Additional Quotes about the Local Church by Witness Lee and Watchman Nee

First Corinthians 1:10 says: “Now I beseech you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same things…” To whom does you refer? It refers to the Christians at Corinth, the brothers at Corinth. “…and that there be no divisions among you..” Again, you refers to the Christians at Corinth. “…but that you be attuned in the same mind and in the same opinion.” This also refers to the Christians in Corinth. Here we see one thing: If the unity of the Body spoken of in the Bible is not expressed in a locality, it is not practical. It is easy to say, “We love all the children of God, except the one next door! The children of God are one, including Paul and all those who are not yet born, except a few brothers here in Shanghai!” This is impractical as well as self-deceptive. We cannot talk about the unity of the Body and say that we are one with everyone except with the few brothers who live together with us in the same place! According to Paul, the minimum requirement for speaking of unity is in the context of the local church. If the Christians in Corinth want to talk about the unity of the Body, they should not talk about it in Rome or talk about it in Jerusalem, but talk about it in Corinth. If we do not talk about it in Corinth, it is useless. We are deceiving ourselves. Suppose I live in Shanghai, but I do not get along with the brothers in Shanghai. However, I get along quite well with the brothers in Nanking. This is useless, and I am deceiving myself. The unity of the Body required by the Scriptures has a minimum boundary requirement, which is the locality. The brothers in Corinth must be one with the brothers in Corinth. If they are not one in Corinth, all their words just deceive others….

We must notice that Paul did not pay attention to any problem arising between the brothers at Corinth and the brothers at Ephesus, or between the brothers at Corinth and the brothers at Colossae. He did not point out any problems between the brothers at Corinth and the brothers at Laodicea, or between the brothers at Corinth and the brothers at Philippi. Paul only paid attention to the divisions between the brothers at Corinth. They said, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, and I am of Christ,” but in effect Paul said, “Brothers! You are brothers at Corinth; you must not have envy, strife, and divisions at Corinth.” A boundary does exist. There should not be envy, strife, and divisions in the church at Corinth. To whom does you refer? It refers to the church at Corinth. Unity in the Scriptures involves the unity of the Holy Spirit and of the Body. However, the unity of the Holy Spirit and of the Body has a minimum boundary requirement; that is, this unity must be expressed within a local church.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 3, Vol. 56, 360-362)

1. The Unique Oneness of the Universal Body of Christ

In Ephesians 4 two aspects of the oneness of the Body are unveiled—the oneness in reality and the oneness in practicality. The oneness of the Body is not merely a doctrine but a reality. This oneness is more than an oneness among all of the believers and among the local churches. It is a oneness of the Triune God, existing among the three of the Godhead. There is one God, yet His Godhead is three. Thus, He is the three-one God, the Triune God. Among the three of the Godhead there is an eternal oneness. God the Father is one with the Son and with the Spirit, the Son is one with the Father and with the Spirit, and the Spirit is one with the Son and with the Father. All of the three are one with one another…

At one time this oneness was only among the three divine persons of the Godhead, but now it has gotten into millions of believers. These millions of believers, the many sons of God, are the corporate Body of Christ. Millions and millions of believers are incorporated in this corporate Body. Now we can see how great this oneness is.

In the local churches, we have believers from every continent and of all races, of all colors. Instead of quarreling, we are singing together and praising together. How wonderful this oneness is among us! But the oneness we enjoy is just a miniature of the great universal oneness of the entire universal Body of Christ. This oneness was merely among the three of the Godhead in eternity past. Now it has been expanded, enlarged, and increased to include the millions and millions of sons of God who are the members of the great universal Body of Christ. We are now testifying of this oneness.

(Witness Lee, Intrinsic View, 83-85)

The Body of Christ is uniquely one universally (Eph. 4:4-6). Individually, we are members of the Body of Christ, and all the local churches are parts of this one unique Body of Christ. As those who are in the Body, we need to realize that we are one with all the saints in the entire universe. Ephesians 4:4-6 depicts a oneness that is universal: “One Body and one Spirit, as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” In these verses we can see that the Triune God is mingled with the Body. The Body mentioned here is not local; rather, it is universal. This is the universal oneness of the Body of Christ.

(Witness Lee, Brief Presentation, 38)

We have seen that God’s eternal goal is to work Christ Himself into us that we may be the real parts of Christ as the living members of the Body of Christ, which is the church as the living expression of Christ. Now we have to see the proper way, the right way, the best way, for us to come together to practice this wonderful church life. We are not talking about the way to organize or to form something. We are talking here about the proper way for us to practice a living expression of Christ.

We all know that in the whole universe the church is one. There is one Christ, one Head, and one church, one Body. You cannot have one Christ and more than one church. You cannot have one Head with more than one Body. In the universe there is only one Christ, and this one Christ has only one Body. However, although the church is one in the universe, it is expressed on this earth in many places. This one church has many expressions. Because the church in the universe is one, the expression of the church in any place must also be one.

Let us illustrate in this way: Today if you go to Tokyo, which is a big city with millions of people, you cannot find two American embassies there. You can find only one American embassy in Tokyo. Regardless of how big the city is, there can be only one American embassy. If there were two, that would mean that America is divided. When I go to Tokyo, there is no need for me to ask which American embassy I should go to. There is only one embassy in Tokyo representing America. The United States embassy in Tokyo is the very expression of the United States in that city. The United States is one, not two. So in any place, any embassy representing the United States must be one.

In the same principle, the church in the whole universe is one. So in any place, in any locality, if there is some expression of the church, that expression must be one. If we want to be in the proper way to practice the church, we must first remember that the church in the whole universe is one. So if we are going to express the church in any place, we must be one. In any locality there must be only one local church as a living expression of the Body of Christ. If there is more than one, that means division has taken place. This is exactly what has happened today. If you go to Tokyo, there is no need for you to inquire about what American embassy you should attend. But today when people go to a city, they ask about what church they should attend. There are many different kinds of churches today. This means divisions have occurred. Any denomination is a division. There should not be many different churches in one locality, that is, many different expressions of the Body of Christ in one city. In one city, there should be only one expression of the one Body of Christ.

(Witness Lee, Life and Way, 101-102)

A local church should include all the children of God in that locality. The church takes the Body of Christ as its basic unit. If other brothers and sisters will not come, that is their own concern. But the church should not impose any condition upon anyone other than the need to acknowledge the Body. The Body is the only condition for forming a church. A church cannot be smaller than the Body of Christ. In other words, whoever is of Christ should be in the church; whoever is in the Body of Christ may not be rejected.

However, to accept anyone who is not in the Body of Christ or to embrace unbelievers is to go beyond the Body of Christ. That would no longer be the church of Christ; it would be an organization of confusion. In conclusion, whatever falls short of the Body of Christ or goes beyond the Body of Christ is not the church.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 3, Vol. 50, 873-874)

In God’s plan, He desires to have a Body for His Son in the universe. Yet in a practical way, God desires those who are part of this Body to become churches in the different localities. God desires that each one of these churches be a miniature and a representation, in the different localities, of the mystical Body of the Son of God. This kind of understanding is very much lacking among Christians today. Even some who are very much for the pursuit of spirituality neglect this fact.

In the first point, we talked about the universal church. In the second point, we are talking about the local church. An elder must have this twofold knowledge concerning God’s plan for the church. He must know the universal Church, and he must also know the local church. In other words, he must know the Church in its universal aspect, and he must know the church in its local aspect. Never consider the universal Church to be one kind of church, and the local church to be another kind of church. There is only one Church. Collectively speaking, it is the universal church, and locally speaking, it is the local churches. Strictly speaking, the local churches are the universal Church. The universal Church is simply the sum total of the local churches, and the local churches are simply the local manifestations of the universal Church. Without the local churches, there cannot be the universal Church. When the elders are managing the local churches, they are managing the universal Church.

