A question was raised concerning Ephesians 4. The Lord has given to the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. Since there are not many workers, is it possible for one worker to possess all these different functions?
Sometimes brothers and sisters expect much from a worker in the same assembly. They demand that he be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd, and teacher. In actuality, it is very difficult for all these functions to be found in the same person serving in one assembly. This is my observation.
Those who serve may also become impressed with themselves and feel that they are apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. This is not normal either.
Sometimes brothers and sisters demand that a worker possess all the functions and all the gifts. This becomes a great pressure. God did not give him all these gifts, yet brothers and sisters pressure him to possess them; otherwise, he would not be considered a good worker.
This is my question. I hope either one of you can answer.
I believe there is no perfect worker. Sometimes the church expects something of a worker that the Holy Spirit is not expecting. We expect workers to be perfect in every way, and then we are disappointed. Praise the Lord.
My personal feeling is that some are apostles, some are evangelists, some are teachers, some are prophets, and some are shepherds. This is my personal understanding.
Strictly speaking, Ephesians 4 is not directed merely to one local assembly, but to all of God’s churches. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers are given for all the churches.
The condition our brother mentioned is the pastoral system. It is a distorted pastoral system, incompatible with the teaching of Scripture. Absolutely.
At the same time, in Ephesians 4 some say that there are five different gifts. Actually, there are four: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherds and teachers. Shepherds and teachers are connected together.
God has given these persons as gifts to the church. In other words, the passage does not emphasize gifts in the same way as 1 Corinthians or Romans. What is mentioned here points to persons. These persons God has given as gifts to the church.
Even today, we do not know precisely what the gift of apostleship is, because apostleship is an office. What gifts do apostles possess? We do not know.
For instance, Paul possessed many gifts. He had gifts of evangelizing, teaching, and prophecy. Of course, an apostle is different from the other three.
We know a little more concerning the others. If one is a prophet, his gift is prophecy. If he is an evangelist, his gift is preaching the gospel.
Shepherds and teachers are connected together. In the New Testament, only here is this word translated “pastor,” but in reality it is “shepherd.”
Counseling is generally individual and private, while teaching is public and open. Some people emphasize private counseling, while others are gifted in public teaching.
God has given such people as gifts to the church, and their gifts are to shepherd and teach. What is mentioned in Ephesians 4 is directed toward the universal church. These four offices are given for all the churches, not merely for one local assembly.
Today the pastoral system is altogether unscriptural. We believe that some people possess the gift of shepherding, but as a system it is not found in Scripture.
We may not use the terminology pastor; instead, we use the word worker. Yet in reality, if we have one worker in every locality and everything is done by the worker, we have the same problem. If we demand that he perform all the spiritual work, and even expect him to perform all the practical chores, this is incompatible with God’s Word.
On the one hand, we who serve the Lord need to keep our ground. On the other hand, the church should not demand too much of us.
Is it possible that we expect the worker to be perfect because the church has become lazy? There are some people who do everything, and then the rest of us can relax because there is a “perfect worker” here. We push and push and push.
If we expect a worker to be like that, it gives us an excuse not to serve. If we have truly seen God’s purpose—that the church is the Body of Christ—then we will not expect the worker to do everything.
Workers should help and should not replace the function of all the saints. Sometimes we expect a worker to be perfect because we want him to replace us instead of helping us. If workers help us, it is to equip the saints, and the church will receive a blessing.
There are two sides: the church should not expect too much from workers, and workers should not replace the saints. A good and capable mother may not produce a capable daughter if she does everything herself. If the worker is strong in the wrong way, the church will become weak.
Our brother’s question points out the difficulty of the church today. In reality, clergy developed in church history because of the laziness of the majority. We expect some people to perform spiritual matters while we serve mammon. This becomes an abnormal situation.
If we have truly seen the vision of the church as the Body of Christ, the pastoral system will be exposed.
A question was directed to Brother Christian Chen: according to what he knows of himself before the Lord, what is his gift? And how should others consider him in terms of office?
I am sorry; this question has always puzzled me. I do not know how to answer. I have never thought much about what my gifts are or what my office is. I really do not know.
