text:
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
One brother made phone calls, sent letters, sent them registered mail, etc. Nothing. So who is the one that is not willing to practice being governed by the cross?
We are not talking about petty grievances. We are talking about slandering brothers from the pulpit, libel, excommunicating saints, putting lascivious men in positions of authority in the ministry, etc.
When a leading elder, Ed Marks, refuses to "deal with" questions about his signature on a letter of apology to Phillip Lee 20 years later, who is the one who is refusing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion in submission to the cross of Christ?
Re: Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication
If they saw a video of a former LR member giving a message in a community church while wearing a pair of jeans, they'd consider that a failure--no matter how good the message might be.
Re: One Publication
LSM needs to go back to regarding churches as churches and regarding their ministry as something completely separate.
They are absolutely entitled to consider their teachings to be as good as any others. But they have no right to say or insinuate that their teachings are better than any other, or, God forbid, to try to restrict any church or Christian to them. They should simply minister and let the chips fall where they may.
This is the Lord's way to protect others from domination and themselves from pride and presumption. It's the way the early apostles took. They all ministered, and none claimed exclusivity or superiority.
Of course, their belief they are caretakers of this fantasy called "the Lord's Recovery" will probably continue to be a problem. But perhaps and hopefully they will soon concede that it was never anything but a movement and a denomination in the first place.
Re: Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication
I came across this quote in an LSM book . . . ("RitUNTMoGEUtPLiHM" p.10 -- Title too long to type out!)
What does it mean to "do something on their own?" How vague is that? Does that include following the Lamb wheresoever He leads?" Is not the biggest failure following man and not God? Think about the Catholic churches.
Not insisting that LC's read Life-Studies? Does that now include HWFMR? Because that is why Midwest LC's were quarantined. Such a deceptive quote.
Re: One Publication
LSM used that document as an excuse to expel TC and YDL. They don't need it any more ... unless some other reformer rises up within their ranks.
I'm surprised that entire site -- afaithfulword.org -- is still on display. If some Christian scholars saw that junk, they would rip it to pieces.
Re: One Publication
The main Living Stream Ministry link to this important document/declaration/edict is STILL NOT ACTIVE. This cannot be a mistake or oversight. The powers that be at LSM/DCP have intentionally removed this document with no explanation.
I think the best explanation for the disappearance is that they saw it being ripped to shreds on this very forum. I think they are in process of revising/revamping it and we will one day see a new, born again Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery. The Blended Brothers will do their best to try and remove and/or mask all the contradictions, inconsistencies and unbiblical language...but the truth is after you remove all of these things there isn't much of a document left.
But they are in a pickle. They have made a firm declaration-proclamation which was issued world-wide. They must know that nothing that is posted on the Internet can ever really be erased - It will always stand as a judgment against these men who first posted it.
Of course they can always make an official retraction before God, men and all the current members of the Local Church of Witness Lee. My prayer and sincere hope is that they will do so.
Re: One Publication
Only abstractions of the Church are purely spiritual entities.The Church as a whole, the Body of Christ, the Church in a city or region are all abstractions. All practical subsets of it, that is those with specific people who actually meet, interact or collaborate, are organizations.
This means that every practical local church, every ministry, and all other ways Christians choose to organize, even "Local Church Discussions" and "the Lord's Recovery, are organizations. None of them are purely spiritual entities. All of these "borrow" the realities of the ideal Church as a whole, but none of them own any of those realities exclusively or even in a superior way. They each are part of the whole, and manifest the nature of the whole, but none are the final word on what the whole is.
This was even true of Paul's ministry. It was an organization. It was organized around Paul. He had co-workers and so forth. But all of them deferred to Paul. He was the leader. But this organization, as all are, was one of mutual agreement, not of compulsion. If a co-worker agreed to Paul's request to serve with Paul, then that co-worker submitted to Paul, because that was the way that group operated. Paul did not draft anyone, he did not tell anyone they must serve with him. But if he decided someone should not serve with him, he could dismiss him. But he could not insist someone remain, nor condemn them for not doing so. Anyone could leave Paul, and if everyone did leave then Paul would no longer have group authority over anyone. Paul also clearly accepted that there were other legitimate organizations of ministry besides his. He recognized Apollo's for one.
Membership in an abstract entity is true by definition. But membership in an practical organization is always voluntary. For example, I cannot choose to not be a member of the Body of Christ. Neither can I choose, if I'm living in Los Angeles, to not be a member of the Church in Los Angeles. But I can choose whether I meet with the organization on such-and-such street in LA which calls itself "the church in Los Angeles." And they are not the same thing.
However, if you agree to join or visit an organization, you agree to abide by its rules. But you are not obligated to join or remain in the organization. For example, Paul and Barnabas labored together. At one point they chose to go their separate ways. But in the record of this change in their working relationship, it is never implied that either one of them was wrong or rebellious. They simply disagreed and chose to go separate ways. Nee and Lee's assertion was that Barnabas was wrong and that is why the record in Acts doesn't mention him anymore. But there is no proof text of that. The reason the record follows Paul and not Barnabas can only be said to be so because the chronicler, Luke, remained with Paul. Any other speculation is unfounded.
Witness Lee's error, which he passed on to the current "Recovery" workers, was that he saw his ministry, movement and churches as the equivalent of universal, abstract, spiritual entities, which by their very definition Christians must belong to, rather than as the finite, temporal organizations which they have a choice whether to belong to.
Lee's view, of course, cannot be true. Such a system is recklessly presumptuous, and the damaging fruit of it is a fact of 70 years of history. Yes, when in a organization, we should obey the leaders. But we can choose to leave freely and are then no longer under their authority. Freedom of choice and conscience is always there. No one has the right to condemn anyone for leaving an organization, be it "the Recovery," an LC church or Witness Lees' ministry.
The One Publication, then, is a violation of this principle of free association that is a natural extension of our free conscience and choice to serve the Lord as he directs, not as some movement directs.
Re: One Publication
"The Recovery's" One Publication policy is invalid from a Christian standpoint.
It is wrong to restrict the flow of information among the people of God, except in those situations where certain restrictions are mutually agreed upon, and these can only be in the context of organizations which are not the Body of Christ as a whole.
For example, if I join a church or ministry, which are organizations, I should agree to submit to its rules. If there are any rules I feel I cannot or will not obey, then I shouldn't join. It would indeed be rebellion for me to remain in the organization and defy its rules. Any Christian who joins an LC local church is obligated to respect its rules, but only while being a member. If the Christian decides to leave that church, he is not obligated to obey its rules anymore. The same would be true for a Christian who went to work for Living Stream Ministry.
The LC's error is that it has equated its organizations with the broad spiritual entity of the Body of Christ or the Church. They say, we are the Church, we are the Body of Christ, so whether you are member or not you are under the authority of our leaders. But of course it is unreasonable for any group to equate itself in such a way. Yes, each local church and ministry has certain aspects of the nature of the Church and the Body. But they are not the same thing. They are also organizations. You can join them or leave them. And leaving them is not necessarily division or rebellion.
This is true of "the Recovery," the movement which defines the LC phenomenon as a whole. It is also a Christian organization, and as such, can manifest certain aspects of the Body of Christ, like any other Christian organization can. But it is not the equivalent of the Body of Christ. You truly cannot leave the Body or the Church, but you can leave a ministry or a local church or other Christian group.
No subset of the Church can equate itself to the Church to the extent of saying that leaving it is equivalent to leaving the Church. Each subset or group, that is each organization, whether it be a church, ministry, small group or something else, is part of the Church and "borrows," so to speak, the realities of the Church. But none of them can claim to own those realities to the extent where they can say that leaving that organization is the equivalent of leaving the Church or leaving God.
The LC, "the Recovery," wants to believe so much that it owns the realities of the Church that it claims that to leave them is to leave those things. But this clearly cannot be the case. The realities of the Church and the Body are manifested all over the world, in churches, ministries and groups of all kinds. Further, history has shown than this us-only attitude of "the Recovery" has led to all its problems. Ironically, what it calls "rebellions" in its midst have actually been the legitimate exercise of liberty by Christians who received that liberty from Christ himself. The problems there were actually caused by an invalid assertion of authority. They were caused by "the Recovery's confused, equivocating and ultimately deadly equating of themselves with the Church to the exclusion of all others.
If "the Recovery" wants to admit it is an organization, then it has the right to restrict membership and require compliance to publication restrictions. If it does not make that admission, and continues to claim to be purely the unique move of God, then it is wrong to make such restrictions.
In the time being, LC members should feel no obligation to respect the One Publication policy, and should feel free to publish and distribute information as much and as far as they see fit. Any objection by anyone claiming to speak on behalf of "the Recovery" can be considered baseless. "The Recovery" has no standing before the Lord as a purely spiritual entity. And since it hasn't admitted to being just an organization, is really a non-entity.
Re: One Publication
Nee was considered the leader of "the Recovery" because of the light he received. But what came first, the light or the leadership? Nee rose up out of nowhere, so the light came first. But not Lee. He took the mantle from Nee, and presumed to be the "continuation" of Nee. Then the Blendeds got the mantle from Lee. But in that process, the principle of God raising up a prophet from nowhere was downgraded, and replaced with the principle that only the leaders of "the Recovery" can get light.
But God has never operated that way. The whole OT principle of the prophet is that you never know who the next one is going to be. And the same with the NT body of Christ. If God cannot raise up whomever he wants from wherever he wants, then he cannot recover. So if Christians, churches or ministries are limited in their freedom to share information, then recovery is hindered. So again, the current "Recovery" movement actually works against recovery.
Re: One Publication
Of course, "Recovery" loyalists would say that everything important has already been recovered, so the only thing to do now is lock it down and protect it.
But of course, they cannot possibly know that everything important has been recovered. This reminds me of when Bill Gates infamously said about computers, "64k of memory ought to be enough for anyone."
We can laugh at that foolish claim, and should also laugh at the foolish claim that everything has been recovered.
As I've said before, the concept of "the Lord's Recovery" exists only to create a non-biblical entity with elite status for the express purpose of controlling as many members and churches as possible.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Oxymorons indeed!
Re: One Publication
"The Recovery" has the right to set its own rules which limit members in a stricter way than the Bible does. But once it does that, it is admitting it is just an organization, and cannot describe itself as the move of God, because such limitations are not characteristics of the move of God.
In fact, within his genuine move, God must allow personal freedom, the free flow of information and the ability of believers to follow their consciences, to teach, speak and share information freely as they see fit. This is the only way he can actually "recover." Ironically, this implies that "the Recovery" is actually an oxymoron. Their limiting approach actually hinders recovery
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
For those disinclined to read my previous long dissertation, let me give the Cliff Notes version:
Re: One Publication
But getting back to the OnePub discussion...
On the one hand the OnePub does not attempt to restrict publications by churches. On the other hand, in the list of example publications that churches might publish it never mentions "books." In short, it stops short of opening that door all the way. This is vague and equivocating. Then it goes on to suggest that these non-OnePub publications should not be distributed widely. This is out of line.
Who has the right to say any person or church cannot distribute their publications widely among the Church? Well, this is where the bait-and-switch comes in. They substitute "the Recovery" for "the Church," and suddenly they have the right, or at least that's what they want people to think.
Here's the scenario: LSM envisions this entity, called "the Lord's Recovery." What is it? Well, again, it is another equivocation. Originally it was said to be the Lord's general working to bring his Church "back" to his original intent for it. Somehow, though, during the time of Nee and Lee, it became something else, a move or movement of specific people. Eventually it even gained official leaders, and finally it seems, even exclusive owners or at least caretakers.
LSM assumes, manifestly, to have exclusive rights to "the Lord's Recovery," which is actually a way of saying they own the Church, or at least the best part of the Church, the part that really matters. They get to define what it is and where it is. Now, think about that for a moment. We are talking about something that started with God's work among various people in various places, with no human control or authority, which somehow morphed into an organized movement of people who claim unique ownership of the thing. That's is a startlingly audacious presumption! Not only so, but this move or movement or whatever it is, is considered God's very best. Nothing can compare to it, and LSM and the BBs alone have been given control of it. How do we know that is true? Because they tell us, that's how!
So, because they are the move, they get to control what gets distributed in it. So the concept of "the Recovery" simply exists to define an entity which the leaders can control. It's a way to assert authority over multiple churches, by creating a supposed "holy" sphere over which God has given a few authority. This sphere is grandiosely called "the Lord's Recovery," which though an impressive title, is not a biblicly defined entity.
