Question: Is there no need of struggling or discipline?

Answer: In the experience of the cross, the more we struggle, the more we turn the cross away from us. It is true that there is the need of discipline, but this is necessary only because we are too strong in either the mind, the emotion, or the will. Because of this, we need to be disciplined in order to be subdued. However, if we are always willing to give up our self, telling the Lord, “Lord, I am ready to give up my mind and my emotion in everything, and I will also pay the price to give up my will in everything,” there will be no need for discipline. A test may come to us, but because we are willing to give up our self, there will be no struggle. It is simply because we are strong in our mind, emotion, and will that we struggle. The Lord has to discipline us again and again in order to subdue and break us so that we may be able to give up our self.

Many saints who seek the Lord are very much disciplined by the Lord because they are too strong in doing good for Him. They need to be broken in the matter of their doing good. It is not because they are sinful that the Lord disciplines them, but because they are good. The Lord has to raise up certain circumstances to press them, break them, and force them to give up their self. Only then will they be able to realize the oneness of the Spirit and the oneness of the Body. Indeed, we need to know that all the divisions and denominations were created by the best people; an evil person could never set up a sect, for no one would follow him. The more we are good, the more we will be independent, but the more we are spiritual and in the Lord, the more we will be dependent. It is one thing to be good, but it is another thing to be spiritual.

God’s intention is for us to be God-men, not good men. A good man may not be a God-man; he may still be a soulish man. Only a God-man is spiritual (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14-15). Therefore, we must learn to give up our self in all things, not only in doing evil things but even more in doing good things, such as serving the Lord and working for Him.

Question: Is there any difference between what Watchman Nee proposes and what has been attempted by the Brethren?

Answer: Concerning the Brethren, there are two shortcomings in the way that they practice the church. First, they place too much emphasis on teaching and neglect life. Even when they teach concerning Christ, their teaching is mostly in dead letters. Merely to have Christian teachings without realizing Christ Himself is to teach in dead letters, even if those teachings are concerning Christ. It is Christ Himself as the Spirit whom we must realize, and any group of believers who meet together as an expression of the Body of Christ must be living and full of Christ. They must experience the reality of Christ. If all the saints experience Christ in a real and living way, automatically every problem will be solved and every argument will be terminated. According to our observation, among the Brethren there is too much teaching and very little reality of life.

The second shortcoming among the Brethren concerns the basis of their meetings. The meetings of the exclusive Brethren are narrow and sectarian. Although the open Brethren are more open to the Lord, they neglect the fact that there should not be more than one expression of the church in any locality. In a given city there should be only one local expression of the church, just as there was only one church in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and in Corinth, respectively (Acts 8:1; 13:1; 1 Cor. 1:2). In the New Testament there is never more than one church in any locality (Rom. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8:1; Gal. 1:2; Rev. 1:11), but the open Brethren have neglected this matter.

In some cities there are a number of open Brethren chapels. The different meetings are not called the church in that locality but are referred to as local chapels on certain streets. By holding such a practice, the open Brethren neglect the oneness of the Body in its local expression. Suppose, for instance, that on Twenty-first Avenue a group of Brethren saints are meeting together. After five months, three of the saints may no longer agree with the meeting because they have a difference of opinion. Hence, they may decide to leave the meeting on Twenty-first Avenue and begin another meeting on Eleventh Avenue. According to their practice, the first meeting will be called the Twenty-first Avenue Chapel, and the second, the Eleventh Avenue Chapel. Perhaps after another year has passed, a group of believers from the second meeting will divide and separate to meet on another avenue and begin another chapel. This illustrates the history of the Brethren in neglecting the oneness of the Body as expressed in localities. Although we have no intention of criticizing others, according to our realization of the truth in the New Testament, there must be only one local expression of the Lord’s Body in each locality.

Question: Are you saying, in effect, that simply meeting in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is not a sufficient ground, or a wide enough basis, for meeting?

Answer: In order to answer this question adequately, we need to review the history of the Christian denominations. Up to the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, there was the Catholic Church. In the Reformation the state churches came into being, which were churches for the people but not of the people. The monarchs became heads of their respective state churches. Hence, today the king of Denmark is the head of the Church of Denmark, and the queen of England is the head of the Church of England. After the state churches, the private churches, such as the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, and the Methodist Church, came into being. These churches were not only for the people but also of the people. Then, in the early nineteenth century, through brothers such as John Nelson Darby, Benjamin Newton, and others, the free churches began. These churches were outside the denominations and organizations. Hence, today in Christianity there are the Catholic Church, the state churches, the private churches, and the free churches.

Since the time that the free churches began, Christians everywhere have claimed, on the basis of Matthew 18:20, that two or three believers meeting together constitute a church. This verse says, “For where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” The Lord, however, did not say that the two or three gathered into His name are the church. The conjunction for at the beginning of the verse indicates that what is spoken of thereafter is a continuation of something mentioned previously. Verses 15 through 17 say, “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go, reprove him between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.” According to the context, therefore, the two or three in verse 20 are the two or three witnesses mentioned previously in verse 16. They are not the church but are merely part of the church. If they have a problem, they should endeavor to solve it themselves. If they cannot, they must refer the problem to the church. The church in this chapter is the local church, not the universal church, for it is possible to “tell it to the church.” This portion of the Word continues, “If he refuses to hear the church also, let him be to you just like the Gentile and the tax collector. Truly I say to you, Whatever you bind on the earth shall have been bound in heaven” (vv. 17b-18a). The church may bind the brother who refuses to hear the church, if the heavens have already bound him (cf. 16:19). Matthew 18:18b-20 continues, “Whatever you loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again, truly I say to you that if two of you are in harmony on earth concerning any matter for which they ask, it will be done for them from My Father who is in the heavens. For where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” From all these verses it is evident that the two or three gathered into the Lord’s name are not the church but are only certain members of a local church who are dealing with a brother who has sinned. There is no basis in the Lord’s teaching in this passage for anyone to begin a meeting with just two or three in a home and call it a church. If in the same city you can have two or three meeting as a church in your home, and I can have two or three meeting as another church in my home, the church will be divided because of our failure to recognize the need to keep the oneness of the Body. In order to keep the oneness of the church in the locality where we are, we must be one with all the children of God in that locality. We must take the ground of the church in that place and stand as a local church.