你們對這事現在都能清楚。 十二、我們的下一點是關於在會所裡售書的事。我們有這項服事，純粹是對你們大家一個不營利的服事。你們中間反對這事的人也許要我提出一節聖經說可以在會所裡銷售東西。若是這樣說的話，那麼聖經裡也沒有一處說到我們可以用冷氣或電氣！聖徒們，如果有些事你堅持太過，那就會使整個事情變得太荒謬了。所有這些實際的事，我們都應該運用「一般性」的靈，那就是說如果一件事不是罪惡的，而又是對聖徒們有益的就可以。 我們有這項服事是為給大家方便。散會後很容易到後邊去買你所要的書籍，而不必特地到書店去買。不過在已過幾年間，特別是自從我來到本地之後，我們曾過度地宣傳、推銷一些書籍。在我們的靈裡，當我們在主面前通盤考量這事時，我們理解到我們作得太過了。教會的聚會不應該被用來推銷物品的。凡事都有它們合適的地方，在會所裡推銷物品是不恰當的。所以我們還會繼續這項服事，但是我，
將不再宣傳或推銷任何書籍了。你們人人都有自由在會後去看看有什麼新書，有什麼舊書，或有什麼別的。同時，你們不同意我們這項售書服事的人也有自由不利用它；你們可以到外面任何書店去買。但對你們想要在這裡買書的人，無論是水流職事站或是別人出版的，我們將提供這項服事。 十三、另一點我們必須使你們清楚的是關於半年一次的訓練。許多聖徒曾經參加一次或數次的訓練，也從其中得了幫助。但是，我們現在覺得，從這次開始，我們將不再在訓練期間打岔我們的教會生活。若有人想參加訓練，你可以自由參加。這是你個人的決定。若是錄影訓練，我們會在會所裡騰出一個房間讓你們參加的人使用，但對於你們不參加的人，在訓練期間我們的教會生活仍將按照平常的進度繼續不斷，好讓你們參加教會的倒常聚會。我們弟兄們認為這樣的作法是適當的。我們將不會關閉會所的門，或停止任何聚會，或作任何打岔我們例常日程的事。如果在訓練期間我們正在請以弗所書，我們還是繼續讀。但我再說，如果你要參加訓練，你可以去；如果你不想去參加，也可以不去；你若喜歡，你仍可參加教會的例會。 十四、另一點我們必須提到的，是與其他眾教會的關係，我們的立場是如何？我們應該尊重並對所有別的教會給予高的評價，無論她們人數多或少。並且我們與她們全體應該有完全的交通，彼此之間有好的往來。畢竟我們是互相作肢體，我們都同屬一個基督的身體。可是，我們在這裡也不願意任何別處教會的長老們告訴我們該怎樣作。我們曾經讓這樣的事發生在安那翰這裡，我對此覺得非常難過。 當我在爾灣的時候，我記得曾告訴一些弟兄們說：「永遠不要在訪問別處教會回來之後，因你在別處看到的，就來定罪這裡的教會。」這樣的事過去常常發生。如果我們在別處教會看到什麼好的事，我們可以把它服事給聖徒們，但我們不可勉強自己所在的教會馬上也實行別處教會所實行的。不，我們該為這事尋求主，到底他在我們這地方所要作的是什麼？ 十五、再有一點我們必須澄清的是有關一些不同的作法：例如「叩門」的作法。我之所以提起這件事，因為這是最近發生的事：去年因著這事我們教會幾乎產生分裂！所以我們必須申明，在所有這些事上我們應當與眾聖徒實行「一般性」。任何一種實行或作法只要與罪無關，我們既不可反對，也不可強制人人實行。對任何的作法，不要試圖說服別人，也不要試圖反對，不堅持也不抗拒。我可以見證，當我得救後不久，我作了不少挨家挨戶傳福音的工作，也有不少人得救。以這種方式傳福音也沒有什麼錯。可是當我們弟兄們說人人必須這樣作，這就太過份了，並且也違反了一般性的原則。今晚，我們盼望教會明白我們反對這種情形。我們不可強迫任何人實行任何一件事。 我也清楚記得去年那些出去叩門的人如何實際把持教會的許多你聚會。他們作見證說到這說到那，但教會其餘的人變得整個地厭煩這種見證。聖徒們，這種事不該發生在我們中間。