Now, is any of this reasonable? Well, on the one hand it is similar to what other large Christian organizations do. They define a sphere, the scope of their denomination or ministry, and say if you want to operate in this sphere under our name you are going to have to follow our rules. That part is completely reasonable. God could not organize anything without some kind of understanding and cooperation like that.
Where "the Recovery" differs is they have taken this concept of a unique move of God and equated it with their organization. The problem is they are overstepping their bounds by doing this. Who can know for sure whether they are what they claim to be? Yet they proceed as if that is already settled, when it hasn't and cannot be. This belief and claim places undue pressure on members and churches to fall in line. This is the basic problem. If "the Recovery" would acknowledge that they have no biblical basis for assuming they are a special subset of the whole Church to which all believers should fall in line, they would be fine. But they don't, and that is the root of all the problems the movement has caused and seen. They are the fruit of the irrational and even fanatical belief that their sphere is the unique move of God.
So the OnePub is off-base by telling Christians and churches they cannot distribute within "the Recovery," that is, unless they want to admit it is simply an organization. In short, the leaders need to make a choice. If they want to regard themselves as something completely of God, simply the Church and his ministry, then they cannot restrict. But if they try to restrict, then they are admitting "the Recovery" is simply an organization of man. It can't be both. Said another way, the Church itself as a whole is the only extra-local entity the Lord recognizes as wholly and purely of him. You cannot carve out a piece, even if you call it "the Recovery," and say it is uniquely and purely of him. Only the whole Church has that status. Once you carve it, you have an organization of man. Organizations of man can and are used by God, but they do not have anything approaching the unique status of the Church, and neither does "the Recovery."
"The Recovery" then, is a manufactured entity masquerading as "God's pure and unique move," created to leverage control over many Christians and churches. It doesn't exist as something purely of God. It's just another religious organization, with no standing more than any other. Within this organization, like any other, some great things of God might occur. They may seem unique outwardly, but they are not unique in nature, nor do they make the organization uniquely of God.
Thus "the Recovery" is a hoax sold to the people of God there. It's another wile of the devil, perpetrated by people who should, by now, know better.
Re: One Publication
But if I say to Drake, not behind his back but to him, as a challenge, you are full of it, giving him a full chance to respond, then he goes off on a fastidious tangent. Classic straining gnats and swallowing camels to avoid what's really important, which is being accountable for a religious entity which has damaged thousands of lives, and which he continues to try to protect with his incantations.
Religious hypocrites, when pressed, hide behind outrage and indignation. Did you ever see the Lord do that? Did he ever run and hide behind fastidiousness when the going got rough? No, he didn't blink an eye. Jesus lived with the people, he didn't cower behind religious doors and squeamishness to avoid an accusation. He came right back honestly and straightforwardly.
So I'm sorry I offended some people's dainty sensibilities with my language and descriptions. But serious times require serious measures, and I humbly suggest you folks are going to have to man up and get over it, and not run and hide like a bunch of little girls who might get their dresses dirty.
What does it mean when you say people are full of it? I'll translate for those who are too fastidious to see the point.
It means they:
Are dishonest.But somehow, none of those quite say it like saying someone is full of it. Which is why I said it. The best way to puncture prideful pomposity is to pop it with a pointed irreverency. It asks for it and deserves it, and just about everyone enjoys seeing a hypocritical windbag get deflated.
Who knows? I might be next.
So, please, stop straining ghats and swallowing camels.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
The Blendeds publicly stated that these "lepers" should have their houses torn down or re-plastered.
How can Drake continually protect these characters, and yet claim we are tossing "ad hominems" unfairly.
Re: One Publication
Story #1: As a teenager working with my Dad, who ran a construction company, I watched him once look a guy in the eye and smile, saying to him, "Nothing personal sir, but you're full of sh*t. Nothing personal."
Story #2: As a Christian I watched Witness Lee deceive a huge audience of concerned Christians that John Ingalls orchestrated a global conspiracy to destroy his ministry.
Now please tell me which one of these two ruined his Christian testimony?
Re: One Publication
If I thought for a moment that you had any credibility, standing or authority to lecture anyone in the Body of Christ about anything, I might be inclined to listen to you. But since you insist on being a callous apologist for a corrupt religious organization which has engineered the damage of thousands of Christians and many churches, and since you remain unrepentant of your part in that assault on the Body, I am not going to lose any sleep about you or your pompous pontifications.
But, again, this is the hypocrisy once more. Instead of honestly addressing the questions about the undeniable damage of the LC leadership's lording over the saints of God, Drake has opportunistically found yet another way to dodge the important issues by focusing on the fact that I've said he was full of sh*t. Let alone for a moment that such an utterance is completely accurate and appropriate in his case.
Even the unbelievers know you are full of it, Drake. That's the funny part.
Re: One Publication
Here's the problem, Z. We go around and around, and these guys hide behind thinly-veiled words and pseudo-Christian protocol. Whenever pressed, they stonewall. When you press harder, to the point of impatience, they start asking for decorum. It's their hiding place.
Without the slightest Biblical basis? Jesus and Paul did not give in to such squeamishness. They blew up those hiding places.
Jesus called the Pharisees "vipers" (Matt 12:34). He called them "whitewashed tombs" (Matt 23:27) Paul called the Jews "dogs" (Phil 3:2). He called the high priest Ananias a "whitewashed wall" (Acts 23:3).
These words were reserved for religious hypocrites, and that's exactly what Drake and the Blendeds are.
So I call them "mentally ill" and "full of sh*t." Does that really have any appreciable difference from the tone and words Jesus and Paul used? Are you going to make that argument? I'd like to see you try.
Don't tell me I'm out of line with the Bible. I'm right in line.
Re: One Publication
I'm sorry, but you have little credibility with me. I honestly do not know if you are lying or telling the truth. I've watched you spin on this forum so much that frankly I'm dizzy. I honestly think you are full of sh*t.
I've seen you dodge, bob and weave and flat out lie through your teeth here. You cannot possibly be as obtuse as you pretend to be. You claim you've never seen the offenses that Ohio has posted reams of proof of. Yet you claim to know your stuff. Both can't be true. And I believe Ohio.
Offending a brother in Christ? How about all the brothers in Christ you and your homies have offended and wrecked down the years? How about them? Please don't tell me you care about brothers in Christ.
Whether you are the former troll I associate you with or not, you have much more in common with him than you should want to. Trust me on that one. The similarities are scary. Of course, this speculation, if it is speculation, would be completely unnecessary if you would stop playing so coy and just be completely up front. But like most LC-affected people, you play games.
Stop spinning and come clean.
By the way, "the Recovery" is a hoax.
Re: One Publication
You should find better sources.
Igzy, you might be confusing me with someone else. Who, I have no clue. Just to be clear, all your evidence about what I haven't shared is right here in this forum for anyone to read. Before flaming on with a personal tirade and ad hominem attack against this sincere contributor you should have read what I already posted. Anyone who has conversed with me on a variety of topics knows that your characterizations are completely baseless. Had you done the due diligence (even a little) then you could have crafted your attack on something real. I have plenty of shortcomings so you could have easily found something real to condemn.
And yet, I'm not really asking you to do the due diligence. It's up to you and I really don't mind what beliefs you hold about me, even erroneous ones as yours are. If you choose to remain misinformed after one or two corrections then I'll just assume that you don't care to know. No problem... to me it's like water off a duck's back so to speak.
I've said this before, but for clarity to anyone who gives a hoot, my participation in this forum is intermittent due to several personal factors, I'll try to offer a point of view on topics I believe I can contribute to in the time allotted, and with some posters I may mostly or totally put them on ignore if I think their only interest is to badger and engage in ad hominem attacks instead of focusing on the topic at hand.
That's just me but that is neither the behavior of an internet troll nor is it the modus operandi of a freelancer.
Now how about you brother Igzy? Why the condescension toward brothers in the Lord....even in this forum? Why the ad hominem attacks? May I ask, shouldn't a message about God's love be accompanied by some expression of it even toward your enemies? I am your enemy in your eyes, aren't I? Still, brotherly love or none, can you disagree without becoming disagreeable? I'm not trying to hurt your feelings and I'd like to hear your point of view on several topics but your outbursts in these last few posts are distractions... this thread is not about Drake.
But look, if you want to open a thread all about Drake I may or may not join you.. but at least you would be on topic!
Re: One Publication
For everyone's information, I regularly pray, "God if I'm wrong in my beliefs and opinions, please show me. But I'm going to hold them until you tell me not to. I know I can be highly-opinionated. Please course-correct me if needed."
Do you think anyone in the LC movement does that? Do you think Drake does? I still remember asking an LC brother to at least pray about whether the LC was wrong. His response? "I don't need to pray."
That's what we are dealing with here. From a Christian standpoint, that's mental illness.
Re: One Publication
It seems like, more today than I have ever seen in my lifetime, many people are just willing to believe lies. They reject the truth, so God sends them a powerful delusion, that they would believe falsehoods. (II Thess 2.10-12)
Re: One Publication
Oh, one more thing trolls do. They will engage in all their exasperating feigned obtuseness with the express purpose of driving you crazy. When you finally call them on it, and you usually have to do this with some firmness, then they shift to playing the outraged victim. Or, they accuse you of being a bad person, or, as Drake accused me, of being unloving.
It's just a game. They enjoy the dance. No matter how much sense you make, no matter how good an argument you present compared to theirs, you will make no headway with them. When you finally react to their sly obtuseness with some impatience, that's what they want, because then they can play the abused victim, and so forth.
Real LCers and other observers deserve better than our dancing around with those kinds of people. We look ridiculous continuing to give them the benefit of the doubt. They should be marked out and called on it. If they don't get real they should be restricted. Don't worry, they will always put on the outraged act when that happens. Like I said, it's a game to them, one that never ends.
Re: One Publication
Consider my last line of questioning in this thread. I lived thru the recent quarantines, so I asked Drake how does one agree with how the LSM Publishers can excommunicate TC for ministering to China "cause Lee said not to." At first, Lee and LSM claimed all the "Shouters" as their own fruit, until their errors became apparent. TC then goes to China, his birthplace, to help these ones, and Lee/LSM publicly condemn him. LSM then quarantines TC and disavows any connection to these "Shouters." There's a billion people in China that need Jesus. How can any book publisher declare exclusive rights to them?
Reminds me of that brother from Hong Kong who smuggled LSM Bibles into China. He was a hero at LSM until he got caught. TC brought up this matter in the exchanges prior to his quarantine. The Blendeds threw that brother under the motor home in order to protect themselves. These people are enemies of the cross of Christ. (Phil 3.18-19)
Re: One Publication
The reason Drake doesn't engage you anymore, Ohio, is because you beat him. You've given so much evidence about the abuse and duplicity of the Blendeds that it has reached the point where he just looks stupid saying "I don't know nuttin' 'bout dat," and so he just pretends you are not there.
I had just made a very valid and, I think, insightful point about how the Blended's narrow-mindedness, rather than preserving the Lord's light, actually hinders it, and so actually produces darkness. This is an irrefutable point, or at least one that any fair mind would consider and discuss. Did Drake consider it? Did he comment on it? No, he brushed it aside in favor of criticizing my vocabulary, and then went on to put into question my integrity by accusing me of using a "false word." Leave alone for a moment that his favorite MOTA, Lee, invented words all the time (see "Son-ized," etc.). But jumping on someone's language, grammar or spelling to try to deflect a discussion? That's the kind of thing preteens do. That kind of shift, from unctuous gentleman to mocking brat, is weird.
Was "borderline sociopath" too strong? I would say those who display such blase attitudes about real people hurt by the system they defend are definitely leaning that way. They've definitely hardened their hearts to hurt.
The Lord said the first commandment is to love. Defending the LC system in the face of all the damage it's done to his children is direct disobedience of that command. Matthew 25:45 warns strongly about this. At judgment some will claim to have done all kinds of things for the Lord (including perhaps defend "the Recovery"). He will tell them, if you hurt my little ones you totally missed it.
But Drake may not even be a real LCer. He may just be a guy who has nothing better to do. He certainly has given no evidence that he is personally acquainted with anyone or anything to do with the LC. All his displayed knowledge is general and can be found on the internet. He never talks about meetings he's been to, brothers he's spoken to, or the like. He has no personal anecdotes. Compare him to Ohio or ZNPaaneah, who are regularly relaying experiences and history. Drake never does that. Don't you think that is strange?
But I'm through playing his game. I'm going to call it like I see it from now on. I'm a sheep dog.
Re: One Publication
a newly coined word or expression.
synonyms: new word, new expression, new term, new phrase, coinage, newly coined word, made-up word, invented word, invention, nonce word; portmanteau word
the coining or use of new words.