I feel that everybody in the Body should see. In a gathering, brothers and sisters who know one another may recognize a person’s history and service. But I have never felt that I should define myself in this way.
Some people ask me, “When did you start your full-time service?” I always answer, “I started full-time service a long, long time ago.” We belong to the Lord, and our service should always be placed first.
According to what the Lord gives us, we offer it to the church in service. In reality, I do not know how to answer this question.
How do we look at ourselves? How do we know what our gifts are? Let me put it this way: in the Body of Christ, some people are clearly the eyes, some are the mouth, and some are the hands.
If we have been in the church for a long time, we should know whether we are an eye or a mouth. Some brothers are not the mouth, but we know that they have spiritual sight. They are the eye of the church.
Personally, we cannot look at ourselves and judge correctly. The real estimation belongs to the Lord and to the brothers and sisters.
It may be difficult for Brother Chen to look at himself, but it is easier for others to look at him. Brother Christian Chen, Brother Benjamin Chen, Yao Chiang, and I were in the same group. We prayed together and visited together.
The Lord, according to His own plan, did something in us, even through illness. Christian also had a disease of the eye. The Lord led us according to His own way.
After graduating from college, I sought to serve full time. I told a brother that I wanted to go full time. At that time the church had many problems, and he said, “Go back to society and work a few years, and then come back.”
So I went to teach. I was an education major. But in our hearts, we wanted to be persons who served the Lord and offered all our time.
If we can be a leg, we will be a leg. If we can be a hand, we will be a hand. If we can be a mouth, we will be a mouth. If the Lord wants us to be a stone, we will be a stone and never speak.
In the Philippines, I was there for eight years. At the same time, I was teaching school. During vacations I was sent to different places. I was single, and in some places I was almost like a pastor or worker, doing practical chores and visitation.
Sometimes I was sent to Manila. We were the hands. We did all these things. The Lord placed us in a certain church to do whatever the brothers required. Sometimes we were chauffeurs; sometimes we did cooking. We felt that we were servants.
How should people view us? We do not know. We were not technically full-time because we had employment, but the Lord knew that we were servants. We knew ourselves according to the function and capacity in which we should serve.
An elderly sister once shared with me from 1 Timothy. Paul says that if he delays, we should know how to behave ourselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
—1 Timothy 3:15
She did not directly answer my question, but in reality she did answer it. In the church, we should know how we ought to behave. We who believe should allow the Holy Spirit to guide us to do what is needed.
If someone says, “You are a teacher,” then perhaps I am a teacher. If he says, “You are an overseer,” then perhaps I am an overseer. If he says, “You are an elder,” then amen, I am an elder. If he says, “You are a servant,” then I am a servant. I do not care what I am called; I care about what I do.
Even if I do not know what my brother is, I know that he is our brother—our dear brother. Praise the Lord. When I see him, I am full of joy.
Several brothers had fellowship concerning the morning’s message. A problem arose: if a worker does not interfere in the affairs of a church, what should happen when an elder does not progress but continues to occupy a position?
For instance, 1 Timothy speaks concerning an accusation against an elder, requiring two or three witnesses. But who should take up such a case? Timothy was a worker at the time. If a worker takes such a case, it seems that he is interfering in church affairs.
Paul was telling Timothy how to teach the elders to care for administration. Later Timothy himself became an elder. The matter becomes complicated if we do not solve this problem.
If an elder does not progress, the whole church suffers loss. But in terms of being a worker, how should this matter be handled?
This is why there are elders in the church. Plural eldership is the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. If there were only one elder and he did not grow, the whole church would be paralyzed. But because there are elders, if one does not go forward, others can continue.
According to the teaching of the Bible, an elder is one revealed by the Holy Spirit to be mature enough to serve. In spirituality he is more advanced than others, and before the Lord he is faithful and willing to accept the responsibility the Lord has given him.
In this way, eldership is born. It is a spiritual reality. When the spiritual reality is lost, what remains is merely an outward position, and that becomes a great difficulty.
The church itself is a spiritual entity. Whatever is within the church should be based upon spiritual life. If we depart from the principle of life and fall into organization, we have already become distorted.