當然我們應當向那些實行某些作法的人敞開，接受他們的一份，但也不可把它拿來強迫任何人。對於任何作法我們必須非常顧到大體。 十六、我的最後一點就是關於傳福音這事。我們弟兄們實在盼望也禱告，使你們因著對主的享受，叫你們眾人都能對鄰居、朋友、以及你們周圍的人傳福音，廣泛地傳，並且天天的傳！然而，我們必須說清楚，我們傳福音並沒有一種特別非此不可的方式。任何正常的方式都可以。（當然我們不該用搖滾樂或電影或任何世界的辦法去吸引人到主面前來；但任何恰當的傳福音方式都可以）。如果你邀請人到你的家，不錯，或者你去他們的家也是好的。只是我們沒有一個人該堅持任何特殊的傳福音方式，否則又將導致教會產生分裂。不，教會是一個身體；它是生機的，且是活的！ 這些都是實際的點，是我們弟兄們盼望交通給你們的。我再說，我們對過去所犯的錯誤覺得虧欠，我們求主也求你們赦免我們。再者，我們之所以有這麼一次的交通，不是在為什麼人辯解，也不是在定什麼人的罪，同時也不是為我們自己作什麼事。我們有這一次交通的目的是要把我們大家都帶回到主面前，他是我們的元首，他是我們的中心；並且他也該是教會生活的整個且是獨一的內容。我們盼望所簡略交通的這些話能了結已往，好叫我們本地的教會能一同積極往前。 Albert
Knoch弟兄：聽見今晚的交通實在是好，我只想作一個見證來印證弟兄們所說的清楚立場。最近我訪問了歐洲的幾處教會。他們並不知道我們所經過的這一切困擾，但我相信他們都會同意我們今晚在此所表明的立場。今晚所交通的話一點兒也沒錯；神的話教導這些真理。當然，我們在這裡不是要反對主這些年來所給我們的。但我必須說，我在和歐洲各地教會交通時所聽到的，和我剛才所聽到的完全一樣。他們問說：「我們真是地方教會，有一個「一般性」的立場，向著本地每一位基督徒都是敞開的麼？或者我們是一個宗派呢？」他們像我們一樣的關心，因為經過他們已過幾年的實行——他們一直努力去跟隨他們所認為主今天最新的行動——他們發現他們已逐漸成為一種非常特別的「教會」，不是一個地方教會（那就是說，在他們的聚會唯讀一種的材料，等等）。 我不能確知主將如何把我們從這種已陷入的模式裡帶出來，但我實在感覺弟兄們所交通的恰當的立場和實行的路，將給我們極大的幫助。當我在歐洲時，曾參加一個教會的聚會，雖然我不懂他們的語言，但在我靈裡我能體會到任何不是基督的事物就不是教會！教會就是基督。哦，聖徒們，任何我們所有的恐懼必須被除去；我們必須不用怕單單的跟隨基督，並且僅以他作我們獨一的元首！我看到有些聖徒並不像我們所認為必須如此的，他們不「跟隨職事」，但是我看見這些聖徒非常享受主，愛他並事奉他，比我更多結果子，甚至帶領許多人歸向主且進入教會生活。他們敞開接受李弟兄的職事，同時也接受其他主僕的職事。他們享受全體主僕的供應，也盡所能的採用。當某種作法來到時，他們就轉向他們裡面的膏油；如果他們覺得有引導去實行，他們就去作；如果他們不覺得有引導去行，他們就不去作。他們不勉強自己去討任何人的喜歡，只討主的喜歡。他們都來在一起享受基督，為著建造來分享他。 我覺得我也必須為已過我所參與的所有推動，以及我所作的事和我所說的，向你們大家道歉。我們的心一直想要作一些有益於教會建造的事。但我們發覺除了基督我們不該把任何東西帶進來。我很喜歡這句話，就是新約的職事乃是我們眾人的責任：甚至如果只有一位弟兄和你在一起，你在靈裡供應基督，你就是把新約的職事服事給他！你也就在那時建造教會，並且你在那職事裡被成全了。 哦，聖徒們，主已經在這地方把我們都放在他身體合一的立場上了，我們已無法離開這個。我們必須留在這裡直到我們保守那靈的合一而達到信仰的一，直等到我們長大進入那位說他要建造他的教會的豐滿實際裡。我非常注意到那被主耶穌稱為石頭的，過不了幾分鐘就被他稱作撒但！