Re: One Publication
Why is it that everyone who defends this rule (you are the only one on this thread) and every one that enforces this rule does not submit to it? Why do you expect everyone else but yourselves to submit to this rule?
You don't get your posts vetted. Why is that?
Re: One Publication
I believe it is the irony in your posts that caught my attention. The irony being you take a high position of speaking down to believers in the local churches and to leading brothers in particular, sort of lecturing about things that you do not appear to fully understand, and talking about God's love yet your posts appear completely devoid of it, no trace of its reality.
And then, your fake word.
Look, I really don't care about your command of the English language. I don't really care about your derogatory opinions of the Lords recovery, the local churches, the serving ones, or brothers like me. However, I do care about whether you represent the truth accurately and to some extent I care about the way you prosecute your case.
We all butcher the language every now and then. You can call me on it when my time comes. If you want to invent a new word, then give me a heads up so I can brace myself!
Re: One Publication
Whatever, if you are reduced to taking shots at my vocabulary I know I must be doing a good job. So, I'm encouraged.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
You know there is no such word as presumptiveness dont you?
... but lets go with it anyway.
You probably meant to express the thought such presumption! or boy, they have presumptive ideas!?
They both work in a way.
Presumptive: giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief
Presumption: an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION
b : the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact
Re: One Publication
It assumes that there is something called "the Lord's Recovery" for which God has commissioned caretakers. Those are two assumptions which are not supportable in reality. First, "the Lord's Recovery" is not biblical, so whether it exists is pure conjecture. Second, since it is not biblical, is it absurd to talk about who God has commissioned to care for it. That's like talking about who God has commissioned to care for Neverland.
So what you are saying is there is this fanciful thing called "the Lord's Recovery" for which we cannot say who has been commissioned caretakers? So, I'll bite, how do we know who the caretakers are? Let me guess, they will tell us.
I may not a caretaker of the "Lord's Recovery," but I wouldn't want to be because the thing does not exist. I am, however, humbly, a caretaker of the Church. We all are supposed to be. And I for one plan to do my job. In the meantime, "the Lord's Recovery" can go to hell.
Re: One Publication
It is the claim of this thread that we all answer to the Lord directly and are not desirous to be under the law.
Re: One Publication
Whether the Blended brothers have been commissioned to care for the Lords recovery and the ministry of that commission is not our decision.
Yet, one thing Im sure of.. you are not.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
How do you know the Holy Spirit is leading the "responsible brothers" to restrict people from influencing the local churches? What if God sends a minister to the local churches and the "responsible brothers" object. Who are they to object? What is their purview? Where does such authority come from? What if the minister is being led by the Holy Spirit and the "responsible brothers" are not? Whether you like it or not, that is entirely possible.
And who gave the "responsible brothers" the authority to keep ministers from the local churches in the first place? Do they have "first dibs" on them? Do they own them? What gives them the right to decide who can minister where? Why can they impose their brand on local churches but no one else can?
You'd better be careful before speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit. He may be doing something he hasn't clued you in on. Did you ever think of that?
My goodness. The presumptiveness never ceases to amaze me.
Re: One Publication
UntoHim is manifestly the authority of this forum. That's reasonable. The Blendeds are NOT the authority of God's move, God's recovery (whatever that is) or anything other than their little club which is made up of them and no one else. Yes, they can moderate their club. No, they cannot moderate Christians, churches or, least of all, God's move.
As I said, a difference in degree constitutes a difference in kind. Apparently this little bit of rocket boys junior science is nuclear science to you.
Re: One Publication
Once again, Apostle Paul's words to the self-righteous is fulfilled. (Romans 2.1)
TC, however, gave elders the choice of what to use in their meetings. LSM has taken away this liberty.
Re: One Publication
They would do well to be under UntoHim's "governing vision of the cross."
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Likewise the church belongs to the Lord ("church of Christ"), it belongs to God ("church of God") and it belongs to the saints ("church of the saints"). It does not belong to a ministry. Paul rebuked the Galatians for allowing someone else to come in and put them into bondage. That is what LSM is doing with this edict and with the application in their excommunication of Titus.
Re: One Publication
Now if they want to make sure all the local churches across the globe start receiving their teachings without fellowship... then that is where responsible action should be taken as needed... and it did.
To your second point, your analogy is not accurate. The like for like analogy would be that you, a long time member of this forum, start introducing topics that you know are not within the rules of this forum and after repeated exhortations you refuse to comply and therefore he blocked you and warned others not to do the same or they would reap the same action.... and THEN you went and started your own forum and sympathizers from here joined you. You could do as you pleased from then on without interference from the moderator of this forum. But if your disgruntled followers defamed, slandered, and falsely accused the moderator of this forum of trying to tell others what they can read or what they can publish then he might defend his actions... or he might just ignore them.
Under such an unfortunate circumstance, I am sure the moderator would regret your departure and hope that you would return someday as a member willing to play by the rules of THIS forum.
Re: One Publication
The issue with one publication is that they are telling every local church what they can and cannot say. True, they agree that they can publish a local song book and gospel tract as long as it doesn't go regional. Now if I started another forum and UntoHim excommunicated me from this one because I also have a forum, then that would be comparable to Dong and Chu.
Re: One Publication
...and there is nothing wrong with that. It is in principle the same kind of oversight that without it would be abdicating responsibility... be it for the sake of the forum with its mission... or for the sake of the Lord's recovery and its mission.... responsible ones in both are acting according to the same principle.
Therefore, it is not a question about control. It's about responsibility. However, acknowledging that does not mean that you also agree with the mission. That is a separate matter.
So, right... it is not rocket science... why.... its not even Sid the Science Kid!
Re: One Publication
Like I said, this isn't rocket science, Drake.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Glad you asked.
Their authority has been challenged.... Titus challenged it, Dong challenged it, Nigel Tomes challenged it... you challenged it.. and the list goes on.
Taken at face value, the design center of the One Publication document was to encourage local or regional serving ones to not distribute their teachings into every or most every local churches across the globe.
Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?
Same thing in principle.
Rather, it is better to be in fellowship with the responsible brothers in a coordinated fashion. And yes, that requires a willingness and practice of being in a governing vision of the cross. Its not easy.
Re: One Publication
But is there any way to challenge the deviation of the truth by the "one Publication" edict while still submitting to it? Isn't the edict designed to prevent anyone from challenging their authority?
Re: One Publication
Think about this, the "big issue" with the "One Publication" edict
Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. Drake
The vision I have of the cross includes false witnesses, a kangaroo court, and unprincipled attacks, some of which are anonymous "prophesy to us who hit you" and "He saved others Himself He cannot save".
They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness
This is in fact what it means to be under the cross. The Lord knew this, John the Baptist knew this (they did with him whatever they wished), Peter was told this would be his end as well. Yet the blendeds think they can make some edict which will exempt them from the cross all under the guise of being the arbiter of "who is serving under the cross".
Re: One Publication
I'm not sure if TC honored Lee's request while he still was alive, but there was not a chance in hell that TC would obey some flunky in Anaheim over whether he could visit China or not. There are over a Billion souls in China. How many ministers do they need? Who do those Blendeds think they are? Seriously? They are more arrogant than the Pharisees ever were.
Re: One Publication
LSM's checkered history is so fraught with error and unrighteousness that for them to cite the "governing vision of the cross" is an affront to every minister on earth.
Re: One Publication
You also have an opinion about it, as do I, and that is fine too.
Re: One Publication
Should they not also renounce the hidden things of shame? Should they also not walk in craftiness nor adulterate the word of God? (II Cor 4.1-2)
Where did Titus Chu or DYL deviate from the truth? Is not the plain words of the Bible our only standard for truth? By all accounts TC and DYL only "deviated" from LSL's directives, which you have labeled the "central lane." The Bible never identifies any restrictions like these as relevant to ministry. Your so-called "central lane" is man-made, divisive, and contrary to scriptures. The Bible instructs us to "mark" ones at LSM for their evil work. (Romans 16.17-18)
Re: One Publication
Their approach effectively squelches any innovation the Lord may be trying to lead the believers there to. This cannot be denied. The LCs cannot innovate or reform, they cannot adapt because the leadership prevents them. That's one reason they have no growth. They are still believing in techniques that never worked and are even less appropriate now.
The fact is the LCs anal-retentive style of leadership hinders the Lord's advancing his people and work in the LC churches. A difference in degree is eventually a difference in kind. And they are a different kind.
Also, let an LSM-associated local church try to teach based on another contemporary ministry and watch the La Palma keystone cops start firing elders before you can finish one Max Lucado book.
Also, Drake, no one has such a perfect vision that they can go around saying that someone has "left the central lane" just because they differ a little. Again, Titus Chu was not that different from Lee. The Blendeds ousted Titus Chu not because he taught anything really unhealthy, but because he was a little different and wouldn't let them control him.
I cannot believe anyone has the nerve to justify the Blendeds going in and waylaying Great Lakes churches based on the historical evidence. The Blendeds accused Titus first, he was simply defending himself, which was then called dissension. I can't believe some people can't see their domineering for what it is, and then justify it as some kind of defense of truth. It's not about truth with them, it's about control. If it was about truth they'd obey the truths about giving people freedom, not lording, being humble, not thinking more highly of themselves that they ought to, respecting other's consciences and so forth.
I mean, come on. This is not nuclear science. This stuff should be simple for anyone who really knows the Bible and God's loving nature.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given, a fact, and a responsibility before the Lord.
Re: One Publication
And Mr. Drake who are these "brothers" who alone can judge whether Titus Chu is a "serving one under the governing vision of the cross?" Their chief condemnation of Titus Chu at the Whistler Kangaroo Court was that he visited and ministered in China after WL told him not to. Ought not TC have the right to obey God, and not man? (Acts 4.19; 5.29)
Would these ones be the Blended Bosses at LSM? Those same ones who protected Philip Lee, a known abusive sexual predator operating under the protections of his father? Those same ones who launched a slanderous smear campaign against the men of God who tried to protect the saints, brothers like John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, etc?
Do you expect us to believe these Blended Bosses at LSM -- BP, RK, MC -- are uniquely able to discern who is "serving one under the governing vision of the cross?" Unbelievable!
Let me suggest that Drake's "crack in the wall" metaphor, the so-called "deviation," actually refers to the failed and errant teachings at LSM. Look, for example, at the situation in China. First LSM claimed 10 million followers in China, called "Shouters". Then they disowned them all when abnormalities arose, so-called "Mack Trucks," which sullied LSM's pristine reputation. Instead of ministering to these new-borns, they try to stop ministers like TC, who was born in China, from returning to help their fledgling faith. One day LSM will be judged for this. They abandoned these young ones, and prevented others from helping them. True modern day Pharisees. (Mt 23.13)
Re: One Publication
LSM has the right to publish or refuse to publish anything they want.
They do NOT have the right to:
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
How is this a disagreement with what I said?
Re: One Publication
Here's the bottom line:
There is no "Lord's Recovery." That concept was created to define a special elite club which its caretakers market. They define what it is and what its beliefs are, and hence who is "in" and who is "out."
They proclaim, with amazingly straight faces, which probably implies they actually believe it themselves, that if you are not in this club you are not up to par. But they and they alone have power to define what the rules are for being in the club. If you do and say what they like, you are in. If you don't, you are out. All this controlled by a small group of people.
If you are a member in good standing of their club--which again exists only in their own minds--they will approve you. If you are not, they will discredit you. So they take it upon themselves to be the judges of everyone. They have no problem using these means of intimidation to try to get their way.
Now, does anyone really think that is how God operates?
History shows that God does not operate that way at all. God has always raised up people as he saw fit to innovate and reform his work. Because of this very fact, he has always required us to give freedom to others to follow their consciences and not nitpick about details to try to retain control and numbers.
So their saying they are protecting the purity of their revelation is just wrongheaded. No one's revelation is so pure that it needs to be protected to the point of shutting out all other ideas. Again God just doesn't work that way. He can't. So their attitude actually produces the opposite of what they think it will. Instead of preserving light, it produces ever-increasing dimness.
Titus Chu believed in all the basics of what Lee taught. Yes, he had some other ideas. But anyone who knows how things work realizes that none of us are qualified to do thumbs down on someone simply because they have some minor differences.
But that is exactly the way the LC leadership thinks. They think they get to define what is best and what isn't in the most manipulative and intimidating way that they can--while still preserving plausible deniability. They are completely off base.
That is why they have had no growth in 40 years. Because the Lord left their club to them desolate.