God’s plan is to have a Church in the universe as the Body of His Son for His expression. However, to carry out this plan, He has to set up local churches in the different localities. If He does not set up churches in the different localities, God’s universal plan for the church will be only an empty ideal with no way to be carried out. In order to carry out this plan, God has to set up churches in the different localities.

If you grasp hold of these two points, you will be clear when you read the New Testament again. There is a great vision in the New Testament that tells how the Church as the Body of Christ is the expression of the Son of God. This concerns God’s plan in the universe. On the other hand, the New Testament shows us that the Church appears in the localities. It is in the different localities that God’s plan is realized. Every elder should have a clear knowledge concerning all these matters. This is the elders’ knowledge concerning the church. Of course, there are a number of matters connected with this subject, such as the question of denominations, the question of the ground, and the nature of the church. We will not go into these other things. Here we only emphasize the Church as the Body of Christ in God’s plan for the expression of Christ and the church practiced on earth in the different localities.

(Witness Lee, Elders’ Management, 11-12)

The church as the Body of Christ is uniquely one both universally and locally (Eph 4:3-6). The church is one universally as the Body of Christ and one locally as the local testimony, the expression of Christ. As the local testimonies, the churches are many, but in each city there should only be one local church as Christ’s unique expression in that locality. The church, both universally and locally, has only one Head. The church also has one Spirit (Eph. 4:4), that is, one life, one Lord (4:5), and one God, the Father of all (4:6).

Christ is unique and is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13a). This unique and undivided Christ, taken as the unique center among all the believers, should be the termination of all divisions. All the elders must see this. Some people say that as long as we love the Lord and live Him, we can serve Him properly regardless of what ground we stand on. To these persons, it does not mean much whether there is one church or thirty “churches” in their locality. They say that we have to exercise generality and broaden our heart. To them, as long as people love the Lord, serve the Lord, and even live the Lord, it is not wrong for them to meet in their own way. What would you say to them? Paul says, “Has Christ been divided?” (1 Cor. 1:13a). There is no need to speak too many words concerning this matter. We should simply ask them, “Has Christ been divided? If not, then why are you divided?” There is the need of such a basic realization and understanding of the church. The elders, especially those who are somewhat new in the eldership, should get into all these points that they may know the church. Then they will know the truth, and their understanding, their attitude, and their standing, their ground, will be upright.

(Witness Lee, Eldership (3), 10-11)

2. The Unique Ground of Locality

I would like you to pay attention to the fact that in the New Testament, the boundary of the local church is the city in which that church is located. Hence, the maximum reach of a local church is the city; no boundary can be larger than the city. In the Bible we cannot find a church that rules over one province or county. The Bible shows us that the city is the boundary of the church. In the beginning the city was the community where men aggregated. We should remember that in the complicated situation of our modern life, there are many towns and villages. At the beginning, when families bound themselves together and set up protection, there were cities (Gen. 4:17). Due to various reasons, men began to dwell in cities. In the first half of the book of Genesis, we see no unit smaller than the city. By the time of Joshua, men still lived in cities. Of course, by then, there were neighboring villages. When the Lord Jesus sent the disciples to preach the gospel, He charged them to go into the cities and villages (Matt. 10:11). This is because a city or a village is the smallest unit of human habitation in the Bible.

The scriptural boundary of a local church is the boundary of a city. Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica were all cities. The boundary of a local church cannot be larger than a city. Asia was a big area, and it had seven churches. Galatia was a region, and it had churches. Corinth was one city, and therefore, the Bible mentions the whole church coming together in one place (1 Cor. 14:23). The church in Corinth was one church. All the other local churches mentioned in the Bible had the city as their boundary. This is God’s wise way to preserve the believers from much confusion. If God were to make the nation the boundary of the church, such a boundary would be changing all the time because nations often fall. If a nation fell, the boundary of the church would be changed. If God made a province the boundary of the church, the provincial boundaries would change often also. If the boundary of a province changed, the boundary of a church would have to change as well. Would this not cause some problems? This is why God has not made a province the unit of the church, nor has He made a nation or other political units the boundary of the church. Dynasties, nations, and provinces all change easily. God has made the city or village the boundary of the church because the names and boundaries of these places do not change easily. National boundaries constantly change, and the names of provinces constantly change. But the boundaries and names of cities and villages are least likely to change with political shifts. They are least affected by political changes; we can almost say that they are never affected by political changes. In many instances, a village was called by a certain name a few hundred years ago, and it is still called by the same name today. Many cities change hands from one nation to another, yet the cities themselves remain the same. The city (and to a greater extent the village) is the most stable unit politically. This is why God ordained the city to be the boundary of a local church.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 22, 114-115)

The sphere of the church is local, and the local church should on no account be divided. The question naturally arises, if the spiritual life of a local (not denominational) church is very low, can a few of the more spiritual members not gather together and form another assembly? The answer from the Word of God is emphatically, No! God’s Word only warrants the establishment of churches on local ground. Even lack of spirituality is no adequate reason for dividing the church. Should local methods, government, and organization be far from ideal, that still constitutes no reason for division. Even wrong teaching (2 John 9 excepted) is no ground for those who know better to form a separate church. We must lay it to heart that the difference of locality is the only ground for dividing the Church of God. No other ground is scriptural. [200]

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 30, 95-96)

If we wish to maintain a scriptural position, then we must see to it that the churches we found in various places only represent localities, not doctrines. If our “church” is not separated from other children of God on the ground of locality alone, but stands for the propagation of some particular doctrine, then we are decidedly a sect, however true to the Word of God our teaching may be. The purpose of God is that a church should represent the children of God in a locality, not represent some specific truth there. A church of God in any place comprises all the children of God in that place, not merely those who hold the same doctrinal views.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 30, 89)

In 1:11 the voice said to John, “What you see write in a book and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” This verse is composed in a very important way. Here we see that the sending of this book “to the seven churches” equals sending it to the seven cities. This shows clearly that the practice of the church life was that of one church for one city, one city with one church. In no city was there more than one church. The jurisdiction of a local church should cover the whole city in which the church is; it should not be greater or lesser than the boundary of the city. All the believers within that boundary should constitute the unique local church within that city. Hence, one church equals one city, and one city equals one church. This is what we call the local churches.]

(Witness Lee, Genuine Ground, 128)

We have seen that all the churches in Scripture are local churches, but the question naturally arises, What is a scriptural locality? If we note what places are mentioned in God’s Word in connection with the founding of churches, then we shall be able to determine what the extent of a place must be to justify its being regarded as a unit for the forming of a church. In Scripture the localities which determine the boundary of a church are neither countries, nor provinces, nor districts. Nowhere do we read of a national church, or a provincial church, or of a district church. We read of the church in Ephesus, the church in Rome, the church in Jerusalem, the church in Corinth, the church in Philippi, and the church in Iconium. Now what kind of places are Ephesus, Rome, Jerusalem, Corinth, Philippi, and Iconium? They are neither countries, nor provinces, nor districts, but simply places of convenient size for people to live together in a certain measure of safety and sociability. In modern language we should call them cities. That cities were the boundaries of churches in the apostolic days is evident from the fact that on the one hand Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23), and on the other hand Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every city” (Titus 1:5).