Today we are in a stage of church ruin and desolation. Therefore, the Lord’s work is a work of recovery. In recovery, the Lord does not pay attention primarily to outward things; He pays attention to spirituality.
Paul wrote epistles to churches that had problems, but in the eyes of God these churches were still regarded as normal. However, in Revelation 2 and 3, the Lord wrote to the messengers of the seven churches.
The messenger may be understood in two ways: as a heavenly messenger or angel, or as an earthly messenger. My personal view is that it refers to men. The messenger is a corporate entity, including all those who bear spiritual responsibility before the Lord in a locality.
They may not formally be elders or deacons, but they are those who truly bear spiritual responsibility before the Lord. In these seven letters, God pays attention to reality, not merely to outward arrangements.
In 1 Timothy, Paul still speaks of the church as the house of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. He also mentions the qualifications of elders.
But in 2 Timothy, only a few years later, the church is described as a great house containing vessels of gold, silver, wood, and earth—vessels unto honor and vessels unto dishonor.
“If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, meet for the Master’s use, prepared unto every good work.”
—2 Timothy 2:21
In 2 Timothy, the emphasis is no longer on appointing elders or deacons, but on cleansing oneself and pursuing the Lord with those who call upon Him out of a pure heart.
“But flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”
—2 Timothy 2:22
In our time, if we still consider the church to be in normality and try to recover all outward arrangements, we will encounter many difficult and perhaps impossible problems.
According to spiritual principles, if other brothers and sisters have advanced further than we have, we should automatically withdraw and allow them to bear responsibility. This is reality. But if eldership is treated as a title or position, men will cling to it, and it becomes a great hindrance to the church.
We are on the road of recovery. Let us not pay attention to outward things but to spiritual things. In this way, there is no problem.
In many places, people have asked me to appoint elders. I have said that I cannot do it. Others may do it if they feel they should, but I cannot.
As far as my personal knowledge before the Lord is concerned, I feel that today there is no way to appoint elders in the biblical sense. Elders belong to the local assembly. What is appointed today may merely be an elder of a small group, and this is not found in Scripture.
A brother in Washington, D.C., who was a well-known preacher, said that he had a vision to go to many places and establish churches. He himself was an elder in Washington. I asked him, “What is the scope of your authority?”
If a brother or sister who does not meet with you commits sin or has a problem, can you exercise your authority as an elder to solve it? Of course not. You are merely an elder in one group or meeting, and your authority does not touch those outside that group.
How then can one say that he is an elder of the city of Washington, D.C.? At most, he is an elder of a particular meeting. Yet in the Bible there is no elder of a meeting; an elder is an elder of the local assembly.
If we force ourselves to do these things, we are taking an impossible path and looking for trouble for ourselves. Once an elder is formally appointed, how does one remove him? It becomes a very difficult task.
In 1965, because of events in Taiwan during 1964 and 1965, I began to consider this matter seriously. Brother Lee had come to Taiwan, and I went there twice in hopes of helping to solve some problems.
When I was in Taiwan, I exhorted everyone, but when I left, the problems returned. In 1965, he excommunicated several workers. This I could understand, because leaders among workers may deal with workers who are not of one heart.
But when elders were excommunicated, I could not accept it. The thought seemed to be that, because one had appointed them, one could also remove them. But this would mean that the church could never be independent.
The question raised earlier can become a case of looking for trouble for ourselves. If the Lord does not want us to do something and we insist on doing it, then once we have done it, we cannot solve the resulting problem. It becomes a great hindrance.
In New York, there was a doctor who loved the Lord and in whose home we met. Later he became so busy that he could not even attend the regular meetings.
For a responsible brother, this creates difficulty. If he does not attend the meetings of responsible brothers, decisions still have to be reported to him and his agreement must be sought. It becomes almost impossible to do anything.
The result was that, because this brother could not bear responsibility in practical terms—not because he was unwilling, but because circumstances prevented it—we no longer expected him to bear that responsibility. We no longer needed to report every decision to him.
This was because he did not fulfill the responsibility in practice. Today we see that the function of an elder may be present, but the title of elder is not necessary.
When a person fulfills the function of an elder, he fulfills that function. If he does not fulfill the function, there is no need for such a title or position.