Re: One Publication
When we talk about pure religion being the care of orphans and widows we are making the point that they have left this. When we point out that the apostle's fellowship was to not sue your brother we are pointing out that they have "left the apostle's fellowship" and "gone out from us".
So I think it is fair to conclude that we also have judged that the Blendeds "have left the central lane of God's economy", though instead of all the mumbo jumbo we would use a more scriptural term: "they have left the fellowship of the apostles and gone out from them".
Re: One Publication
If that is the "bigger issue" then this doctrine is stupider and more ridiculous than I even imagined. The Lord said "[It is] sufficient for the disciple that he should become as his teacher, and the bondman as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?"
If you are a disciple of the Lord it comes with the territory. If you don't realize that then you are a fool or a pretend disciple.
Re: One Publication
They have no right to condemn anyone for choosing not to do so. Whether blatantly or by implying they have left the "central lane of God's economy," which is just BS and double-talk designed to intimidate, anyway.
Re: One Publication
There are no LSM police running around trying to control people, telling them what they can read or whether or not they can publish (Titus Chu publishes and sells books yet today....doesn't he?). That would be pointless and impossible to execute even if they were so inclined (which they are not). Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. If God's enemy were blatant then believers would not fall for his wiles. But he is subtle and so creates a small opening, like a crack in the wall, that later turns into something that a Mack truck can be driven through.
Then you end up with a situation like this:
"Today there are churches which are still passing through turmoil because of the influence of Titus Chu and certain divisive workers under his leadership. These workers have deviated from the central lane of God's economy in their teaching and actions. They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness."
So, personally, I appreciate that there are brother's who are mindful of the ministry in the Lord's recovery they have been entrusted with and will address potential issues head on. That's a good and responsible thing to do.
Re: One Publication
This is the root of the problem: LSM or the Blendeds or whomever have no right to try to stop people from publishing, nor do they have a right to try to stop people from distributing those publications to whomever they wish. Ministries do not own churches, they do not own people, and they certainly have no right to try to restrict people from what they should have the freedom to do.
Here's basically what the One Publication means in reality. LSM says essentially:
If you want to be associated with LSM, then you are going to do what we say. If you don't do what we say we are going to discredit you and say you are no longer part of the glorious "Lord's Recovery" and not even a legitimate church, and any other condemnation we can think of to try to intimidate you.As if anyone should give a hoot whether they are part of this imaginary thing called "the Lord's Recovery," or whether LSM thinks they are a church or not. But that's the "game of thrones" LSM is playing. It's all intimidation based on a non-existent entity called the "Lord's Recovery." No church, whether ever associated with LSM or not, is under any obligation to respect it. That's true of any other ministry or movement which takes that tack.
It's all a game of intimidation based on lies. It's ridiculous. It's flat wrong.
Re: One Publication
Now they may not take issue with some very minor publications that are distributed locally, but they would certainly take issue with anything posted on this forum since it is extra local.
Since I only recognize 1 mediator between God and Man, the man Jesus Christ, I am not willing to submit to this beggarly rule.
Since you have already stated for the record that you are not vetting your posts through LSM I cannot understand how you can defend this doctrine if you don't actually submit to it.
Re: One Publication
"Protecting their name" is not the key point, it's the only point.
WL and the Blendeds have repeatedly sacrificed people and principle in order to protect their names.
LSM has become little more than a ruthless business, wining and dining shady Hank Hanegraaff for publishing favorable reports, and throwing the Cleveland brothers under the bus for publishing unfavorable reports.
Re: One Publication
"Protecting their name" is not the key point, ....really not even a meaningful point in my view.
Re: One Publication
I never published anything by myself. I always mailed my manuscript to the Gospel Room, which was under Brother Nee and his helper. It was up to their discernment whether my manuscript should be published or not. Post #1 Publication work in the Lords recovery, Being restricted in one publication.
It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications? Post #1 Publication work in the Lords recovery, Being restricted in one publication.
The objection that I have is that LSM wants to stop anyone else from doing what they are doing. That was a major justification for the discipline on Titus Chu. That is why they warn the saints away from forums like this. That is why WL said it bothered him that saints put out publications. If WL can speak for the Lord why would he try to stop others speaking for the Lord?
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
The things in your life which make the least sense to you are the ones in which God is doing his greatest work in you.
Re: One Publication
Of course we each are unique, and can present things in different ways. But each of our unique styles does not suggest a difference in content. We each describe what we see from different perspectives, but we each see the same common baseline of the Lord and the Spirit of Truth, which is available in any genuine Christian group. You can't hijack God's truth and make it uniquely your own. If you try you'll only end up with a bucket of sand where you thought your great unique ministry was.
Re: One Publication
Great summary by Igzy! Thank you brother for this thoughtful and insightful summation. I think it is not only a helpful answer to Trapped, but to all of us who struggle in trying to "make sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement". If none of us were concerned with trying to understand, and even make some sense of, all that we have gone through (some of us for our entire lives) then this forum would probably not exist in the first place.
I would like to piggyback off your last statement and change it to: "What matters to the Lord is what is available in the ministry of any true Christian minister. What is only available in some ministers or one minister does not matter to him." For our purposes here, I would like to apply this to Witness Lee. If the man was actually a true minister of the Gospel and the Word, then only the things that he preached and taught which were of value to the entire Body of Christ are what matters to the Lord, and the exclusive and self-promotional, self-aggrandizing things that he preached and taught are of no value to the Body of Christ, and mean nothing to the Lord.
Re: One Publication
Last year I took a class to study the book of Job. Never studied that book before, in fact, in the LC I was told it was a waste of time. All the sages of the land gathered to help poor Job understand the unexplainable madness which had suddenly engulfed him. None could help him. Today mankind, with all its vast improvements in technology and learning, has no more wisdom to understand the often times unexplainable madness of life than any of Job's friends to answer these questions.
The message of this book, written for all of God's people, is to save us from trying to figure everything out. We are on a journey of faith. The number of days we have on this journey have been predetermined. God's way for us is to believe Him . . . regardless of what comes our way. Faith demands that we trust God, our creator and Father, and this faith, like everything else of value, needs testing. Nothing in human life can prove our faith except hardships and obedience to God.
James encourages us to "count it all joy brothers." Rejoicing in the Lord helps to save us from the disease of "I gotta understand what's goin' on," and strengthens our faith to love and know Him.
Re: One Publication
Let me put it this way:
What matters to the Lord is that which is available in any church group. What is only available in some or one does not matter to him.
Re: One Publication
1) Realize your value to the Lord has NOTHING to do with your status with the LC. He values you and loves you as his precious child and that has nothing to do with being affiliated with a church movement. You must get to a place where your self-esteem before the Lord is not fundamentally based on anything to do with the LC or any other group.
2) No group or person owns the Church. The church belongs to Christ. He "loans" aspects of the church to practical groups, but he can just as easily take back those things. The Lord never lets fallen people hold the church or its members hostage. Anyone who thinks he does is sadly deceived.
3) All church groups are imperfect. This is something we need to get. There have been many, many godly people in the Catholic church, but there have been some other things that are not good. It's a mixture. The LC is no different. When you ask what was that all about, what did it mean, it meant that the Lord works wherever he can as much as he can. But just because he is working in a place does not mean that is the only place he is working or can work. Because we were so committed to the Lord in the LC he was able to do many amazing things. But because it was eventually overwhelmed by a warped vision, it became toxic in some ways.
Lee clearly saw that the church has its good and bad sides. Where he went off the reservation was to look at the good in the LC and disregard the bad, and at the same time look at the bad in "Christianity" and disregard the good. In other words, he looked at the LC in an idealized way, at what he hoped it would become, while doing the exact opposite with any other groups. This bait-and-switch, equivocating mentality is rampant in LC thinking. But it's so subtle to them that they don't see it, because they believe they are special and chosen and so operating under a set of rules which favors them, which is the calling card of every errant group that ever existed.
4) The fact is there are contradictions in the LC. Some can take them, some can't. If you can't the Lord is not, in principle anyway, telling you to stay. That is, it is not fundamentally by his law and nature necessary for you to stay. He may be leading you practically to stay, he may be leading you to leave, he may even be leaving it up to you. But there is no bedrock principle that says you must stay.
5) So what did it mean? It meant God was working. It meant he was there with people that were meeting in his name, just as he said he would be. What was really good about the LC? The Lord, the Spirit, the brotherly love. Other stuff like being "the Recovery" or "bringing the Lord back" were exciting, but that probably isn't what kept you there. The Lord puts up with a lot of our silliness to be with us, but that doesn't validate the silliness. It was those basics that mattered: love, fellowship, relationship, purpose. All and only the things that are available anywhere.
So, again, my advice is get yourself to a place where you feel good about where you are. Don't feel like you have to figure everything out before you get there. The same approach must be taken with other things in life which don't make sense: the death of a loved one, a divorce, unfairly losing a job, any major challenge which doesn't make sense. You have to decide to be happy without having figured out why it happened. As I said, at some level madness is unexplainable, and you have to trust that the Lord sees and knows everything and will make known what we need to know when we need to know it. It always comes down to faith in him.
Re: One Publication
And the only reason to stay at the task is because of loving them. Otherwise you won't stay at it.
I wormed the brother for years. Worming is throwing the truth on their hard noggin, so that the worms eventually bore down into their head, and a little light comes in, and then a aha moment happens.
But it can take years, even decades, for the worms to bore thru. And when they do, you won't get any credit for it. Which is the way it should be.
Re: One Publication
Yes, I agree with the "move on" thing, but the reality is I'm just not there yet. "Moving on" is still tantamount to stepping into space without a tether. I'm not someone who make rash moves and I personally can't move on until I'm moving on towards or connected to something. Otherwise I'm moving on into a vast empty desert.
This forum is where I am only beginning to flex muscles that were snipped as a kid when I wasn't even aware. It may look like I'm languishing here but that's not my intention at all. My posts are just me thinking for myself for once. Using logic for once. Not pounding my square head into a round Lee hole for once wondering why everyone around me loves his stuff and I get nothing from it.
I know I can't reform the LC's; I'm well aware. That wasn't really the intention of my proposed revised version of the One Pub a few posts back. The point of that "revision" was just to show how easy it is to say clearly what LCers try to pass off that it's saying but really isn't. Or how easy it is to take a line that protects LSMs publication rights while balancing the validity of other publications rather than taking the shamefully haughty position that only Lee has the light. And to say that he should be subject to the same discernment as any other Christian author.
I'm just punching against the bully I didn't know I could defend myself against. I'll run out of the desire to punch at some point and will be able to walk away.
Igzy, I understand when you say you are a person who needs to know what happened. I am too, but I also need to know why. I can't stand up after decades on the ground, shake it off, say "huh, that was weird" and walk off in another direction. I don't want to lose more decades lost in another wormhole group, missing the mark. Was there no point to those decades? Why did they happen if not for something? Otherwise what we go through in life is meaningless.
Re: One Publication
Here a relevant quote:
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."People wander away from the LC one by one, nursing hangovers and asking themselves, "What happened?" All the while the herd they left behind continues in its madness.
What happened is the madness of crowds; and madness, at some level, is unexplainable.
Re: One Publication
Trust me, I'm one of those people who want to know EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. But experience has shown me we can't understand everything, at least not right away. One reason I visit here is to see if there are more insights. If I made my happiness dependent on understanding everything I'd waste my life.
Also, if anyone is out there who feels like they will not have any peace in their life until the LC is exposed, brought down and put in its place, I would say to them that is a symptom of your still being controlled by them. Let that go. Try to be more objective, remove your sense of self-esteem or God's esteem for you from the equation. Your peace about YOURSELF cannot depend on the LC getting its just desserts or even admitting to anything.
We all post here because, in part, we want to see the LC exposed and justice to be served. But don't make your sense of peace and freedom depend on that. That's my point.
Re: One Publication
They were our spiritual forebears. They also had the ground of oneness, all the riches, the MOTA Oracle, condemnation of all others, etc. . . All of the same ingredients of arrogant pride now infecting LSM. Did they ever change? No! Never! Nada! As they say.
Actually the only glimmer of hope that existed in that system was excommunication. Complete and thorough. Still, many of the excommunicated stayed in a morphed version of those who excommunicated them. Like those in the Gospels at Jesus' time, your greatest hope was in being thrown out of the synagogue.
Re: One Publication
Second, as you begin to figure things out to your own satisfaction you can help others who may be struggling with the same issues & questions. That way one's experiences are used by God to serve others (help them break off controlling and manipulative relationships). The issue proves the process - one's proved free by helping others along the path. Look at Jesus' words to Peter in Luke 22:32. See also Psa 51:12,13 - one's journey back to light is not for oneself but for others, else it's for naught.