In the Word of God we see no church that extends beyond the area of a city, nor do we find any church which does not cover the entire area. A city is the scriptural unit of locality. From Genesis and Joshua we learn that cities in olden days were the places where people grouped together to live; they were also the smallest unit of civil administration, and each possessed an independent name. Any place is qualified to be a unit for the founding of a church which is a place where people group together to live, a place with an independent name, and a place which is the smallest political unit. Such a place is a scriptural city and is the boundary of a local church. Large cities such as Rome and Jerusalem are only units, while small cities such as Iconium and Troas are likewise units. Apart from such places where people live a community life, there is no scriptural unit of the churches of God…

This division of churches according to locality is a demonstration of the marvelous wisdom of God. Had God ordained that the Church be divided into churches with the country as their boundary, then in the event of one country being vanquished and absorbed by another, the church would have to change its sphere. Were a province to mark the limit of a church, the sphere of the churches would be frequently altered because of the frequent change of provincial boundary. The same holds true in respect of a district. The most stable of all political units is a village, a town, or a city. Governments, dynasties, and countries may change, but cities are seldom affected by any political change. There are cities that have passed from one country to another and still have their original name, and there are cities in existence today that have retained the same name for centuries. So we see the divine wisdom in decreeing that a locality should fix the boundary of a church.

Since the limits of a locality mark the limits of a church, then no church can be narrower than a locality, and none wider. The Word of God recognizes only two churches, the universal Church and the local churches; there is no third church whose sphere is narrower than the local, or else wider than the local and yet narrower than the universal Church. A local church admits of no possible division, and it admits of no possible extension. You cannot narrow its sphere by dividing it into several smaller churches, nor can you widen its sphere by linking several local churches together. Any church smaller than a local church is not a scriptural church, and any church larger than a local church, and yet smaller than the universal Church, is not a scriptural church either.

NOT NARROWER THAN A LOCALITY

We read in 1 Corinthians 1:2 of “the church of God which is in Corinth.” Corinth was a unit-locality, and the church in Corinth, a unit-church. When discord crept in and its members were on the point of splitting the church into four different factions, Paul wrote, rebuking them: “Each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ…Are you not men of flesh?” (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4). Had these people formed four different groups, they would have been sects, not churches, for Corinth was a city, and that is the smallest unit which warrants the forming of a church. The church of God in Corinth could not cover a lesser area than the whole city, nor could it comprise a lesser number of Christians than all the Christians who lived there. This is Paul’s definition of the church in Corinth—“to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints” (1:2). To form a church in an area smaller than a unit-locality is to form it on a smaller basis than a scriptural unit, and it follows that it cannot be a scriptural church. Any group of believers less than all the believers in a place is not qualified to be a separate church. The unit of the church must correspond with the unit of the locality. A church must cover the same area as the locality in which it is found. If a church is smaller than a locality, then it is not a scriptural church; it is a sect.

To say, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Cephas,” is obviously sectarian; but to say, “I am of Christ,” is sectarian too, though less obviously so. The confession, “I am of Christ,” is good as a confession, but it is not an adequate basis for forming a separate church, since it excludes some of the children of God in a given locality by including only a certain section who say, “I am of Christ.” That every believer belongs to Christ is a fact, whether that fact be declared or not; and to differentiate between those who proclaim it and those who do not, is condemned by God as carnal. It is the fact that matters, not the declaration of it. The sphere of a church in any place does not merely include those in that place who say, “I am of Christ,” but all in that place who are of Christ. It extends over the entire area of the locality, and includes the entire number of the Christians in the locality.

To take one’s stand as belonging to Christ alone is perfectly right, but to divide between Christians who take that stand and Christians who do not, is altogether wrong. To brand as sectarian those who say, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Cephas,” and feel spiritually superior as we separate ourselves from them and have fellowship only with those who say, “I am of Christ,” makes us guilty of the very sin we condemn in others. If we make non-sectarianism the basis of our fellowship, then we are dividing the church on a ground other than the one ordained of God, and thereby we form another sect. The scriptural ground for a church is a locality and not non-sectarianism. Any fellowship that is not as wide as the locality is sectarian. All Christians who live in the same place as I do, are in the same church as I am, and I dare exclude none. I acknowledge as my brother, and as a fellow member of my church, every child of God who lives in my locality.

There were a great number of believers in Jerusalem. We read of a multitude who turned to the Lord; yet they are all referred to as the church in Jerusalem, not the churches in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was a single place; therefore, it could only be counted as a single unit for the founding of a single church. You cannot divide the church unless you can divide the place. If there is only one locality, there can only be one church. In Corinth there was only the church in Corinth; in Hankow there is only the church in Hankow. We do not read of the churches in Jerusalem, or the churches in Ephesus, or the churches in Corinth. Each of these was counted as only one place; therefore, it was permissible to have only one church in each. As long as Jerusalem, Ephesus, and Corinth remain unit-localities, just so long do they remain unit-churches. If a locality is indivisible, then the church formed in that locality is indivisible.

NOT WIDER THAN A LOCALITY

We have just seen that the boundary of a church cannot be narrower than the locality to which it belongs. On the other hand, its boundary cannot be wider than the locality. In the Word of God we never read of the church in Macedonia, or the church in Galatia, or the church in Judea, or the church in Galilee. Why? Because Macedonia and Galilee are provinces, and Judea and Galatia are districts. A province is not a scriptural unit of locality; neither is a district. Both include a number of units; therefore, they include a number of separate churches and do not constitute one church. A provincial church or a district church is not according to Scripture, since it does not divide on the ground of locality, but combines a number of localities. It is because all scriptural churches are local churches that there is no mention of state churches, provincial churches, or district churches in the Word of God.

“Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31, KJV). The Holy Spirit did not speak here of the church, but of the churches. Because there were a number of localities, there were also a number of churches. It was not God’s plan to unite the churches of different places into one church, but to have a separate church in each place. There were as many churches as there were places.

“He passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches” (Acts 15:41). Again the reference is not to one single church, because Syria and Cilicia were vast districts, each comprising a number of different places. It is permissible in political circles to unite many different places into a district and call it Syria or Cilicia, but God does not unite the believers in a number of different places and call them the church in Syria, or the church in Cilicia. There may be unions or mergers in the commercial or political world, but God sanctions no combinations among the churches. Each separate place must have a separate church.

“All the churches of the Gentiles” (Rom. 16:4). The churches of God were not formed on national lines but on local lines; therefore, there is no mention of the church of the Gentiles, but of the churches of the Gentiles.

“The churches of Asia greet you” (1 Cor. 16:19). “The churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor. 8:1). “The churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2). “I was still unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which are in Christ” (Gal. 1:22). Asia, Macedonia, Galatia, and Judea were all areas comprising more than one locality-unit; therefore, the Word of God refers to the churches in these areas. A church according to the divine thought is always a church in one locality; any other kind of church is a product of the human mind.

God sanctions no division of the church within any one locality, and He sanctions no denominational combination of the churches in a number of localities. In Scripture there is always one church in one place, never several churches in one place, nor one church in several places. God does not recognize any fellowship of His children on a basis narrower, or wider, than that of a locality.

Nanking is a city, and so is Soochow. Because each is a separate unit, each therefore has a separate church. The two places are both in the same country, and even in the same province, but because they are two separate cities, they must form two separate churches. Politically Glasgow and Nanking do not belong to the same province, or even the same country; yet the relationship between Nanking and Soochow is exactly the same as between Nanking and Glasgow. Nanking and Soochow are as truly separate units as Nanking and Glasgow are. In the division of churches the question of country or province does not arise; it is all a question of cities. Two cities of the same country, or the same province, have no closer relationship than two cities of different countries or different provinces. God’s intention is that a church in any one locality should be a unit, and in their relationship one to the other the different churches must preserve their local character.

