I explained to him that we have never said that only we are the church. Such words are naive and immature. However, we testify that only we are standing on the ground of the church. Then this brother asked, “What is the ground of the church?” He asked this question not because he had doubts concerning the ground or other intentions but because the ground was difficult for him to understand. I could tell that he was seeking understanding, so I gave him an explanation: “The church is universally one, but her local expressions are many. Nevertheless, there should be only one expression in each locality. The ground of this local expression is what we mean by the ground of the church.”
He still did not understand, so I explained by using a type in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament God redeemed the children of Israel to be His people. Moreover, He ordained that as His people they needed to meet in Jerusalem in the land of Canaan, a place that He had chosen as the dwelling place for His name. However, one day His people were taken captive to Babylon and lost the ground of God’s people, that is, the ground of Jerusalem. Once they left Jerusalem and were taken captive to Babylon, they lost the ground. Although they were still God’s people, they were not able to stand on the ground of God’s people. Only Jerusalem was the place, the ground, upon which they as God’s people could properly stand.
In the same principle, the church is universally one, but her expression is local. Just as Jerusalem was the proper ground for the Jews, locality is the proper ground for the church. Although the children of Israel were taken captive to Babylon and lost the proper ground, it did not mean that they were no longer Jews. They were taken captive and lost the ground of God’s people, but they did not lose their status as God’s people. To say that the Jews in Babylon were not God’s people would be immature, and those who believe in this kind of speaking are too naive. The Jews lost the ground, but they were still God’s people. They were still Jews.
When the seventy years of their captivity were fulfilled, some of the Jews might have said, “We are God’s people, so we should be in the place God ordained for us, that is, Jerusalem. It is wrong for God’s people to be in Babylon; we should go back to Jerusalem.” However, others among them might have said, “It is not necessary to do this. Since we are already God’s people, it does not matter whether we are in Babylon or in Jerusalem; all that matters is that we live before God.” This is to not care whether God’s people are in Babylon or Jerusalem. In New Testament terms, this can be compared to caring for being full of Christ but not caring for the ground. It is as if the only thing that matters is whether God’s people live in His presence. In other words, it does not matter whether the ground is right or wrong; all that matters is the presence of Christ and having some degree of spirituality.
Then I asked the brother, “Is it possible to justify such an attitude? Can you say that this is right?” He replied, “I have seen many brothers and sisters in many different groups living for the Lord fervently, serving the Lord wholeheartedly, and endeavoring to keep the Lord’s word. Can we say that they are wrong? Why can we not join them?” Our desire was to help this brother see that even if someone is as spiritual as Daniel, he still may have a problem in regard to the ground.
Perhaps some may say, “Daniel was so spiritual, yet he remained in Babylon. Why then do we need to go back to Jerusalem?” I do not believe that anyone can take spirituality as a cover or excuse. The fact that Daniel remained in Babylon was something of God’s sovereign arrangement for the interest of God’s people; moreover, when he was in Babylon, he prayed three times a day toward Jerusalem, praying desperately for God’s people to return to Jerusalem. This indicates that he also longed to return.
Some people have said, “Those who have returned to Jerusalem, that is, to the ground of the church, are not that spiritual or strong.” We absolutely acknowledge this. In the days of the return from the Babylonian captivity, the spiritual condition of those who went back to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel was very improper. Some married Gentile women, some were not in one accord, and some were timid. All these conditions were discouraging. Nevertheless, although their condition was poor, the ground they stood upon was right. They were in Jerusalem. Therefore, God could still deal with them and bless them.
Although the condition of Daniel was good, we cannot say that the ground he stood on was right or that he should have stood there. He was not in Jerusalem but in Babylon, a ground God opposed and cursed. This shows clearly that spiritual condition and the ground are two entirely different matters. It is possible to have one and not the other. God’s intention is that we pay attention to both our condition and the ground.
Let us consider several people. The first example is Madame Guyon. I am afraid that hardly anyone among us loves the Lord more and has a greater measure of Christ than Madame Guyon. However, we cannot acknowledge that she stood on the proper ground. She was in the Catholic Church, on a ground that we oppose. Her case clearly shows that while a believer may be very spiritual, he may be on an improper ground. He may be right in his spirituality, but the ground on which he stands may be absolutely improper. Hence, we need to completely separate the matter of the ground from that of a believer’s condition. The second example is Andrew Murray. Many people throughout the years have said that he was very spiritual; nevertheless, he was still in organized Christianity.
At this point, the brother from Hong Kong asked whether or not there was a church in Andrew Murray’s time. After I had spoken so much, he still asked such a silly question. In response, I stressed that the church existed, but it had lost the proper ground. Hence, it is not a question of whether there was a church but of whether there was the proper ground of the church. Madame Guyon had a strong and influential role in the church, but we must acknowledge that she did not stand on the ground of the church. She stood on the ground of the Roman Catholic Church, not on the proper ground of the church. In the same way, Andrew Murray was also a strong and influential saint, but he was in organized Christianity. His ground was organized Christianity, not the genuine church. He was not on the proper ground of the church. He was part of the church, but he did not stand on the ground of the church.
I then used the example of Dr. F. B. Meyer. He was renowned in recent church history, and even T. Austin-Sparks greatly commended him, yet he too was still in organized Christianity. It can be said that his spiritual condition was very proper, but the ground of the church on which he stood was absolutely wrong.
We should not ask people what they are but where they are. We are not saying that spirituality is unimportant. We confess that it is basic and important, but merely having this is inadequate. Rather than asking, “What are you?” we need to ask, “Where are you?” Let me use another illustration. A member of a family should live at home. If he goes anywhere else, whether to a place where he feeds hogs and eats carob pods or to a grand and luxurious palace, it is the wrong place. It is insufficient to be merely a member of a family; a member should also live at home.