Re: One Publication
The staunch LCers are convinced they are right. You are not going to change their minds. But your happiness or freedom should not depend on that.
I understand your frustration at wasted time. But don't waste more time trying to figure out why other people are crazy, you have enough on your plate just managing your own life. At some point you have to say "Thanks, but this is not for me," and move on. Church membership is NOT like a marriage. If our consciences are offended, we CAN vote with our feet. The LC has NO monopoly on anything. Either you believe that, or you don't. And if you don't, move on.
The bottom line is that the rest of your life starts today. I realize that separating from such a long commitment is not easy, and that you need a process of talking things out and working through it, and this board is great for that.
But you must realize you are not going to reform the LC. And for some questions you are not going to get answers for a long time. Don't waste more time in a whirlpool. By all means take advantage of these board discussions to work through things, but realize that the important thing now is fixing your life, not the LC. Take positive steps for the time you have remaining, and like the Lord did, leave their "house" to them and move on.
You might start by changing your name from "Trapped" to "Freed." Because if you believe you are trapped, you are. And if you believe you are free, you are.
Re: One Publication
Today with the internet and those who've come forward, it's clearer what one's getting into. Steve Isitt has published his investigation, Jane Anderson has told her story, John Ingalls' STTIL is available. (Note that Steve I. asked LSM leaders for permission to publish his story, they denied him the right, and 'marked' him for even asking [even tho WL had publicly requested that someone find the 'lost' ones!]).
Of course there is biblical basis for all of that. Verses abound. But what happens is that the process of surrender, obedience, and transformation gets hijacked by unscrupulous ones, wolves in sheep's clothing. It's a widespread phenomenon in religion, not limited to this group. The subjects think they're surrendering to God but they're not. They're rather surrendering to a group with its customs and peculiar relations. That is their "subjective Christ".
Re: One Publication
While I don't disagree with the spirit of the concept that any Christian group has a right to set rules and regulations for its members, in the LCs many of the "rules" are not expressed outright, nor are they revealed up front. Many are set not in writing but through glances, looks, insinuations, comments, implications. No one coming into the church is given a list of rules that lets them know up front:
1. Don't grow a beard.
2. Jeans are rebellious.
3. Movies are evil.
4. Department stores are of the devil.
5. Don't have friends.
6. We only read one Bible version around here.
7. If you share from another Christian author too many times.....look out.
8. If you try to write something and publish it - you will be seen as a rival and are by default dead meat.
9. IF YOU GO TO ANY OTHER CHURCH YOU ARE DIVISIVE AND GOD WILL PROBABLY SEND AN ASTEROID TO CRUSH YOUR SINFUL BEING (just look at John Doe and the mac truck incident.......)
Sign here! ______________________________
No one would ever join if they knew up front what they were getting into.
If to be a member of the church you have to waive personal publication rights in deference to LSM's publication work or get quarantined......then the local churches have no leg to stand on when they try to deny people's claims that they are LSM churches. They just don't.
They can dance around all they want, but the more they write in defense of all this the worse it is. The letters they wrote to DYL speak of "rivalry"......where does any Christian group manufacture the concept of rivalry to begin with?!?! And it's all over mortal human's publications. And many go down tooth and nail defending this stuff.
I wish I could find it again, but one letter started out with a thick paragraph denigrating all other non-LC churches, and there was this one sentence that made it so crystal clear that the co-workers view "the Lord's recovery" as "the Body of Christ". Not a part of it, but THE. The sentence was full of "ones", as in "the one Body of Christ as built up by the one ministry in the one recovery work as produced by the one publication of the one minister of the age" or something like that. I was so deflated reading it.
Something I can't wrap my head around though, is that even now, I know of new ones who have "touched the church" who say very explicitly that the Lord told them to come there. Even they were prominent people in their former church, and yet the Lord led them to the local church to be a no one. And yet others like me are dissatisfied there and have lost decades of a happy life from warped misrepresentations of God and need years to recover from being there. Who can ever know what the Lord is doing.
P.S. I understand that TC and DYL apparently turned exclusionary themselves; I'm not defending what they did or really making any commentary there since I don't know the full story. The whole structure of the local churches is wrong since they are based around a man, which inherently lends itself to this kind of thing. I am fine to say that many churches were raised up by Witness Lee, that is undeniable. But the continued force-fed diet and control of all the LCs is not good. The LCs disguise this under the guise of "fellowship among the churches" but it seems to me the emphasis should be much more on fellowship among the members of the church in a given city rather than fellowship among churches in many different cities.
By this I mean they should emphasize the fellowship of the TRUE church in Anaheim (all the believers in Anaheim, regardless of where they meet or what they call themselves) rather than a tiny portion of the church in Anaheim (the LC) fellowshipping with a tiny portion of the (LC) church in Boston fellowshipping with a tiny portion of the (LC) church in Seattle, etc.. The LC's always denigrate other churches coming together as "shaking hands over the fence", but the LC's don't see that they've replaced their own fences with 20-foot cinder block walls and turrets and machine guns and a moat and drawbridge. It's asinine.
One time I talked to an elder about this very thing, and he tried to speak up how the churches emphasize "oneness". I said, "okay, but wouldn't you call it an internal oneness while we are still separated from all the other believers?" His response was, "Yes, well, you go talk to any of those other pastors out there and they don't even know the name of the pastor in the next town over!" I realized I wasn't dealing with someone with two feet on the ground. Who cares if they know the name of the pastor in the next town over? I'm more than willing to bet they know the names of other pastors in their own town, and probably are friends with them, and ask advice and have them over for lunch, which is more than we can say! The local churches are the most egregious neglecters of the actual church in their own city.
Sorry, went off topic there, that gets into the ground rather than the publication....it's all connected but I'll stop there.
Re: One Publication
The bottom line is that LSM has the right to tell people whether or not they can speak (publish) in the name of LSM. They don't have the right to tell us whether or not we can speak (publish) in the name of Jesus. Their attempt to do so is weak, beggarly, and usurps the Lord's authority. Only a fool would would agree to submit themselves to this ordinance. The only one that can forbid us to speak in the name of Jesus is the Spirit (Acts 16:6).
However, if you read Acts that attempt to forbid the apostles to speak in the name of Jesus is common (Acts 4:17, 5:28), nothing new about what LSM is doing. If you want to speak the word of God you need a backbone, can't be a reed bending in the wind.
One Publication Policy
Years ago someone commented about my former LC minister Dr. Philip Comfort saying, "perhaps our hearts in the churches needs to be enlarged." I immediately had to get a hold on my anger. After a bit, I commented, "the church loved Phil, it was the heart of TC that needed to be enlarged."
For years I heard LC teachings about trusting the Lord. Ministers were to be patterns for the church. When it comes to the ministry at LSM, there is no such thing as trusting the Lord. For decades they have operated according to fleshly wisdom, and sometimes they just employed the flesh without any wisdom at all. Just open to any of Paul's writings, and you will see endless details of healthy patterns of ministry long rejected by those at LSM. Their One Publication Policy is just the tip of the iceberg.
For example. Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2.11) publicly in Antioch over discarded Kosher law, yet Peter later extolled "beloved brother" Paul's writings as the scripture itself. (II Peter 3.15-16) Compare this to Lee. When John Ingalls approached him privately a dozen times about his fleshly son Philip, Lee turned on him publicly to smear his reputation. Compare this also to the Blendeds. When Midwest brothers addressed their controlling ways, they quarantined them in return.
Our real pattern -- Paul -- was honest and humble, these guys are dishonest and arrogant.
Re: One Publication
Here's the thing. Any Christian group has the right to set up rules for its members. We can argue whether those rules are right or wrong in the broad sense, but that is different from arguing whether the group itself can hold such rules.
For example, a group might have a rule that men wear ties and women wear dresses to meetings. We can argue whether that in general is a "good" rule or not, but in the end you have to concede if a group wants to have such a rule that's its business.
The "Lord's Recovery" obviously has some rules that most would find odd, and we might even be able to mount arguments as to why the LR should not have such rules, but in the end its their call. The beauty of that is, if you don't want to be a member of the LR, then don't. There are plenty of groups. The vast majority of Christian groups understand this. They believe in their particular vision, but allow others the freedom to disagree with them.
Not the LR, however. They just don't think their way is better. They think all other ways are invalid and you are evil for following them. They are not content just to have their own group and follow the Lord according to their own consciences, they want to compel the consciences of others to remain in their group, to the point of grievously unethical spiritual intimidation. As Ohio said, it's about control. This is plain evil, and this is where sheep dogs like myself feel to step in.
So trying to reform the LR without addressing their core problem of serious spiritual abuse is, I'm afraid, a waste of time. If they are not going to see the problem of their major abuses they certainly are not going to see the problem with their minor ones. If they aren't bashful about threatening members with 1000 years in outer darkness for leaving God's unique move on earth and his one true ministry, aka their little sect, do you really think they are going to give a rat's rear end whether they shouldn't restrict their members from publishing?
So, in general, if you like the LR, join up and follow their rules. If you don't like the LR, then leave without a giving a second thought to their stupid threats. But don't expect them to change anything as long as their attitude is that by definition they can do no wrong. By all means warn others, but don't expect to be able to change the LR.
Re: One Publication
If "each of you" are doing this at the assembly level, as Paul suggests, and someone mis-aims, then the error will eventually be manifest by its fruit, and turned away (ignored, rejected) in the assemblies. There's a protection in the multiplicity of functions, expressions, disseminations. By contrast, if anyone holds themselves over the flock as a (super)apostle, and claim for their personal ministry all revelation, all tongue, all interpretation, then who else can function? And if they err, who can restrain them?
But the NT says, "each of you" has an interpretation - whether the effect of your interpretation travels or disseminates beyond the boundaries of the local assembly is the purview of the Holy Spirit, not an earthly HQ. Anaheim (for instance) doesn't control the Holy Spirit of God, nor are they the only ones obedient to the direct leading of Holy Spirit. The "ministry of the age" concept essentially shuts down the operation of the Holy Spirit, because then "each of you" only get the revelation, tongue or interpretation indirectly, from the ministry. With the ministry of the age, if anyone else functions, they're deemed competition.
Does 1 Cor 14 suggest any of this? I think not - rather its opposite.
Re: One Publication
But that never was the point. The POINT is control. Control of the LC's. Both Lee and the Blendeds viewed these two as rivals to their control, and thus must be eliminated! Regardless of collateral.
Funny thing is that both Titus and Dong did the same thing in their regions. They permitted no rivals either.
Re: One Publication
In the apostolic age, it was the Judaizers who attempted to bring the liberated believers into bondage. During the Dark Ages it was the Roman Pope who did the same. Today it is insular and exclusive sects who do the same.
I grew up with the Catholic Missal. It defined the Lord's Day service for every parish on earth. Now the LC's have the Holy Word for Morning Revival published by LSM. It does the same thing.
Hi Drake, please show us one collection of churches (ie denomination) in history which has used a One Publication Policy and remained healthy in the faith. Every single one, including the Plymouth brethren, has used this policy to its own demise.
Re: One Publication
It seems we all understand that you can't publish something attributing that it is the LSM without consultation with them.
But since this is considered the ministry of the age, God's authority comes from he who can interpret the word, etc, any other publishing can be considered
competition with the one ministry based on ambition.
I have a compound question, did Titus and Dong just publish under their own name or did they claim it was with the LSM or "the one ministry of the age."
Any Christian should be able to write and publish, as long as proper accreditation is given to any sources. It seems the issues came up as to how they were promoted and distributed.
On a side note, I've tried numerous times to access that "One Publication" site, it still is "403."
Re: One Publication
Of course One Publication is a joke. Anyone can publish. But it's not a joke in the the recovery movement. It means only LSM publications can be used and read in the LC.
Like the Watchtower to the JW's ... and the book of Mormon to the LDS.
Re: One Publication
"One publication among us today" may seem somewhat innocuous to the uninformed, but in the Local Church of Witness Lee it is well-understood and taken as seriously as a heart attack. There is a very good reason why Lee is to be considered as "The One Minister with The One Ministry for The Age"...because that's exactly how he presented himself when he was alive, and this is how he is presented by The Blended Brothers "among us today".
Re: One Publication
Um......if the One Pub restricts what is published........that restricts what is available to be read. If I cannot publish a book, then no one can read that book.
From the One Pub: "...the ministry materials of Brother Lee and Brother Nee. These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lord's recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today."