When God’s people throughout the earth really see the local character of the churches, then they will appreciate their oneness in Christ as never before. The churches of God are local, intensely local. If any factor enters in to destroy their local character, then they cease to be scriptural churches.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 30, 55-60)

Paul came from Antioch to Corinth and there he preached the gospel. People believed and were saved, and soon there was a group of saints in Corinth. Into what kind of church did Paul form them? Into the church in Corinth. Paul did not establish an Anitochian church in Corinth. He did not form a branch-church of Antioch in Corinth, but simply established a church in Corinth. Thereafter Peter came to Corinth and preached the gospel, with the result that another group of people believed. Did Peter say, “Paul came from Antioch, but I am come from Jerusalem, so I must set up another church: I will establish a Jerusalemic church in Corinth, or, I will form a branch-church of Jerusalem here in Corinth”? No, he contributed all those he led to the Lord to the already existing local church in Corinth. After a while Apollos came along. Again people were saved, and again all the saved ones were added to the local church. So in Corinth there was only one church of God; there were no schismatic denominations. Had Paul established the precedent of founding a church in Corinth to enlarge the sphere of the church from which he went out, calling it the Antiochian church in Corinth, then when Peter came to Corinth he might well have argued, “It is all right for Paul to found an Antiochian church in Corinth since he came from Antioch, but I have nothing to do with Antioch; my church is in Jerusalem, so I must establish a Jerusalemic church here.” Apollos coming to Corinth would in turn follow their example and establish another church as a branch of the one from which he came out. If every worker tried to form a branch of the church he represented, then sects and denominations would be utterly inevitable. If the aim of a worker in any place is not to establish a local church there, but to enlarge the church from which he has gone out, then he is not establishing a church of God in that locality, but only building up his own society. Under such circumstances there is no possibility of cooperation.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 30, 132-133)

THE CHURCH ON THE PROPER GROUND

Originally, there was one church in Corinth, and all the saints in Corinth were part of the church in Corinth. But suppose the saints were divided into four churches: the church of Peter, the church of Apollos, the church of Paul, and the church of Christ. Suppose also that certain saints remained on the ground of the church at Corinth. Now suppose a brother came from Jerusalem to visit Corinth. As far as the church was concerned, he had no problem in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Ephesus, for in these cities the sphere of the church was the same as the jurisdiction of the locality. However, when he arrived at Corinth, he faced a difficulty. He would have to determine to which church he would go. Surely he would not go to the church of Cephas, the church of Apollos, the church of Paul, or even the church of Christ. He would meet with those standing as the church in Corinth because they had the proper ground. Suppose a leading brother of the church of Christ said to him, “I am a leader in the church of Christ and I would like to have fellowship with you. Are you not of Christ? And do you not think that I am of Christ also? Why would you not come to be with us? You say that we don’t have the proper ground. But our ground is Christ, for we are the church of Christ. Christ is not divided. How then can you say that our ground is divisive? You claim that we divide ourselves from the other saints. But if you don’t join us, then you divide yourself from us.” However, the brother visiting from the church in Jerusalem would point out that the church on the proper ground, the church in Corinth, includes them both, for the sphere of the church in Corinth is greater than that of the church of Christ.

Those who say that they are of Christ would not agree with those who say they are of Peter, of Apollos, or of Paul. They would say, “The names Peter, Apollos, and Paul are the wrong names. We should not keep those names. Christ is the proper name. Hence, we are of Christ.” However, Christ is the foundation, not the ground (1 Cor. 3:11). We need to see the difference between the foundation and the ground. The ground is the site upon which the building is constructed, whereas the foundation is the bottom part of the building itself. All the groups claim that their foundation is Christ. Even those who say that they are of Peter, of Apollos, and of Paul would claim that Christ is their foundation. However, they are all on different grounds. This means that they place their foundation on different sites. The proper ground is the ground of unity. It is correct to say that Christ is the foundation, but it is incorrect to say that He is the ground. For this reason, those who claim to be the church of Christ are building on the wrong ground.

THOSE ON THE PROPER GROUND BEING THE CHURCH

Today the situation regarding the church is cloudy. But for us the sky is clear. We are members of the Body, and the Body is universal. This universal Body has just one expression in a city. Thus, there should be just one church in a city. It was this way in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and also in Ephesus. But it is not this way in our locality today. Therefore, we must exercise our discernment to discover who is meeting on the proper ground of unity.

Let us go further and suppose that the church of Peter had two thousand members, that the church of Apollos had four thousand, that the church of Paul had three thousand, that the church of Christ had five hundred, and that those meeting as the church in Corinth had only fifteen. Those in the church in Corinth might say, “We are so small in number. The other groups have anywhere from five hundred to four thousand, but we have only fifteen. What shall we do? Can we say that we are the church? The church in Corinth should include all the saints. But the vast majority of them are not with us. How can we say that we are the church?” In such a situation many would be weakened and reluctant to claim that they are the church in Corinth. If those standing on the ground of unity numbered five thousand, they would all be bold to say that they are the church in Corinth. But if the number were small, perhaps only fifteen, they would be weakened in this matter and afraid to say that they are the church. Nevertheless, the fifteen saints standing on the church ground are the church. If they are not the church, then what would you call them?

We need to be clear that the standing of the church does not depend upon any terms or conditions, but only upon the ground of unity. The ground of unity is the ground of locality. Wherever we Christians are, we should be the church in that place. If we are in London, Paris, New York, or Los Angeles, we should simply be the church in that city. Today the situation is confused and divided. Thus, we need to be recovered back to the genuine unity. The genuine unity is the unique oneness, the oneness of the ground. We need to be clear about this so that wherever we are, we shall be nothing other than part of the church in that locality. Being the church is not a matter of how many saints there are. Even if there are just a small number coming together in a particular city, they are the church in that locality. For more than forty-five years I have been standing on this ground. The more I preach and teach it, the more bold I am to say that those standing on the proper ground are the church in that locality.

NO SPECIAL NAME

Now we need to see how a group of Christians becomes a denomination. The most striking feature of all denominations is their special names. Every denomination has a particular name, such as the Church of Christ, the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church, or the Lutheran Church. Once a group assumes a special name, it has become a denomination, for taking such a designation separates that group from all other groups.

At this point I need to say strongly that the term local church is not a name. We do not have a name. When people ask you what kind of church we are, you should simply say, “We are just the church. To ask me what kind of church we are is like asking what kind of moon we are. The moon is uniquely one. When the moon is in London, it is called the moon in London. When the moon appears over Cleveland, it is called the moon in Cleveland. In the same way, we say that we are the church in Cleveland or the church in Los Angeles.” But such terms are not a name. Rather, they are a description of a fact. Thus, we should never use the term the local church in a way that others might regard it as a name. The local church denotes the nature of the church. We do not have a sectarian church or a so-called universal church. The churches in the Lord’s recovery are churches in localities. For this reason they are referred to as local churches. But the words “the local church” are not a name, and we are not a denomination. Do not use these terms as if they were a name. At most we should say, “We are the church in Cleveland. The church in Cleveland, of course, includes all the believers in Cleveland. However, because most Christians in Cleveland will not be recovered back to the proper ground of the church, we are the only ones still remaining as the church in Cleveland. But we do not have a special name.”