所以無論何時我們一落到我們天然的人裡，我們就能犯各種各樣的錯誤，作出許多傷害的事。然而，我們必須仍舊與本地的聖徒們一同站在合一的立場上，直到所有這些東西都受到對付，使我們有一個純潔的教會（新婦），這就是主在我們裡面，藉著我們並要與我們一同建造的！ 【附件二：朱韜樞及James Rettzke給英格斯等人的連署信（請參閱本書P.138）】 【附件三：由波爾等八位弟兄連署，「給一九八八年八月廿八日安那翰教會聚會中發言人的公開信」（請參閱本書P.142）】 【附件四：新約教會的根基——聖靈的主權】 親愛的Benjamin、Peter及諸位弟兄們： …我曾在電話中與Peter談到，李常受的策略是在推搪，說難處都出在幾位弟兄身上，說他們陰謀毀滅他的職事，破壞聖徒與他的關係。 對於毫不知情的人（或根本不想知的人），假如對雙方過節並不清楚，自然覺得李弟兄目前列舉的種種記錄十分可信，因此李氏對這幾個人的反應，也十分合理（事實上許多人也主觀地巴望相信他，正如昔日的我一樣）。李弟兄想在人心中製造這種印象，又用許多謊言，破壞幾位弟兄們的信譽。 但我們要切記，絕不能同流合污，把水準降低到和他一樣，用同樣的手法來回應，好像這場爭戰不過是他和幾個人之間的事。聖徒若這樣想，就必被他誤導，以為弟兄們為個人恩怨反對他，因而「背叛」。所以我認為毋須勸人為弟兄們辯護，也不可對李氏和他身邊的人作人身攻擊，因為最重要的問題是真理。 我從一起首就看見，他想建立個人的權柄（權威），從某一角度來看，此事已越過了聖經。 是他自己出了問題，不是弟兄們有問題。這點必須讓眾聖徒清楚明白。我們可以告訴人，我們確知事情始末的真相，知道李氏所言乃屬堆砌的虛假故事，更要指出的是，即使他講的全屬真相，可是他現在所強調的、所帶領的，也完全違背真理：徹底違反了主在每個肢體，在每一個教會直接在靈中的引導；也違背每個人、每個教會直接向主負責任的原則。這兩件事，正是神在新約經營中最重要的兩根柱子，是撒但攻擊的關鍵。 就算李氏真的存心清潔，從未製造分裂，也未許可分裂的事情出現，即使蘇民強、John Ingalls、封志理和Bill Mallon等人，的確如他所形容的一樣差，但關鍵的問題仍在——我們無法容忍這一個系統；這系統宣佈它有一個代表權柄，一個總司令，一個聰明的工頭。 簡而言之，在這一個系統中“ 1.眾教會聯合成全球性的運動，使眾聖徒的需要，使主在地方教會中的引導，變成附屬于一個宣稱代表主的、全球性的工作策略。 2.每一個聖徒都要屈服于此「代表」之下，也要絕對伏在其指定的許多代表之下，甚至不必顧到各人的良心，不必顧到裡面膏油的塗抹。 這代表的帶領是否正確，僅屬次要。就算他永遠正確，他的全球性策略、工作，永遠可行有效，就算服從他和代表他的人，結果常證明行動「正確」，我們仍不能讓這種系統出現。這系統要求每個聖徒，每個教會都服從「正確」帶領，而這樣的事完全違反新約。不錯，讓每個人、每個教會有權利、有自由，去跟從主在裡面的引導，的確有可能出錯，因為有人可能未夠成熟，不能正確辨別主的聲音，更可能引來眾教會屬靈上的衰落，但這正是主所允許的。主要來作身體的元首，他在身體中有主權，他選擇了新約的路，我們是誰，要改變主的方法？ 在過去許多世紀的教會歷史中，先後有許多人，嘗試用這種違反新約的辦法，把不同的系統加於教會，要求每個人、每個教會跟隨「正確」的，甚至絕對無誤的人的帶領。這樣作法，其實比人人、處處教會自己去仰望主更危險。因為這樣就破壞了神在新約經營的根基…。 弟兄 黃玉恩（Eddie Huang） 一九九零年三月廿五日
英國 曼徹斯特 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 |