The Lord has shown us that one locality should have only one church, and one locality should have only one administration. So we must be limited by locality. If any brother is not one with me, I must wash his feet and beg him until he becomes one with me. Here are lessons for me to learn: My temper has to be dealt with; I need to find the reason a brother cannot be one with me and do my best to deal with it; otherwise, there will be no way for us to go on. If we act according to congregationalism, it is very convenient. Once anything disagreeable occurs, I will set up another church. Then in Shanghai there may not only be twenty-four home meetings, but twenty-four churches. Consequently, one locality with many churches will appear. This is a very serious matter. There is a boundary to our unity. The unity of the Roman Catholic Church is against the Scriptures, and “spiritual” unity has come short of the Lord’s goal. The unity in the Scriptures is according to one locality with one church. This makes it impossible not to be one in each locality.

Suppose there are a few brothers with whom the church really seeks oneness. We should find out what their attitude is. Within these few days I have heard someone say, “We can talk and fellowship, even though you can still have your church, I have my church, and he has his church. We all are one; we all stand in our own position to be one with each other. We all have our own elders and deacons, yet we respect one another.” I must tell these brothers emphatically that there is only one church in one locality. These ones’ thought of rallying brothers together from a few denominations in a locality will only please a few churches. You may deal with the past and deal with it quite well with your cleverness, but what will you do with the future? We all will eventually pass away. What would you have the younger brothers do in the future? If our brothers practice congregationalism in every place, tolerating this kind of unity, to say nothing of sacrificing our obedience, what shall we do in the future? We may get by with five congregations today, but there will be some difficulty in the future, and with it a sixth congregation will appear. With more difficulties, a seventh and eighth will appear. What will we do then? We all must see this basic principle. The Lord’s commandment is very clear: On the one hand, He will not allow us to have a united church so that we will not become a power on the earth and among men. On the other hand, He will not allow a church to become several churches in one locality; otherwise, future contentions will be endless.

I would like you to see that congregationalism is the result of brothers seeing the truth in the Bible only in part. There is no congregationalism in the Bible. Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Thyatira, and Laodicea are all localities. Throughout many years of church history, the Lord’s light has become clearer and clearer: from the international church to the national church, from the national church to the independent church, and from the independent church, somewhat beyond the normal standard, to congregationalism. Within these last twenty to thirty years, the Lord has led us to see the local church. It is clear enough. The church today is taking the apostles’ way. The church is local. We should not be proud to say that this is preached by us. This is the grace of God. God allowed His children to grope for more than a thousand years. Thank God! We have inherited what they gained and have found the way. Thank God! Although Congregationalism is wrong, it is an improvement. They saw that the “one church” of Roman Catholicism is wrong, but their improvement is beyond the standard.

Even such good brothers as the Brethren had contentions because one group of the Brethren took the way of the united church and another group took the way of the congregations. The China Inland Mission also practices congregationalism. Today the most prevailing practice is congregationalism. The little booklet written by Goodman entitled An Urgent Cry is also something of congregationalism. What is congregationalism? It is when there is an assembly on a certain street and also one nearby, each of which does not care for the other, whether the other is doing well or doing poorly. The only unity they seek is a unity within their own assembly. As long as they all can be one with each other, they meet together as one assembly; otherwise, they divide. The loving of one another as advocated by congregationalism is this kind of love; it is not limited by locality and does not attempt to learn its lessons within a locality. This is the reason I have said again and again that the lessons to be learned within a locality are an exceedingly severe matter. We live in this city, and it is not easy for us to move away. The Lord has placed us in a certain locality to thoroughly grind us. We cannot act as we like. Hence, we have lessons to learn and the cross to bear. Otherwise, there is no cross for us to bear; in just a few days we will throw away the cross.

We must see that Paul was against congregationalism in 1 Corinthians. Corinth is a city, and there was only one church in Corinth. “The church of God which is in Corinth” (1:2) is singular according to the Greek text. But how did the Corinthian brothers behave? They said, “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ” (v. 12). In other words, the one church was divided into four congregations. Those of Paul loved and came together with those of Paul. Those of Apollos found it easy to love and come together with those of Apollos. Those of Cephas came together with others of Cephas. And those of Christ came together with others of Christ and loved one another. But Paul said they were all fleshly, they were all men of flesh (1 Cor. 3:3-4). They were not of Paul, not of Apollos, not of Cephas, and not of Christ, but of the flesh. Paul would not allow them to belong to him, Apollos would not allow them to belong to him, Cephas would not allow them to belong to him, and neither would Christ allow them to belong to Him. They belonged to the flesh. There can be only one church in a city. The desire to be divided into parties or sects within the church is all of the flesh. According to the Bible, we should maintain nothing less than the unity of a church in one locality. Any unity smaller than this is inadmissible.

If we see this accurately before the Lord, we could say a very precise word to the brothers in the denominations. For example, in Pingliang and in Tiensui there can be only one church in each locality. Show them the Bible, regardless of which verse you use about the church, and ask them whether or not the church is local. In the past there was Corinth; today there is Pingliang. This transition is quite reasonable. In the past there was Ephesus; today there is Tiensui. This is also very reasonable. In the past there was one church in a locality; it should not be changed to several churches today. I know that many brothers are turning back to congregationalism today. Not long ago brothers in Shanghai advocated home churches. Quite simply, this is still congregationalism. Hence, we all must be clear to maintain one locality, one church. The pendulum should not swing to one side or to the other. According to the definition of a home church, each home meeting is a church. Thus, we have “churches” in Shanghai. If this could be so, then not only would there have been seven churches in Asia, but there could have been four churches in Corinth. There could be seven churches in Asia because Asia was a province; but there could not be four churches in Corinth because Corinth was a city. The Corinthians said, “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ”; therefore, Paul said they were fleshly. The church is only one; it is impossible to have four churches in one locality. Once this problem is solved, all other problems are solved.
Home | First | Prev | Next