(Witness Lee, Spirit and the Body, 208-211)

The work of evangelization is primarily for the salvation of sinners, but its spontaneous result is a church in the place where such work is done. The immediate object is the salvation of men, but the ultimate result is the formation of churches. The danger which confronts the missionary is to form those he has led to the Lord into a branch of the society he represents. Since workers represent different societies, they naturally form different branches of their respective societies, and the consequence is great confusion in the work and churches of God. The immediate aim of the various workers is no doubt the same—what preacher does not hope that many souls will be won to the Lord?—but there is a lack of clarity and definiteness regarding the ultimate issue. Some workers, praise God, are out to establish local churches; others, alas! are out to extend their own denomination or to form mission churches.

This is a point on which my fellow workers and I cannot see eye to eye with many of God’s children. From the depths of our hearts we thank God that in the past century He has sent so many of His faithful servants to China, so that those who were sitting in darkness should hear the gospel and believe in the Lord. Their self-sacrifice, their diligence, and their godliness have truly been an example to us. Many a time, as we looked at the faces of missionaries suffering for the gospel’s sake, we have been moved to pray, “Lord, make us to live like them.” May God bless and reward them! We acknowledge that we are utterly unworthy to have any part in the work of God, but by the grace of God we are what we are, and since God in His grace has called us to His service, we cannot but seek to be faithful. We have nothing to criticize, and much to admire, as far as the gospel work of our missionary brethren is concerned; yet we cannot but question their methods in dealing with the fruits of such work. For in the past hundred years it has not resulted in the building up of local churches but in the forming of missionary churches, or of branch churches of the various denominations which the missionaries represented. In our opinion this is contrary to the Word of God. There is no such thing in Scripture as the building up of denominations; we only find local churches there. May God forgive me if I am wrong!

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 30, 134-135)

There are no such terms for being accepted into the churches. The only condition is that we believe in the Lord Jesus and are saved by faith. As long as you have been saved through faith, you have already been received. The church receives the saints whom God has received without imposing on them any particular terms. If you believe in the Lord Jesus and are saved, you are a saint. A saint is a saved one. As long as you have been saved, justified, redeemed, and regenerated, you are a saint, a holy one. Because you are a saint already, the church receives you without requiring any special conditions or terms. You were accepted by the church when you believed in the Lord Jesus.

We need to be careful of the independent groups that are imitating the churches. These groups claim that they have no special terms for receiving the believers. However, if you examine these groups carefully, you will find some hidden conditions for being accepted by them. But we in the churches can testify that we have no particular terms whatever for acceptance. Some may ask whether calling on the name of the Lord is a term. No, it is not a condition of being accepted. If you enjoy calling on the name of the Lord, then call on His name. But if you do not like it, then do not call. As long as you believe in the Lord Jesus, you are a saint, and we receive you. Others may claim that pray-reading is a term for being accepted into the church. No, pray-reading is not necessary for salvation, and thus it is not a condition of acceptance. I repeat, the churches have no special terms. Any group that has a special condition, either a special teaching or practice, for the receiving of the saints, is a sect.

(Witness Lee, Spirit and the Body, 212-213)

During the period between 1921 and 1923, revival meetings were held to lead people to the Lord. At that time preaching the gospel was believed to be the unique work for God. But God opened my eyes to see that His purpose requires that those who have been saved by grace stand upon the ground of oneness in local churches [151, 200] to represent and maintain God’s testimony on earth. Some of my co-workers had different views of the truth concerning the church. But when I carefully studied the book of Acts, I realized that God’s wish is to establish local churches [700] in every city. At that time the light shone upon me so clearly that I recognized that this is His purpose.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 26, 468-469)

When the Lord called me to serve Him, the prime object was not for me to hold revival meetings so that people might hear more scriptural doctrines, nor for me to become a great evangelist. The Lord revealed to me that He wanted to build up local churches in other localities to manifest Himself, to bear testimony of unity on the ground of locality so that each saint might perform his duty in the church and live the church life. God wants not merely individual pursuit of victory or spirituality, but a corporate, glorious church presented to Himself.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 26, 479)

Secondly, we must see that the church is very practical. It is not just a vision. It is not just a teaching or something in the heavens, but an intensely practical matter. We must have a practical church. We should not have a church in our thoughts, in teaching, or even in vision, but in practice. We all need to pray that we will see the practicality of the church. The New Testament does not give much doctrine concerning the church, but it does give us a full picture of the practice of the church. People today may have the doctrine of the church, but the Bible has the practice of the church.

Most Christian teachers in the past century and a half have taught that it is impossible to have the real church today. The real church, they say, is invisible and in the future; what we have today is just the visible church, and that is not real. But, I would ask, in the Bible do we have the visible church and the invisible church? And do we have the church in the future?

The age in which we are living is the dispensation of the church. If we do not have the church now, when will we have it? The dispensations of the future are dispensations of something else. The next dispensation is the dispensation of the kingdom. After that comes the new heaven and new earth with the New Jerusalem, and in the New Jerusalem there will not only be the twelve apostles but also the twelve tribes of Israel. The present dispensation is the dispensation for the church. To say that the church is a matter of the future is entirely unscriptural and absolutely wrong. The church must be today.

The church in Jerusalem in the early days was visible, real, and practical. The church in Antioch was visible, real, and practical. The church in every city today must also be visible, real, and practical. We cannot say that the church is invisible and for the future.

Thirdly, we must see that the practical expression of the church must be local. Since it is practical, it must be local; it must be in the place where we are. If we would put the church into practice, if we would make it practical, we must have a local expression. There is no other way. Do not expect to have the church in a better place. The place where you live is the right place. Wherever you go, wherever you are, is the right place to practice the church life. The church life must be local. Any place, however pleasant from an earthly standpoint, is hell without a church. And on the contrary, any place with a church is heaven. Do not think that these are my words or my opinion. You remember, when Jacob dreamed and saw the ladder set up from earth to heaven and the angels of God ascending and descending upon it, he called the name of the place Bethel. Bethel, we know, means the house of God, and the house of God is the church today (1 Tim. 3:15). Jacob said about that, “This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven” (Gen. 28:17). Wherever the house of God is, that place is a gate of heaven. The only place that is good for us is the place where there is a church. And, praise the Lord, wherever we are and wherever we go there can be a church.

Can you find a verse in the New Testament telling us that the church is in the heavens? You cannot. But we do have the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1), the church at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), and the church in so many other cities. They are the local churches. Eventually at the end of the New Testament, in the book of Revelation, we have a picture of seven churches in seven cities. It is so clear. The practical expression of the church must be local. We need to see this.

In Christianity today, there are some people who have a so-called “university church.” There are others who have what they call “the church in the home.” Some, on the other hand, have a national church or even a world church. And still others insist that there should not be any kind of church on this earth. In Japan there is a movement which is called the non-church movement. The situation everywhere is indeed complicated and confused.

What shall we do? We need to forget the confusion and the complications. If you get involved in them, you will certainly miss the way. Do not ask: How about this? How about that? The more you do that, the more you will be in the woods. Learn to stay away from complications and make yourself very simple. Read the simple words of the New Testament: “the church in Jerusalem,” “the church in Antioch,” “the church at Cenchrea,” “the church in Corinth,” etc. It is so clear—the church must be local.