"Used" means "read", Drake. If the one publication is what is regularly read by all the saints and all the churches, and everyone else is to be restricted in NOT publishing.......then all the saints and churches are left to only read Nee and Lee. Don't take that to mean that I'm saying they can't read whatever they want in their own home; I've already covered that. I am talking about on a widespread shared scale, not individuals.
Drake, I am not unsympathetic to LSMs concerns over what may have been legitimate problems caused by DYL, etc, although I do not know many of the gory details of the whole situation. I personally cannot fault LSM or those affiliated for putting out a statement "discrediting" anyone who tries to put out publications that falsely claim they are a continued representation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's ministry. If WL did not "appoint" someone as a continuation of his own personal ministry (and my personal belief is that he did not) then, of course, it is not okay for anyone to publish as if they are such a continuation. If I wrote a bestseller and someone else wrote a sequel to it and tried to pass off that I had designated them to do so when I didn't, I would have a problem. Given that LSM's stated purpose is to publish WN and WL, and that purpose hasn't changed, it follows that anyone else, DYL or otherwise, is not part of their publication.
But unfortunately, the One Pub failed miserably, and I mean miserably, at getting that point across, if indeed that is the point.
I'd like to propose a revised version of the Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery. It's not perfect or all-encompassing, but here goes:
There are some brothers among us who are putting out their own publications under the claim that they are a continuation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's ministry. This is a false claim. Before his passing, brother Lee did not appoint any brother as his continuation and did not authorize further publication of his ministry by any person or entity besides LSM. LSM is the sole publisher of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's books, and any material published by other saints are not LSM publications.
While we all have a basic right to publish, anyone among us who publishes should not do so claiming affiliation with LSM, Watchman Nee, or Witness Lee as part of their publication. In addition, they should not use any such affiliation as a basis for promotion of their own work. Portions or excerpts of brother Nee or Lee's ministry may not be quoted or referenced without receiving explicit written permission from LSM to do so, and should only be done in a manner consistent with existing copyright laws. Furthermore, any saint who publishes should find an independent publishing company to do so.
As with any spiritual nourishment we take in, each saint should discern for themselves the benefit and truth found in any published work. Any Christian publication, whether put out by LSM, by a saint in the Lord's recovery, or by another Christian author, should be held to the light of the truth in the word. The credence given to any publication should be based on the light received, its accuracy according to the truth, and whether it brings you to know and love the Lord Jesus in a deeper way. The publication of divine truths is a serious and weighty matter. We recommend that any saint desiring to publish should not do so lightly or without much prayer before the Lord and fellowship with other believers.
While they certainly can make clear that anyone who publishes is not part of the one publication, the co-workers have no business restricting anyone from publishing if they are led by the Lord to publish, or restricting the scope of that publication. Claiming that this restriction is to be "governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross" is a shocking disrespect to the cross of Christ. If the One Pub is a reaction to DYL, it is quite a simple task to get that point across, given the brainpower behind who was probably involved in writing it, but somehow, that group of brilliant, eloquent, educated men couldn't do it.
P.S. Ohio's points are excellent and I'd love to elaborate there too but am short on time. But goodness......if someone in a locality produces a tract that preaches the good news of the gospel, is the wide-eyed warning that "damage may result" if that tract is used in other churches really warranted? Why would something used locally that is spiritually beneficial to one locality suddenly become damaging when passed around to others? It's just ludicrous.
Also for anyone to sweepingly claim that other's publications contain "no new light or life supply" is just.......arrogance to the max. Argh!
Re: One Publication
As a reminder, my posts represent my personal views and are not a proxy officially or unofficially for any other person, organization, or group. No claims are made otherwise and my point of view is a matter of personal conviction.
Therefore, my posts should be evaluated on their own merits and acknowledged or challenged based on the facts presented, the logic used, and relevance to the immediate topic under discussion. Furthermore, I always welcome viewpoints based scripture related to the topic under discussion.
Re: One Publication
1. Surely the warning about publishing on the internet would apply to this forum. We have a copy of the letters from Steve Issitt which were vilified and railed against by Ron Kangas. We have links to the Thread of Gold which exposes sin in the Houston locality doing the bidding of WL. We have Speaking the Truth in Love, revealing John Ingalls view of what took place in the 80s. We reference Nigel Tomes publications which go into great detail about the excommunication of Titus Chu. If these are not examples of publications that they were warning about in the passage you quoted then that passage is far too vague to be of any use. If it is then it certainly brands this forum as one of the ones they are warning against. Therefore I have to ask -- have you vetted your defense of LSM with LSM? How can you post on this forum supporting this policy without also submitting to it? I will take you at your word, do you represent LSM, yes or no?
I will continue under the assumption that you represent LSM and therefore all references to "you" will mean LSM. If that is not the case your post loses all credibility and my references to "you" should be understood as referring to LSM's policy.
2. I am still very confused by this policy. It is based on a verse where the context is the church meeting. It seems you are equating the published word with the words spoken in this meeting, which is fine with me, just so we all understand, this "trumpet sound", this "speaking" is what this policy is referring to as published works. Now it seems there is an understanding that there is a local word that is not under this policy. Hymnals composed of songs the saints in the locality have written, gospel tracts, perhaps articles in the local paper. But then they say to "be careful" concerning these local works being disseminated more widely. How exactly could they do that? If I visit a locality and buy their song book how are the elders supposed to be "careful" about me taking it back to my locality, sharing it with others in other localities, etc? I have preached the gospel with tracts we published in Houston, I handed them out in bus stations, train stations even airports. How exactly are we to be "careful" about them being disseminated more widely?
3. I have a covenant with Jesus Christ. He died for me. I was baptized into His name. I submit myself to the Lord and He has blessed me with every spiritual blessing. I have been blessed with believing Abraham. But what covenant do I have with LSM? Why would I submit to them? Who gave them authority to decide what I say and what I don't say, what I publish and what I don't publish? These are beggarly rules, be careful who you share the gospel with, be careful who you fellowship with. Why would anyone after having received the blessings of the Lord want to again be enslaved by these beggarly regulations?
4. Jesus said if someone sins against you rebuke them. That is what many of these publications do. Yet any reasonable person would conclude that their publication for use among all the churches via the internet violates this policy. So who should I listen to, LSM or the Lord Jesus?
5. Jesus said if they refuse to hear you then tell it to the church. I went to Ed Marks, a representative of both the church and LSM (that was why he was visiting NY). I asked him about the letter of apology he signed to PL. I was subsequently kicked out of the meeting hall with the response that "Ed doesn't want to deal with this now". We are talking about something that happened 35 years ago and he still "doesn't want to deal with this now"? That to me is the definition of "if they refuse to hear you". Therefore, if I am going to obey the Lord Jesus I must "tell it to the church". However, that can't possibly refer to the church in NY, they kicked me out and refused to hear. So I posted it on this forum so that those from California, Texas, Florida, even Europe and Asia who visit this forum could read it. Again, according to a reasonable understanding of this policy that would be something they warn against. So then, do I listen to LSM or the Lord Jesus?
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
No sir.
Trapped, let's examine in detail the full paragraph you quoted from to see if there is anything in that paragraph that says that. In other words, let's put that sentence above in context:
"But being restricted in the one publication does not mean, and has never meant, that individual churches are not free to produce and distribute materials for their local needs. We have always had publications like this among us, and there have generally been no problems related to these. Songbooks, local tracts, church meeting outlines, testimonies, etc., have long been produced among us without controversy. These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches. These are publications that address local needs. Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter. Otherwise, damage may result. Although technologies now exist that permit the easy dissemination of material, we should not use these technologies at the risk of causing confusion among the saints and of damaging the one accord among the churches. The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord's recovery."
Trapped, in this paragraph you cited as proof that the local churches are restricted in what they can read yet there is not one statement, or a shred of a statement, not a hint, not a suggestion, not an implication, nor an innuendo... that they are being asked or told to only read Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Rather, this paragraph, and the sentence that you lifted from this paragraph are speaking about restrictions in publication, producing a publication, disseminating publication, etc. and the reference to local churches is all about the publications they produce for local needs. That is why there is no contradiction with what Brother Lee said in the same document that whether one reads the ministry or not is up to them. That is why there is no contradiction when Brother Lee said whether one reads his writings or not does not determine whether they are a genuine local church. The One Publication document addresses publication, and it addresses the very real problem of some brothers claiming to be part of the ministry but driving their own agenda and publishing their teachings under the umbrella of the ministry. Those brothers have the right to publish their own stuff, but not under the banner of being a part of or the successor to the one ministry by their own self-ascribed determination. That would be an "uncertain sounding of the trumpet" just to close the loop on that bit.
Furthermore, you may compare in the same document what is meant by "the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China". Again, in that historical account there is nothing about what the churches in China were restricted in reading. No, it was about restriction in publication, that is, Brother Lee would not venture out on his own and publish something that Brother Nee did not review and approve of as part of that ministry. That is the example given as like for like.... that is, as it was in mainland China, where brothers could produce something as part of that ministry, at least one brother, Witness Lee, would not publish something on his own without consulting and gaining the approval of Brother Nee. As it was there, concerning how things were published so it will be here.
Hope that helps.
Re: One Publication
Don't say it doesn't say that!
By all means, bring up the contrary statements. Include the parts I didn't include. Select the sentences I omitted. I can think of a few, although any contrary statements are so heavily dripping with cautionary language or totally contradicted by actual practice that they are next to worthless as any sort of balancing word.
But I can also understand that you may read my statement in my previous post as an overblown hyperbole, since after all, you can sit down in your comfy chair at home with any non-LSM Christian book of your choice, and no co-worker will come knocking down your door to prevent it......so I can surely see why you might balk at the sweeping nature of my assertion. I can do the same thing too, and have this very week! And no one stopped me from doing it.
So I might modify my conclusion to something more like this: "The only common and shared publication that all the saints and all the churches everywhere should be in is the one publication of Nee and Lee."
I think that describes the reality more accurately. It is not that individual saints cannot read whatever they like....because of course they can. It is that a widespread area of the local churches cannot "be in" whatever they like. By rephrasing my conclusion it allows for the small local publications mentioned in the One Pub that exist without issue (which are only songbooks and sheets according to the examples given.......no books even!) as long as they do not gain "larger geographical status", while still keeping the reality of the situation that there should be nothing but Nee/Lee for the local churches as a whole.
Is that a more accurate representation?
Regarding your note about mutuality and a Berean examination, can you give me some examples from our correspondence? Were there areas in our communications where my response was disingenuous? It is more than possible some punchiness bled through as I'm dealing with some other heavy frustrations in my non lcd.com life. I'm open to hear but need some specifics to help me in the future.
Re: One Publication
With such a loving attitude of kindness and generosity, why do you think LSM decided that it needed this One Publication decree to excommunicate life-long co-workers such as Titus Chu for printing his own books?
Re: One Publication
Look at Lee's use of the word "proper" some time - he used it a lot, and in his hands it was a self-serving, loaded, subjective and unverifiable term. This constant theme helped him a avoid competing in the free market of ideas. In fact, he said that if you read other ideas, you might get "poisoned". You might get "confused."
But, controlling? Nah. They're just "distributing truths".
Re: One Publication
And if their motive was profit they could make those printed publications the only way to gain access to the messages....
.... but then, the whole fake (and frankly silly) fill the coffers argument crumbles when they offer the same content at LSM.org for free.
Not that you care brother but I'll share why I own the CWWL. First, I don't own them because someone told me I had to buy them. I don't own them because there was a edict that said I can only read Witness Lee. I don't own them because I am in the Lord's recovery and we all are pressured to own them. None of that. In my 40 years enjoying this ministry I've never heard ridiculous rhetoric like that. Rather, I bought and own the CWWL because 1) I treasure the truths the Lord released through Brother Witness Lee, 2) I prefer the chronological organization of the set by year, indexes, etc. and 3) and foremost, I believe in the mission and motive of LSM and those of its imprints in its outreach to distribute these truths to the world and therefore am happy to support that monetarily. This is one way to do that.
I, like most of us, accumulated versions of these publications over decades. I had loose leaf, cassettes, paperback, hardback, partial sets, CDs, stapled sheets of paper, and they all served a useful purpose in time and place. The online FREE version is useful too and many just prefer that delivery mechanism. As for me, I couldn't be more pleased to have this hard copy collection so labored on by faithful brothers and sisters and made available in a consolidated 10 linear feet and organized in such a professional format.