This, in my personal view, is the way we should take in the recovery of the work. If other brothers have a different view, I dare not oppose them. If others want to appoint elders, I do not oppose them; but as for myself, I cannot do it.
You mentioned the problem in Timothy: if an elder sins, two or three witnesses are required to establish the matter. To whom should the case be presented?
My personal consideration is that there are two possibilities. One is to bring the matter to the other elders. The other is that, in the infancy of the church, Paul and Timothy had a direct relationship with the churches and a great deal of influence because they were involved in appointing elders.
But when the church is no longer in its infancy, the case should be brought to the other elders to solve the problem.
There is another question: what about deacons, who are closely related to church administration? My personal view is that since we do not appoint elders, we should not appoint deacons either.
Yet in the church we do have the functions of elders and deacons. Many brothers and sisters fulfill the functions of deacons, and some brothers fulfill the functions of elders.
In 1 Peter 5, elders also do the work of shepherding. On the one hand, elders are shepherds; on the other hand, God gives to the church certain ones who have the gift of shepherding. These are two distinct aspects.
The question is whether we fulfill the function. As long as we fulfill the function, it is sufficient. If we do not fulfill the function, then having a name does not make us elders or deacons.
We do not need to appoint certain ones as deacons. Those already doing such work are fulfilling the function of deacons. If we pay attention to real functions rather than outward arrangements, things will be easier.
One brother testified, “Our church does not have workers, elders, deacons, or even a meeting hall. We have nothing, yet we have all the functions. It is wonderful, but we are still not perfect.”
The first question concerned sisters who were numerous and spiritually active while the brothers were few and weak. Since the brothers were expected to preach, but the sisters were stronger, should sisters be allowed to preach publicly?
The answer given was simple: this is a shame to the brothers. The brothers should go to the Lord and pursue the Lord.
The second question concerned service meetings. Should only those already serving attend, or should everyone be allowed to attend, including those who have not been regularly involved in church life but who have opinions?
It is not a good way to exclude those who do not serve. Those who serve should lead those who do not serve into service. If others come with many questions or opinions, these matters should be brought to the Lord.
It is not necessary that the opinion of those who serve is always the Lord’s mind. If all bring their feelings to the Lord, a good opinion may be received, and the brother who offers it may be encouraged to enter into service.
The third question concerned the bread and the cup. This question has not been solved for two thousand years. Our learning is to use one bread and one cup.
In the breaking of bread, is the exercise corporate or individual? According to 1 Corinthians 11, it concerns an individual’s relationship with the Lord.
If one or two brothers have a problem, should their participation in the breaking of bread be terminated? My view is that those brothers should thoroughly deal with the matter before the Lord. This is their personal responsibility.
Before the breaking of bread, each one should examine himself. It is not a corporate examination. If it were, perhaps no assembly would be qualified to break bread, because there are always one or two problems among the saints.
If we refuse to break bread whenever we know someone has a problem, it will be very difficult to maintain a table meeting. It is an individual matter. If a brother examines himself and has no problem in his relationship with the Lord, we cannot interfere.
As for using ordinary bread or unleavened bread, one cup or many cups, these are not the central problems. One cup is what I have seen before the Lord and what I have practiced.
A question was raised concerning scaffolding and the building. One day the scaffolding must be removed because the work is for the church, not the church for the work.
Many meetings began through the work of workers. Later, brothers and sisters were raised up. When should the workers lay down their responsibility? Often workers remain for life because they started the meeting, and the meeting comes to regard them as the head.
In North America this may not be as noticeable, but in the Far East it is a serious problem. Even when people say, “We have workers, not pastors,” they may still expect one brother to be in the church, answer the telephone, and do everything just like a pastor.
We may have no official names, but we still retain the same reality. The question is how we face this problem.
When Paul and Barnabas went out to work, they led brothers and sisters to salvation. They stayed in places such as Corinth and Ephesus, and their work was effective enough that, within a relatively short period, local brothers were raised up to bear responsibility.
Then the workers went to the side to help them. This is a great accomplishment in the work.
Today, our problem is that we replace the saints in their work. Therefore, the saints cannot be raised up. Because they cannot be raised up, workers continue laboring to the end. Strictly speaking, this is a failure in the work.