Finally, we must see the unity, the unique oneness of the church. Today in so many denominational churches there may be a unity, but it is not the unique unity. These unities are unities of divisions. For example, the Presbyterians have a unity among themselves, the Methodists have a unity among themselves, and the Lutherans have a unity among themselves; but these are not the unique unity. The unique unity must be the one on the proper ground. There is only one proper ground for the church—the ground of the unique unity. All the denominations have their own ground; therefore, the unity is broken by them. We cannot stand upon the ground of certain denominations or the ground of certain groups. The only ground upon which we can stand is the ground of the unique unity of the church. It must be the general ground which makes it possible for all the believers in one locality to gather as the one church in that place.

In the Bible, we find the principle of one church for each city—no more, no less. In the entire New Testament this principle is never violated. Whenever a church in a certain city is mentioned, it is always in the singular number. Whenever reference is made to the churches, in the plural number, it is always in relation to an area or district which is larger than a city, such as a province. There is nothing in the Bible about street churches, school churches, churches in a home, or, on the other hand, national churches or world churches. There are only churches in cities. You may say that there are some instances of a church in a home recorded in the Bible. But if you read carefully, you will see that in every case these simply refer to the home in which the entire church in that city met. The boundary of the church is not limited to a home; neither is it expanded to a district or nation. In the Bible, it is always according to the size of the city. A church that encompasses the whole city meets the qualification of the unique unity.

This is God’s sovereignty and wisdom. Suppose that today, for example, we are all living in Los Angeles. We could not have the home churches or the street churches; we could only have the city church. As long as we have the city church, all the saints in Los Angeles will be one. If we could have the street churches, we would be immediately divided. There could be a church on First Street, another on Second Street, and another on Third. If we could have home churches, it would be worse yet. The city keeps the unity that the saints may be one. If you move from Los Angeles to San Francisco, you need not be concerned as to which “church” you will go. It is so clear. You will go to the city church, the local church. You will not go to a church called by the name of some street, but to the local church in the city; not the church of some home or of some campus, but of the city. If you get into anything other than the local church of the city, you get into a division; if you get into the church of that city, you get into unity.

If we are not clear regarding the unique ground of the church, we have no way to go on for a practical, local expression. We will either persist in a division or we must give up the matter of the church altogether. This latter course is just what many have been forced to follow. They have talked much about the church, but they did not take the unique ground of the church, the ground of unity. Eventually therefore, they have been disbanded and dissolved. There was no way for them to go on. Do not despise the matter of the church ground; it has momentous implications and consequences. You may protest that if you take the definite standing of the ground of the church, you will be involved in trouble and problems. But, I tell you, if you do not take the ground of the church, you will be involved in considerably more trouble and problems. We must take a definite stand upon the original ground of the church, the local ground of unity in the city in which we live.

(Witness Lee, Vision of the Church, 4-12)

The boundary of the church in a city is the boundary of the city. The boundary of a local church is determined by the political boundary of the city. God has not left the decision of the boundary of a local church to the brothers or the elders. The responsibility of the church is to follow the division of the government and to take the political boundary as the boundary of the church. The sphere of a local church is as big as the political boundary of the city. There are big cities and small cities. A city as big as Nineveh took three days to circle once (Jonah 3:3). But a city like Jerusalem is only six miles in radius. Bethany is a place which does not belong to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is next to Bethany (John 11:18). Jerusalem is a city; it has its boundary. Bethany is a village; it also has its boundary. This is the way the Bible distinguishes the churches—according to the political boundary. Although some places are big and some places are small, the church cannot mark its boundary according to its own idea; it must mark it according to the political division. God has not given the church the liberty to have its own way. God uses the boundary established by the government. This is the basis that the church should accept today. There is no need to have another way.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 22, 117)

Let us suppose that every group of Christians in Los Angeles would be willing to relinquish its own particular ground: the Roman Catholics would give up the ground of Roman Catholicism, the Presbyterians would give up the ground of the presbytery, the Baptists would give up the ground of baptism, etc.—all the groups would be willing to abandon their own ground. What would be the result? All sectarian grounds would disappear and spontaneously only one unique and common ground would exist, the ground of locality, the ground of Los Angeles. All the saints in Los Angeles would then be in the one church in Los Angeles without any division. All the different denominations would be gone, and only the saints with Christ would be left. Then all the saints here, with the one Christ, would form the one unique church in Los Angeles. Composed together and built upon Christ as their foundation, they would be standing simply upon the ground of Los Angeles, which is the local ground, the unique ground of genuine unity. That is the only proper ground for the local church in Los Angeles and the only ground which can keep all the saints in this locality in oneness.

When Paul went to Corinth to preach the gospel and do the work of the Lord, did he establish a Pauline church with Christ as its foundation? Did Apollos, who also ministered in Corinth, establish a church upon the ground of Apollos with Christ as its foundation? Or did Peter, who may also have gone to Corinth, form a Petrine church with Christ as the foundation? Of course, they did not. In Corinth there was no Pauline church, no Apollonian church, and no Petrine church. Then what did they do? When Paul went to Corinth and brought people to the Lord, he established the church in Corinth. Upon what ground? Upon the ground of Corinth. He set up a local church in Corinth with Christ as its foundation upon the unique ground of locality. When Apollos went to Corinth, he did not set up another church. He built up the saints upon the same unique foundation and upon the same unique ground, the ground of Corinth. Paul planted them on that ground, and Apollos watered them on that ground. First Corinthians 1:2 says, “The church [singular] of God which is in Corinth.” Paul, Apollos, and Peter brought their varied ministries to Corinth, but they all built one church with one foundation upon the one ground of unity. So eventually only one church existed in Corinth with one kind of saints, one foundation which is Christ, and one ground which was the common standing in the entire locality. One church, one foundation, one ground—it is so clear.

The problem today is not with the foundation but with the ground. This is why we say that if we would have the church life, we must consider the ground as the second essential point we must take into account. Without Christ as our life and content and without the ground of unity with the saints in the locality in which we live as our definite standing, we cannot practice the church life.

(Witness Lee, Ground of the Church, 4-7)

The genuine oneness of the Body of Christ must be practiced with the unique ground of locality within the limit of the boundary and jurisdiction of the locality in which a church exists, that is, on the ground of locality, as with the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1), the church in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), and the seven churches in the seven cities in Asia (Rev. 1:11). All these churches were on the local ground, the ground of locality.

(Witness Lee, Eldership (2), 128-129)

The ground of the church involves not allowing anything but the locality in which we live to separate us into local churches (Rev. 1:11). Baptism, speaking in tongues, sprinkling, immersion, and dietary preferences are all differences. But none of these differences should separate us. We should be separated only by the localities in which we live. If we live in Anaheim, we cannot meet together regularly with the saints in New York. This is impossible. If we are in Anaheim, it is also difficult for us to meet with the saints in Los Angeles. Our locality spontaneously separates us. We are separated outwardly, but we are still one inwardly. We are one in the Spirit with the saints in New York, London, and Taipei.