Re: One Publication
In this discussion we have come full circle. We started here. I was content to let the misunderstanding stand but you urged me back in and I agreed under the assumption that the examination would be mutual... it would be Berean. It's not happening brother.
Let's each consider before the Lord how to proceed.
Re: One Publication
I fully understand the phenomenon you describe about boyhood perspective, in fact, I experienced that very thing just recently in visiting my former junior high school. I felt like Gulliver and wondered if the surrounding neighborhood had encroached on the school grounds shrinking it down smaller than I recalled. Kind of surreal actually.
But luckily for me, my parents did not kick me out at 8 years old, or 12, or 15, or 18. I did return home as an adult and have adult memories of the bookcases in question. Standard residential 8-foot floor-to-ceiling heights also do not change and these were floor-to-ceiling bookcases. There were also several of them, so my measurements are pretty accurate.
There was no point to concede - we were talking about different things. I was very clear I was not talking about CWWL alone but about all the publications of Nee and Lee (including different versions, updated editions, same content with new covers, etc) that LSM puts out. You keep pointing to CWWL only but I was talking about the entire publication output of LSM which causes many a shelf to sag across the saints' homes. Like I said in a previous post, I am happy to agree that CWWL is only 10 linear feet.
This is pointless but I've dealt with a number of saints recently who make wild unfounded claims and I'm just sick of it so I'll take the time to write this paragraph. Regarding my insistence on holding an erroneous view: I made a general statement about the entire publication work of LSM. You responded with a general statement about a portion of that body of work (CWWL). We discussed these two differing things for a few posts. My first concrete assertion about CWWL-specific footage was post #346. In your response (355) you stated you actually measured the CWWL. In my response (358) I said it is fine if CWWL are as you measured. No insistence on an erroneous view, sorry.
LSM can violate its own mandate and publish Joel Osteen and Rick Warren and my point would still stand.
LSM can make any error and publish other authors and my point would still stand.
The other authors can be in the same genre and my point will still stand.
LSM can publish 95% other authors and only 5% Nee and Lee, and my point will still stand!
My point:
1. There is a set of publications that LSM puts out - Nee, Lee, JPL, McDonough, AffCrit, blended brothers, whatever. Add any others you want. Tip the balance so Nee and Lee are a tiny percentage if you want.
2. Those books are all published by LSM, whether under the LSM name directly or under an imprint.
3. Within that set of publications described above is a subset defined as "one publication". As I've quoted before, "one publication" is defined as "publication of the ministry materials of [Watchman Nee and Witness Lee]"... This is not my definition but that of LSM/DCP, etc.
4. The One Publication document calls the churches to restrict themselves to that subset, to "one publication". I.e. to restrict themselves to and only read Nee and Lee. Whatever is in the original set in point 1 is completely irrelevant ("doesn't matter") because it is not in the subset in point 3. The subset is what the saints in the churches are to be restricted to.
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Thanks for threatening the judgment of Christ at me. Classic LC saint move.
Re: One Publication
Then, after the talk series or "conference" is over, you can edit and print the message series, collate them, bind them into a book, and sell them back to the audience. Later, you can again sell the the same folks re-packaged material as "HWFMR" and "Collected Works". Yes we know Works are dead ...e.g., "Dead Works" ...but they can be collected and sold, anyway.
Re: One Publication
The content of Collected Works is on the lsm.org site for FREE. No money changes hands when you read them there. The online publications are not sold. They are free. Not just few tracts or a few books. Do the due diligence on this and then consider WHY this ministry gives away its publications for free. Once that is understood then you will have a different objection and argument but at least it will be based on facts.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Why the circular conversation?
You and others already said that the content of the Collected Works are just repeats and repackaging of already published material. That material has been available for free for years at lsm.org. So yes, the messages are available for free as they have been for years.
Re: One Publication
And yes I know it's called a "loss leader". I didn't do the spell check, so you did it for me. Thanks for paying attention.
I was in a meeting once in the mid-'90s, and one of the soon-to-be-blendeds told us with some evident satisfaction how much of his disposable income the LSM was taking, from buying books (many to give away to "contacts" and "new ones") to "the Lord's move to Europe" to his local assembly. He was quite specific with the percentages, and clearly was holding himself forth as "a pattern to be followed in the church".
Those few free tracts are supposed to pave the way to a lifetime of voluntary servitude. If you thought the crack dealer adage was too much, how about the JW's - they stand there, next to their cardboard kiosks, handing out their version of the One Publication. So selfless of them! Take a Watch Tower for free.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/h/r1/lp-e (Quote: "For publication downloads, please visit 'jw.org'.")
So free tracts and ministry excerpts are supposed to signal enlightened beneficence? How completely clueless do you suppose the general public is, out there? It's not 1971 anymore. Sorry.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Just go to LSM.ORG and READ FOR FREE.
Here is the link.
Re: One Publication
Well let's explore your slanderous comparison for a moment. If a crack dealer gave away as much as you wanted for free and did not charge you a nickel ever for it then what would make you think that the crack dealer was out to make money?
and in Retailing 101 it is called LOSS Leader.... not LOST Leader.... but nevertheless, the business strategy of LOSS Leader does not apply when its all available for free.
The reason your logic is flailing around on this, aron, is because you are trying to fit the facts into your own concepts. They don't fit because your concept on motivation is off the mark. But you are a thoughtful and intelligent man so I'm hopeful that once the real motivation becomes clear to you then you will rebound and make some compelling arguments. At least then we can agree and disagree with rationale based on facts and logic.
Re: One Publication
Full Payment
35% Discount*
$16.25 per volume
$2,210 all volumes
Monthly Payments
30% Discount*
$17.50 per volume
$2,380 all volumes
Pretty steep price for a bunch of stuff you already paid for (in some cases people paid over and over again over the past 40+ years.) I don't think there is one jot or tittle in this "collected work" that has not already been merchandised by Lee & Company already. Where is the "Up-To-Date" speaking? Where are the fresh "groceries"?
Re: One Publication
It's Retailing 101. In trade jargon it's known as a "lost leader". But since LSM is a spiritual enterprise, they wouldn't succumb to earthly means, now would they? It's just a coincidence is all.
Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, furiously pulling the levers.
Re: One Publication
For years this profit/monetary motivation idea has been bantered about in this forum under your management. And yet if profit/money were the motive then LSM would not offer its publications for free at no cost at LSM.ORG. That breaks the business model you allege ... or is that not obvious? The charge that LSM wants to top off coffers is undermined by the easy availability of its publications on the internet for free. So your profit/monetary motivation is not even logical.
Therefore, what could be a possible motivation for a ministry to make their publications available for free? Hmmmm, let's think a moment..... how about .... Mission.
Now if I have misunderstood your belief then please clarify.
Re: One Publication
Here's another thing. To a boy those bookshelves look one way and to a grown man those same bookshelves look different years later. When I visit my childhood places what seemed like a mile away was much closer than I remembered and the house is smaller than I remembered as is the yard. So, in a sense it was an illusion... or rather a relative perception. You saw lots of shelf space looking up and across and transferred those boyhood perceptions to something modern you are not looking at directly (the Collected Works of Witness Lee). Also, loose leaf messages and individual bound books and duplicates take up more space. That is why I went through the steps of actually measuring with a Tape measure the linear footage of CWWL and to provide that new information to you. Rather than concede the point based on the facts you fought to hold on to the proverbial bone with all your might for several posts.
That my friend is instructive and provides a clue why a dialogue such as ours must enter into a labor over every statement. If you insist to hold onto an erroneous view about the linear footage of the CWWL though presented with the actual measured footage of someone who is staring at them then how do we as brothers in the Lord ever hope to find agreement or agreement to disagree on the weightier matters?
There is only one logical answer and that is 3. Your argument that they don't matter is not logical.... else why publish them if they don't matter? It cost money, time, and effort to publish anything. Since when has LSM published anything that they don't think THEY should publish? In fact, that is one of the objections that forum members level against LSM!
The bottom line Trapped is this. Forum members often fall into the fallacy trap of subjective validation. Example of this may be seen in the secular: You believe Russians swung the election for a candidate and so you see Russian bear claws in every thing related to that candidate after that. That is subjective validation. If it is not subjection validation then it is purposeful and willful deceit of oneself and others and though I believe that is often the case in politics I do not readily accept it as the motivation when conversing with brothers such as you. Rather I am convinced that you have a fearful respect for the judgment Christ will assess toward His own for things said and done after they became a Christian as I do also.... in other words, we can expect that our posts will be assessed and a judgement rendered by Him at His coming.
Re: One Publication
What made me mad was that certain students of Lee (ie the Super Blendeds) took it upon themselves to become the true and legitimate Re-speakers and Re-printers of Lee, and took it upon themselves to chastise (quarantine /excommunicate) the other students of Lee (ie Chu, Dong, etc.) whom they declared illegitimate.
Should not the actual members of the LC be given the right to choose who more accurately and spiritually ministered these "recovery" truths from the Bible?
Did Apostle Paul go to Corinth and excommunicate Peter and Apollos? Did Apostle Paul determine that only his ministry was the legitimate "re-speaking" of the teachings of Jesus? Did Apostle Paul teach that only his books could be published and read in all the churches?
Re: One Publication
aron, exactly. If it was published, it counts. Those bookcases aren't an illusion.
Drake, that is fine if the CWWL are 10 linear feet. I heard the 20 through the typically trustworthy grapevine and just passed that along. But as you well noted, the measurement doesn't change my point. And you didn't address my main point: that if "1pub" is defined by DCP as Nee/Lee, the other authors or the other pubs don't matter at all since the directive is to be "restricted to 1pub"....i.e. restricted to Nee/Lee.
Koinonia's point, brought to us by UntoHim, is a great one - what do you do when the only person through whom God speaks (apparently ) and the source of the only material you can produce......dies? AND your tiny market is saturated?! Whoops!!
This would not be a problem to anyone but the employees of that hapless entity EXCEPT that this publisher is the source of God's "up-to-date move on the earth". This means that God can only move within the confines of a dead man's works, and the poor saints who follow that move as if it is the only move of God end up following something rotten rather than living. And people pay the price with the years of their lives.
To pass off that "restricted to one publication" is healthy or of God just makes me mad.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Let's take a little break from linear feet, imprints, genres, tape measures, book shelves and the like. I dug back and found this post by Koinonia way back in December of 2016 (where ya been bro, your insightful and spot on topic posts are greatly missed!)
There are several facets to this One Publication declaration. First and foremost, as it always is when it comes to the person and work of Witness Lee, it is a matter of control and censorship. Again, the control and censorship is exercised upon the members at the most practical level possible – that is at the meetings of the local churches, at the bi-annual trainings and various regional conferences, and at the most intimate level, the little publications meant for daily "devotional" readings for Morning Watch. Does anyone really think that the average Local Churcher is pray-reading Mary McDonough or Jessie Penn Lewis?
Then there is the matter of keeping the Living Stream coffers topped off. This poses a little bit of a dilemma for the powers that be over on La Palma Ave in Anaheim. After all, these guys are supposed to be dispensing the "Up-To-Date-Speaking" of God himself. The problem is that the only person on earth (since 1945 anyway) who did the up-to-date speaking has been dead and buried over there at Grace Gardens for over 20 years now. What to do? What to do? I know! We'll just keep reprinting the same stuff over and over and over again. Of course we'll have to spend a few shekels on different colors, booklet sizes and formats...but a publisher's gotta do what a publisher's gotta do!
Re: One Publication
The collected works of Brother Lee are about 10 linear feet. I have them and measured them. Those include almost every thing you remember as stand alone books. Then there are the life studies and crystallization studies and the conclusion messages. The collected works of watchman Nee are almost 5 linear ft.
Net net 20 linear feet. Those are the unique writings... I have several copies of the big red bomb (Christ vs Religion) but do not count each one... but anything that is now in the collected works I do not count because that would be double or triple counting. Married couples often brought same books ....
But look, it doesnt really matter if it 5, 10, 20, 100, or 150 does it? Your point does not change at 20 feet and neither will mine if it is 150. So believe it, remember it, anyway it sets well with you. I gave you the actual measurements according to a tape measure.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
It was insane there were new books weekly and there was a weekly sales promotion of the standing order. Living paycheck to paycheck just purchasing HWFMR stretched my finances.
Re: One Publication
There was a time, back in the 90's when LSM started shaming us for letting all those books "collect dust" on our shelves. Kind of irked me since I never asked for all of those books in the first place, and I had to buy extra bookshelves to hold them. So I cancelled my standing order.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
The Cleveland Book Service complained about all the materials stacking up, the saints cancelling their standing orders, and the books just could not be sold. Philip Lee at LSM refused to let the church in Cleveland reduce the quota number of books they received almost weekly.