The work is to equip the saints. If we cannot equip the saints and cause them to mature, bear responsibility, and lead the local assembly, then our work is a work of replacement rather than a work of leading.
In each locality, workers should labor to the extent that saints can bear responsibility. How this is applied requires the leading of the Holy Spirit. Some assemblies may take longer, and some may take less time. This is not determined by man.
The worker must have spiritual discernment before the Lord to know when the time has come and when the Holy Spirit has guided him to relinquish responsibility.
Sometimes our requirements are too high, or we are simply anxious. Like parents who are unwilling to let go of their children, we may not allow saints to grow. When the time comes, we should let go, believing that the Lord will take responsibility.
This is not a matter of rigid rules. If we follow only the letter, there will be problems. Sometimes a worker may let go too early; at other times, he may hold on too long.
In principle, the work of a worker is for the equipping of the saints. When the saints are equipped, they should be raised up to bear responsibility, and the worker should go to the side to help them.
If problems arise, workers may remind them. At the same time, responsible brothers should have humility to ask questions of workers and maintain a good relationship with them.
The relationship between the work and the church, if it is normal, is beautiful. If it is not normal, it creates many problems. In terms of timing, we need the Holy Spirit to lead us.
In China, when we first began, we felt we should stand on the ground of oneness and should not be divided. Many brothers and sisters came out of denominations to assemble together.
We never dared to call ourselves “the church in” a particular place, because we felt that we were not the entire church in that locality. We were simply those who testified for the testimony of the church.
We were willing to hold the Lord as Head and to receive all God’s children, but we could not claim that our small group was the local church. The local church includes all God’s children in a locality.
Therefore, we used terms such as Christian meeting assembly, not as a church name, but to indicate that we were merely a place for Christians to gather. The church belongs to Christ; we have no name.
In those days, workers were few and mobile. We went to different places and were not resident pastors who stayed permanently in one location. Therefore, we did not have this problem.
Even where some workers lived in a place such as Shanghai, there were responsible brothers in the assembly. All coordinated together in service. We did not have the system of one locality, one worker—the distorted pastoral system.
This problem began in Taiwan and became widespread. It is altogether unscriptural. If one locality sends a worker to a certain place, that worker easily assumes the position of teaching and thereby controls the church.
Then the one who sent the worker may become the one controlling many churches. This is altogether abnormal, and we should be delivered from it.
It is not wrong for workers to live in a locality. A worker does not live in heaven; he has to live somewhere. But he should be a worker who helps from the side and also learns to be a brother in that locality. This is beautiful.
A testimony was shared concerning Richmond. The Lord began something there prior to 1970 by placing a burden upon several older sisters to pray.
The burden was strengthened when they attended a conference and heard ministry through Brother T. Austin-Sparks, DeVern Fromke, and Stephen Kaung. Something was birthed through their travailing prayer over several years.
Around 1978, Brother Stephen moved to Richmond from Washington. By that time several brothers had already begun to step out in responsibility.
When our brother moved to Richmond, we were glad that he would meet with us. He was very clear that, because he had an extra-local ministry, he could not enter into local leadership.
We have been very thankful for the close relationship that has continued through the years. We have tried to meet together regularly, perhaps every couple of months. What is important is that our brother has never told us what to do. He has simply been available.
When a worker is in a local assembly, he functions as a brother. In Richmond, brothers and sisters clean the meeting place themselves, with different home groups taking turns.
For many years, before our brother became older, he would be there on workdays to set up chairs and care for the facility. This has been a real testimony to many of us.
We often have to travel elsewhere to hear our brother minister. In Richmond he may speak only a few times a year, while many other brothers minister the Word. He is always there to come alongside, encourage, and support others in their functioning.
The example our brother has set has been a living encouragement to many younger brothers and sisters.
A worker in a certain locality can become a resident worker or a lifetime worker, like a president who wants to be president for life. There is another aspect to this matter that I have observed for many years.
Workers in many assemblies may never desire anyone with gifts to rise up and work alongside them. When the Lord raises up brothers able to coordinate in service, the leading worker may feel threatened and create problems.