(Witness Lee, Church Life, 40)

What is the extent of a local church? How big of an area constitutes the sphere of a local church? We would draw the brothers’ and sisters’ attention to the fact that in the Bible, the church is never divided into regions. The Bible never groups a few churches together under a regional organization. Although there were seven churches in Asia, we do not see the Bible appointing Ephesus or Philadelphia to rule over the other six churches. We only see seven churches, with seven lampstands. These seven lampstands represent the seven churches (Rev. 1:12, 20). In the Old Testament, one lampstand was divided into seven branches. In the New Testament, there are seven lampstands, not one lampstand with seven branches. This means that the seven different churches are shining by themselves and each one is responsible to Christ by itself. Every church is governed by Christ alone and is not under the control of any other church. In administration, every lampstand is independent and not under the control of any other lampstand. Every one of them is responsible to the Son of Man alone, who walks in the midst of the seven lampstands. They are responsible only to their High Priest. No church is responsible to another church. Although they are seven churches, they have not joined themselves to become one united church, and they are not responsible to some higher synod or convention. Each one of them is a so-called congregation, an assembly whose boundary is the locality. The Bible takes the city or the smallest administrative unit as the boundary of a local church. A local church is the basic unit of the church in the Bible. No local church is joined to another church or regards another bigger church as the central church.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 2, Vol. 22, 110)

The Bible shows us that God has appointed the city as the unit of a church. The boundary of a local church is determined by the boundary of the city to which it belongs. This God-ordained way maintains the balance in the fellowship of the assemblies in the various places, and it avoids much trouble and confusion. We should not randomly choose from among the few assemblies around us and freely meet there. Rather, we should decide on the place to meet based on the locality in which we belong. If we are in one city, we should not meet with an assembly in another city. Even if the place of meeting in the other city is closer than the place of meeting in our own city, we should still meet in our own city, rather than the other city. If this is not our practice, the fellowship among all the assemblies will not be balanced, and confusion will result. God does not want us to have freedom of movement. Even in the matter of choosing where to meet, God does not allow us to have a fleshly preference and choice.

(Witness Lee, NT Economy, 5)

There is also the practical aspect of the oneness of the church for the church ground. All the believers in Christ are the components of the Body of Christ. Practically, they are scattered in many cities on this earth. Spontaneously, they are separated into many units in each city, respectively, according to their dwelling. According to the New Testament pattern set up and ordained by God and according to the principle of the New Testament revelation concerning God’s economy of the church, in each city in which the believers dwell, it is not allowed to have more than one unit as a local expression of the unique Body of Christ, nor is it permitted to have a local church in a certain city without the proper fellowship in the Body of Christ with the other local churches. All these limitations of the church ground in its oneness are the safeguard in the church life to avoid any kind of division in the Body of Christ.

(Witness Lee, Crucial Points, 21-22)

First Corinthians 1:10 says: “Now I beseech you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same things…” To whom does you refer? It refers to the Christians at Corinth, the brothers at Corinth. “…and that there be no divisions among you..” Again, you refers to the Christians at Corinth. “…but that you be attuned in the same mind and in the same opinion.” This also refers to the Christians in Corinth. Here we see one thing: If the unity of the Body spoken of in the Bible is not expressed in a locality, it is not practical. It is easy to say, “We love all the children of God, except the one next door! The children of God are one, including Paul and all those who are not yet born, except a few brothers here in Shanghai!” This is impractical as well as self-deceptive. We cannot talk about the unity of the Body and say that we are one with everyone except with the few brothers who live together with us in the same place! According to Paul, the minimum requirement for speaking of unity is in the context of the local church. If the Christians in Corinth want to talk about the unity of the Body, they should not talk about it in Rome or talk about it in Jerusalem, but talk about it in Corinth. If we do not talk about it in Corinth, it is useless. We are deceiving ourselves. Suppose I live in Shanghai, but I do not get along with the brothers in Shanghai. However, I get along quite well with the brothers in Nanking. This is useless, and I am deceiving myself. The unity of the Body required by the Scriptures has a minimum boundary requirement, which is the locality. The brothers in Corinth must be one with the brothers in Corinth. If they are not one in Corinth, all their words just deceive others.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 3, Vol. 56, 360)

God’s arrangement for the church on the spiritual side is the authority of the Holy Spirit, and in its outward appearance, it is the limitation of locality. When the church in Corinth was about to divide itself into four parts, Paul immediately rebuked them for being divisive and fleshy (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3-4). When the Corinthians were about to divide into a few smaller churches, one of Paul, another of Cephas, another of Apollos, and another of Christ, the Holy Spirit said that was fleshy. Each city, each locality, can only be matched with one church. Whenever more than one appears, it is a division, a sect, which God rejects. From God’s point of view, the church in Corinth became fleshy because there can only be one church in one locality; a second church can never be established. If one church is already established, the second is a division and is fleshy. There can never be more than one church in one locality. Someone may say that he desires to supply others with spiritual food, but supplying spiritual food is not sufficient ground to establish a church. Someone may say that he wants to help others to understand the Bible, but helping others understand the Bible is also not sufficient ground to establish a church. Neither is teaching others to know the Holy Spirit adequate grounds for establishing a church. Someone may say that we need a revival and that a revival church should be established. Recently in a certain place, someone established a Revival Church for the sole purpose of revival, but revival is not sufficient grounds to establish a church. Men cannot establish a church, because men do not have the ground to establish a church. Paul did not have the ground to establish a church; neither did Cephas or Apollos. Ephesus had the ground to establish a church, but Paul was not equal to Ephesus. Corinth had the ground to establish a church, but Paul was not equal to Corinth. Neither was Cephas or Apollos; they were all not equal to Corinth. They did not have the ground, and they were not qualified to establish a church, because a church must be matched with a locality. Anything that comes short of a locality cannot establish a church. If there is no locality, there is no church. It is more than evident that God takes the boundary of locality as the ground.

(Watchman Nee, Further Talks, 20-21)

Today in Bijie in Kweichow province, no one has taken the standing of establishing a church on the ground of locality. If anyone desires to establish a church, it is all right for him to go to Bijie because in one locality there can only be one local church. If an additional church appears there, God will say that is a division. It is just like a woman matching a man. If a man does not have a wife yet, she can marry him and be his wife. If he already has a wife, how can she become his mate? She can only be the mate of a man who has no wife. The whole New Testament tells us this one thing: The church is local. We must see that the church is local. The Epistles speak of the church in Corinth and the church in Ephesus. Revelation speaks of the seven churches in Asia. In each locality there is only one church. The church cannot become independent of locality.

Please remember that a church can only be established in a locality where there is no church. If there is a church in a certain locality, we can only join it; we cannot set up another one. Once we set up another one, that is a division, a sect, which is condemned by God. I want to ask, “What is the difference between a woman who is a man’s wife and a concubine?” Everything is the same, except the position. Only the ground is different; everything else is the same. Though outwardly they may appear alike, something is lacking in one—the ground.

(Watchman Nee, Further Talks, 22)

Why is it that a city, or a locality, is the unit? It is because Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea were all localities, and only one church stood in each locality. If God did not take locality as the basic unit of church jurisdiction, there would not have been seven churches in these seven localities. There would have been instead one church for all seven localities. In other words, although one can say that there are seven localities, he cannot call the seven congregations in the seven localities seven churches (presuming that a church is not based on locality). But in the Bible, God told us that there were seven localities and there were also seven churches! They were seven churches in Asia, not the church in Asia; they were churches, not the church; they were the ekklesiae, not the ekklesia. Not only were there seven different churches on this earth, but there were also seven lampstands in the holy place before the Lord—there were seven, not one. It is undoubtedly evident that what men should obey is what God has shown us, that the locality should be the unit of jurisdiction for a church.

(Watchman Nee, Further Talks, 37)

Witness Lee: According to the Bible, a church should be local. The boundary of the locality is determined by the boundary of its civic administrative unit. The Bible shows us local churches, but it does not have churches on a street or churches in a district. The justification for starting a church is not based on its number of members. A local church may cover a large geographical area and may have a large number of people, but it is still one church.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 3, Vol. 62, 287-288)

Two great mistakes are found in men today. First, some people desire to have a church bigger than a city or a locality. They want to unite many churches in different localities and make them one big church, that is, bigger than a locality. They have never considered that there is not such a term like the church in China in the Scriptures. How many realize that the term the church in China is not scriptural? All of God’s children must understand that in the Scriptures there is not a united church that is greater than a locality.

It is “the churches of Galatia [a province]” (Gal. 1:2), not “the church of Galatia.”

It is “the churches of the Gentiles” (Rom. 16:4), not “the church of the Gentiles.”

It is “the churches..which are in Judea [a province]” (1 Thes. 2:14), not “the church in Judea.”

It is “the seven churches which are in Asia [a province]” (Rev. 1:4), not “the church in Asia.”

It is “the churches” in Syria and Cilicia [districts], not “the church” in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41).

Therefore, the boundary, the jurisdiction, of the church on the earth is limited to a locality. Even if we put two churches in two different localities together, they cannot be one church; they are still two churches. In the province of Asia, if we add up the churches as one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one, the result is not one church, but seven churches. In the whole province of Galatia, if all the churches in the different localities are added together, we still will not have the church in Galatia, but “the churches of Galatia.” Who can say that the church is over and above the locality? May God open our eyes so that we will not cause confusion to the testimony of God.

Second, some people desire to have a church smaller than the city or the locality. They want to divide one locality into many “churches,” many “assemblies,” or many “congregations.” Some euphemize these gatherings as “house churches.” But these are all of the same nature. They are divisions, the purpose of which is to establish men’s own sects according to the flesh. God’s children must discriminate between the house spoken of in the Bible and the house as it is conceived in human thought. In the Bible, when the house is equivalent to a locality or city, that house is called the church, like the church in Rome, the church in Colossae, the church in Laodicea, etc. But when the house is smaller than the locality or city, that house cannot be called the church, like the house meetings of the church in Jerusalem. This is very different from the house conceived in human thought, which is purposely made smaller than the locality or city, perpetuating the life of the sects or changing the sects into another form.

The brothers, therefore, must remember the teachings of the Bible:

It is “the church which was in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), not “the churches in Jerusalem.”

It is “the church..which is in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), not “the four churches in Corinth.”

It is “the church in Laodicea” (Rev. 3:14; Col. 4:15-16), not “the two churches in Laodicea.”

There is “the church in Ephesus,” not “the churches in Ephesus.” There is “the church of the Thessalonians,” not “the churches of the Thessalonians.” There is “the church in Antioch,” not “the churches in Antioch.”

God’s church takes locality as its boundary. When the church in a certain person’s house is completely equivalent to the church of that locality, it can be called the church in that person’s house. However, when the “church” in a certain person’s house is smaller than the church in his locality, it cannot be called a church. If the “churches” in the “house” of Cephas, in the “house” of Paul, in the “house” of Apollos, and in the “house” of Christ were added together, there would not be four churches in Corinth, they would still singularly be the church in Corinth. From this we can see that God has never made this type of “house” a unit for the boundary, the jurisdiction, of the church. Since the four houses are not four units, the believers meeting in them respectively cannot be four churches.

There must have been over ten thousand brothers in Jerusalem, and they might have been divided into one hundred houses for meetings. Since houses of this kind are smaller than the city, that is, smaller than the locality, and smaller than Jerusalem, they are not sufficient to become the units of the church. If we add these one hundred houses together, they do not become one hundred churches. In the Bible there is only the singular church in Jerusalem. Since one hundred meetings added together could not become one hundred churches, but only one, this means that each one is not sufficient to become a unit by itself.

(Watchman Nee, Further Talks, 40-42)

Each city, each locality, can only be matched with one church. Whenever more than one appears, it is a division, a sect, which God rejects. From God’s point of view, the church in Corinth became fleshy because there can only be one church in one locality; a second church can never be established. If one church is already established, the second is a division and is fleshy. There can never be more than one church in one locality. Someone may say that he desires to supply others with spiritual food, but supplying spiritual food is not sufficient ground to establish a church. Someone may say that he wants to help others to understand the Bible, but helping others understand the Bible is also not sufficient ground to establish a church. Neither is teaching others to know the Holy Spirit adequate grounds for establishing a church…

Today in Bijie in Kweichow province, no one has taken the standing of establishing a church on the ground of locality. If anyone desires to establish a church, it is all right for him to go to Bijie because in one locality there can only be one local church. If an additional church appears there, God will say that is a division. It is just like a woman matching a man. If a man does not have a wife yet, she can marry him and be his wife. If he already has a wife, how can she become his mate? She can only be the mate of a man who has no wife. The whole New Testament tells us this one thing: The church is local. We must see that the church is local. The Epistles speak of the church in Corinth and the church in Ephesus. Revelation speaks of the seven churches in Asia. In each locality there is only one church. The church cannot become independent of locality.

(Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Set 3, Vol. 55, 158-160)

3. The Reality of the Spirit of Oneness

This oneness is made real and practical by means of the anointing that is upon Christ the Head and that spreads upon the Body. As long as we remain in the Body, we share the ointment. In this ointment we are one. Hence, the anointing of the compound, all-inclusive, life-giving Spirit is the element of our oneness. This means that to be one as members of the church is to be under the Spirit’s anointing. If we are not under this anointing, we cannot be one with anyone, not even with ourselves.

(Witness Lee, Genuine Ground, 93)

Furthermore, all the local churches possess the same one Spirit. The Spirit is uniquely one. There is no local Spirit; there is no local Christ; there is no local God; and there is no local Bible. Moreover, the apostles’ teaching is not local, and the apostles’ fellowship is not local (Acts 2:42). All the basic things for the Body are not local. Some of the business affairs may be merely local matters, but we need to realize that all the local churches are the one, unique universal church, and they all have the same one Spirit.

(Witness Lee, Eldership (3), 115)

How do we keep the oneness of the Body? What is this oneness? This oneness is the Spirit. Hence, Ephesians 4:4 says, “One Body and one Spirit.” This is the oneness of the Body. When you are in the Spirit, you keep this oneness; when you are not in the Spirit, even if you say you are not divided, you are divided.

(Witness Lee, High Peak, 55-56)

The extract of the definition of the church ground is to keep the oneness of the Spirit inwardly and to take the differences outwardly, not allowing anything but the locality in which we live to separate us into local churches. Ephesians 4:3 says, “Being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” Keeping the oneness of the Spirit is inward, whereas the differences are outward. If one brother is a Sabbath keeper and another brother practices meeting on the Lord’s Day, the differences between them are outward. We have to keep the oneness of the Spirit inwardly, and we have to take the differences outwardly. This is the essence of the church ground.

The ground of the church involves not allowing anything but the locality in which we live to separate us into local churches (Rev. 1:11). Baptism, speaking in tongues, sprinkling, immersion, and dietary preferences are all differences. But none of these differences should separate us. We should be separated only by the localities in which we live. If we live in Anaheim, we cannot meet together regularly with the saints in New York. This is impossible. If we are in Anaheim, it is also difficult for us to meet with the saints in Los Angeles. Our locality spontaneously separates us. We are separated outwardly, but we are still one inwardly. We are one in the Spirit with the saints in New York, London, and Taipei.

(Witness Lee, Church Life, 40)

The ground of a local church is the genuine oneness of the Body of Christ, that is, the oneness of the Spirit. Ephesians 4:3 charges us to be diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit. The oneness of the Spirit is the oneness of the Body of Christ, which is the basic element of the unique ground of a local church.

(Witness Lee, Brief Presentation, 50-51)

Main | Progressive Revelation | Three Elements | Boundary | Paying the Price | Bibliography | Links

© 2001-2002. Living Stream Ministry. All Rights Reserved.