This is a great temptation in many assemblies. It is not that the Lord does not raise up brothers in a locality, but those raised up by the Lord may be pressed down or driven out by leading workers who feel threatened.
Brothers and sisters should examine ourselves before the Lord. May the Lord give us capacity to receive those whom He raises up among us, even those who may be more useful than we are.
A successful leader is not merely capable himself; he is able to raise up people who are more capable than he is.
This morning, it was mentioned that those who are elders and responsible should be the greatest laborers. If one desires to be first, Scripture says he must be the servant of all.
Brother Foley and I have done many things in service. We preached, drove cars, acted as chauffeurs, picked people up, delivered things, and did practical work. We simply did what was needed.
Concerning the cleaning of the meeting house, we felt that the house of God should be cleaned by the brothers and sisters themselves. I felt before the Lord that I should take care of the dirtiest place—the place other people did not want to clean. So I often cleaned the men’s room, and I did it joyfully.
I do not say this to lift myself up. If one wants to be first, he must be the servant of all. If one wants to be an elder, he should be a humble brother.
The Lord Himself took the form of a servant and became obedient unto death. When we live this way in the church, others will respect us, not because we impose ourselves on them, but because they recognize that we have helped them.
No one should oppress others. The Holy Spirit will guide us to know what to do among the brothers and sisters.
A testimony was given from experience in the United Kingdom. There was a basic, foundational fault in much of the work of the Lord in Britain: there was never a clear distinction between the church and the work.
The ministry of Brother T. Austin-Sparks was tremendous. Many people throughout Britain and beyond came into revelation through his ministry. Companies of believers came into being in many places.
But in every place there was autocratic leadership. The church was totally in the hands of the worker. The result was endless problems, and eventually not one of those fellowships survived.
A sister once shared a word that has never been forgotten: when the Holy Spirit is free, the church will be built. But if He is restricted, the work of building will be paralyzed.
There was fear that a free meeting would allow anyone to stand and minister. Yet it was felt that this was the way the Lord required. Looking back, there is thankfulness that this way was taken.
The root problem in many small fellowships was totalitarian leadership. This was a great problem in the work in Britain and Europe.
A question was raised concerning whether the work in China had been influenced by Brother Sparks. There was great respect for him, even though there were differences in some matters.
In 1938, Brother Nee went to England and stayed there for several months. When he returned to Shanghai in 1939, he began to implement certain things that were not understood at the time.
Later, after visiting Honor Oak, it became apparent that some of these practices had been learned from Brother Sparks.
Brother Sparks paid great attention to authority. From that time, messages concerning authority began to be emphasized among us. Previously, we heard much about love but little about authority.
Around 1940, authority was preached in a very strong way. Some brothers and sisters were deeply impressed by these teachings, and some remain influenced by them even today.
At Honor Oak there was a strict ordering: number one, number two, and number three. When one leading brother left, another became number one. There was a strong emphasis on authority and order, even in such matters as seating arrangements.
When Brother Nee returned, certain practices changed. For example, speakers sometimes went up to the platform and sat there before speaking. This also had been learned from Honor Oak.
Brother Nee was humble and willing to learn from others. Yet some things learned in this way were not fully compatible with our own condition at that time.
In hindsight, we may ask whether some of the great difficulties later experienced in Taiwan and elsewhere were related to these developments. This is only a personal observation.
Spiritually, much help was received through fellowship with Brother Sparks. This should be acknowledged. But at the same time, organization began to be implemented.
In the past, there was little organization among the workers. Their relationship was spiritual. Within the churches, there were responsible brothers and brothers and sisters serving together, but organization was minimal.
Later, organization increased more and more. My personal observation is that this was one reason for degradation. Whenever spiritual life is lacking, people attempt to compensate by organizing things.
Eventually organization prevailed, not only in the church but in many other aspects of the work. Brother Nee was not an expert in organizing, but Brother Witness Lee had greater ability in that area.
Brother Nee received much light before the Lord, but organizing things was not his strength. During the Hong Kong revival, he asked Brother Lee to go to Hong Kong to organize matters there.
When the work went overseas, organization increased still more. This, in my view, became a great reason for degradation.
The time has quickly come to an end. Let us have some brothers lead us in prayer, and then we will conclude this meeting.