Yet initially Witness Lee promised that each church would "make money" to cover their expenses, by only charging them 90% of the saints' retail costs. As a miniature book-selling "business," this book service was eventually broke and declaring bankruptcy. Consequently LSM was upset and owed huge back payments for books the church never asked for, and the saints were not buying.
Titus Chu basically "gulped" and instructed the church to send LSM some more money.
Re: One Publication
Notice that the "flow" was not local. It didn't arise as local demand but as alien imposition.
Re: One Publication
When my sewers backed up after a monster storm in 2007, it was my boxes of Ministry books on the basement floor that took the brunt of it. Was that sovereign of the Lord?
Re: Lee has to be famous!
Re: One Publication
Bookcases worth. I see it repeatedly in the saints' homes. It's way more than a combined 20 linear feet.
By the way, we are quite far away from the original line of why does the One Pub repeatedly say "in the Lord's recovery" if it is not about the Lord's recovery.
Re: Lee has to be famous!
Re: One Publication
Drake, you challenge the forum moderator to go to China and work, yet when Titus Chu does that, all the Blendeds rose up to condemn him. Did he not answer the call of God? Why don't you condemn the actions of the Blendeds?
It's there at his Kangaroo Court Quarantine Feast. It's repeated in all of the Blended's letters to him.
Little hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
And, btw, where is the mocking of Lee? Thou shalt not bear false witness!
Re: One Publication
Wait.... I actually measured it with a tape measure when you said 100 to 150 feet. Its 20 linear feet.
I'll come back to the rest of your post shortly..... being called away.
Re: One Publication
Drake>You claim LSM exclusively publishes one author.
UntoHim> FALSE! You need to retract.
Drake> Let's see..... in this thread alone we have:[/COLOR]
UntoHim> "either literal reading of a footnote or outline or quote/close paraphrase from a published book or message, directly from the mouth of Witness Lee, and ONLY WITNESS LEE...that's what."
UntoHim> "the One Publication is the speakings and writings of Witness Lee (and a scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee)"
UntoHim> "The leaders of LSM ARE THE LEADERS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH OF WITNESS LEE"
UntoHim> "What is published by Living Stream is what is to be read by the members - both at home and in the meetings. NO OTHER PUBLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED. PERIOD.Those only publish, disseminate, promote and read the teachings of Witness Lee. (and a minute amount of the teachings of Watchman Nee)"
Brother, it is clear what you said, it is clear what impression you mean to convey, and it is clear that your narrative is absolutely false.
What you cannot tolerate brother are facts. Rather than deal with the facts you bring out this uneducated China man narrative. Its the canned speech you use when the facts are not on your side, so you go dig that one out of the cellar. You cannot refute the facts I have presented so instead you retreat to the tried and true forum pleasing tactic of personal slander toward a servant of the Lord and toward servants of the Lord. Then you berate and belittle those who hold a different point of view from yours... you mock those with a different experience than you... you rail against those whom you say are intolerant and should anyone offer a moderate viewpoint you and your pals will start after them. ZNP gave you good feedback so why didn't you ask for more clarity?... it might actually save you. By your behavior in this forum you are the least tolerant of anyone I have ever met in or outside the local churches!
Yet, please don't misunderstand.... I do not intend to include myself in the list of servants mentioned above and neither am I asking for any greater tolerance from you toward me. I consider it a privilege to get railed at by an internet bully such as yourself...
But just to be clear...... I'm not the moderator of this forum but the conversation I am having is concerning the statements made in the One Publication document at the behest of another poster in what appears to him to be contradictory statements WITHIN the document. Yet, if I were the moderator of the forum I would advise you to follow and then contribute to the dialogue, be civil, or go start another topic about uneducated China men lacking Divinity degrees absconding to our fair shores or some other such nonsensical off topic subject.
Or I might advise you to go get your Divinity degree, go to China, learn their language, and do a work of God, and raise up churches rather than run an internet blog that berates and mocks servants of God who answered their call from the Lord.
Re: Lee has to be famous!
John Ingalls gives a rather detailed account of what Witness Lee said in this meeting in Speaking the Truth in Love Brother John, if nothing else, was known to have an excellent memory. I have zero doubt that he related exactly what Witness Lee said in that meeting. Furthermore, the accuracy of what he related to us has been confirmed by a number of brothers who were in that meeting, including at least two who are members of this forum.
Re: One Publication
Although I don't have time to scroll through to source it, I am not the one who argued that it was only Lee exclusively.
My point in quoting that is this: even if there are other authors, even if there are other pubs, "one publication" = Nee/Lee. That is the explicitly stated definition. It is NOT "anything that LSM publishes". It is Nee and Lee. The "ongoing ministry" is regurgitated Nee/Lee, so there is no thread to chase there. The phrase used to describe other authors is "other kinds of publications". They aren't part of the one publication.
If the churches are to be restricted to the "one publication" (Nee/Lee), then the other authors and pubs aren't relevant. They don't exist because they are quite literally not part of the one publication to which the churches are restricted.
This is not a volunteer army. The church is the army. The bride is the army. If you are saved, you are part of the church, the bride, and you are thus part of the army. If you have a Nee/Lee splintering within the Lord's army, well.......yikes. I'll leave it at that.
Re: Lee has to be famous!
Does anyone has an audio copy where Lee said this below?
Re: One Publication
In effect, it was a "trumpet" call, and built a border "wall," sending out the unmistakable "signal" that all workers, elders, and LC's must eventually choose sides. This was definitely how all the Midwest brothers interpreted it. Subsequent letters and pamphlets from LSM proved our initial conclusions.
Hence this One Publication edict was extremely divisive, erecting extra-biblical barriers between the saints, and forcing all the saints to choose sides for the nasty fight which was to come.
This One Publication edict had nothing to do with LSM's mission statement to publish certain books. All of Drake's posts on this topic are thus disingenuous, providing misleading information on this form.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Now, I know that this will come as some surprise to you brother, but I have and frequently do just what you say.... I research and include Watchman Nee statements in my messages and prophesying.
Look brother, you are constantly trying create daylight between Brother Lee where there is none so you ignore the facts, distort the facts, introduce your own "facts" like you did in this thread. Like:
You claim LSM exclusively publishes one author.
False. The facts are that there are many.
You claim that LSM only publishes "scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee".
False. The collected works of Watchman Nee are 62 volumes.. hardly "scant little".
You claim Brother Nee said the ministry is for the churches but Brother Lee did not.
False. Brother Lee in the base note "Paul never tried to force all the churches to follow him in his ministry, but Paul surely had a ministry for the churches."
You claim we believers in the local churches are forced to read only one author, Witness Lee.
... and yet, you just keep racking them up and when confronted with the facts rather than restate based on those facts, you turn to the "uneducated China man" argument.
What possesses you to do that?
Re: One Publication
Of course it is relevant to this discussion. You made an erroneous assertion that A&C was not published by LSM so it didn't count as being part of the One Publication. LSM publishes A&C.... it just doesn't fit your narrative around the "One Publication".
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Therefore, the answer is Option 1. There is one publication, primarily of two authors by volume, but includes many other authors of the same genre. No one is forced to only read LSM publications, no one is forced to buy LSM publications, and no church must buy LSM publications to be considered a local church. A local church's standing is not based on whether they read the ministry or not. Brothers and sisters can choose to go to LSM sponsored conferences and trainings or not.
This is a volunteer army.
I understand this does not fit the narrative of this forum nor your concepts ......but the facts are there along with Brother Lee's teaching on it. Read the base note again and his statements on this.
Now you will argue... but there are contradictory statements... so we'll discuss those and see how contradictory they really are.
Re: One Publication
I've said this before - when you are young (6 - 8 years old) you get fed and clothed by behaving, by doing what you are told. Sit in the chair assigned to you. Don't speak until it's your turn. You eat what they put in front of you. But at some point, you should begin to venture forth, to be able to try new things. The LSM system keeps people in perpetual infancy. Your ability to think, to problem-solve, to have an opinion, and to modify it, are all sharply curtailed. Just so a book publisher can sell more copies. It's simply wrong.
Re: One Publication
Your story also has tremendous value to help others like myself understand what happened to our children, the lost 2nd generation, who seemed to only receive endless laws and legalism, rather than a living faith, trust, and love towards our heavenly Father.
One Publication
This topic "One Publication" could be stretched to include LSM's control and suppression of all information in the LC's, but do try to abide by UntoHim's requests. It's hard on me too.
Re: One Publication
If you have been wronged you have to deal with it, but dealing with it includes saying "all things work together for good to those that love God and are called according to purpose". I have fulfilled my responsibility to point out your sins and am now moving on with my life in the full assurance that Jesus is Lord.
Re: One Publication
I'll never forget the confused and discouraged look on the elder's face in my 'locality' after he had the temerity to try to hold a week-end conference for our church using one of WL's earlier books, which he felt was a gem and should be gone over again, and he received the reply, "Re-speak the latest conference".
He was still using the approved publisher, LSM, but tried to use the "wrong book"! He just stared at the floor, crestfallen. He'd followed Witness Lee for decades. Now some pipsqueeks in Anaheim were telling him what LSM materials he could read or not read in the church.
Had he done so quietly on the down low, he might've gotten away with it. But he tried to buy a bunch of copies of this book, invite members of neighbour local churches, etc, and the Blendeds got wind of his plans.
It's a soul-crushing system. And if someone asks "Who cares?", I reply that God cares. So I speak out.
Re: One Publication
Ah, sorry, I must have skipped over the portion in the Bible that talks about imprints and it's relevance to........oh, nothing.
Drake, the recent Collected Works of Witness Lee alone is 136 volumes. If we assume each volume is 1 inch wide, that is over 11 LINEAR FEET and I believe it's actually quite a bit more than that. Add in all of the rest of Lee's books (and throw in Nee's, too, he's got Lee standing on his shoulders so they are inseparable as far as I'm concerned), and you have the multiple BOOKCASES worth (100? 120? 150 linear feet? I think that is conservative) of Nee/Lee's repertoire found in many saints' homes. Tell me how significant the, shall we be generous, 8 inches (? willing to be corrected here) of McDonough or JPL or Aff Crit are in comparison. They are not a talking point here, sorry. How many HWMR have quotes from McDonough in them? Have you ever heard someone refer to passages from "the ministry" and you turn around and see they actually have a JPL book in their hand?
Your option 1 "trumpeting" these insignificant number of other authors as a percentage of LSM's publication just isn't relevant. They are a sneeze, an afterthought, a tiny sliver and are not part of the "practical expression" (to borrow another meaningless phrase) of the one publication that is absolutely dominated by Nee/Lee.
Your option 2 suggesting there are 2, 3, 4 publication works is not supported by "the One Publication" itself and doesn't go anywhere.
Re: One Publication
This slayed me
Re: One Publication
Hi ZNP,
I've spent some time reading through a lot of posts on this forum and have noticed you sometimes respond similarly ("who cares") in other threads.
I'll start by saying that I don't really disagree with you. I think in most cases, no the LC does not control what books most saints purchase or read, although I have heard cases of what could arguably be labelled the opposite.
On the other hand, there are indisputable cases of saints having their own books or personal blogs or anything that might be labelled "publication" in ANY way shut down by "brothers-in-power that be". This happens. It is a fact. It is wrong.
The Lord will adjust them, either now or at the end, but it doesn't also mean that we agree with or let slide things that are wrong in this age. Although there is a wide spectrum of oppression, LSM definitely dabbles in it, and the Lord was all about freeing those oppressed.
Are you a church kid (either born one or come into the LCs at a young age)? Or did your time there occur as an adult? I believe this makes a difference.
I know someone who touched the church as an adult, went to some meetings and listened to some training messages, and said "I don't agree with enough things they say, goodbye", and left. He came in as an adult, as a young person he was allowed to think critically and make decisions based on what he clearly saw, and knew from life experience that this WASN'T "the center of God's move on the earth" and he was therefore free to leave. So he did. A blip in his life.
This seemingly normal freedom of thought is a foreign thing for me and the type of normal psychological life that I was cheated of, envy very much, and am working hard to attain even as I have very few models around me to pattern after.
I recall one time as a kid I really liked a certain band. Very innocuous music, some unique and varied skills within the group, focused on the technical aspects and tight singing abilities, not sinful lyrics, etc. (Think, like, someone who plays a stringed instrument liking Yo Yo Ma's music). I got it in my head one day to see if I could get the band to play at a concert hall in my city. I got really pumped about the idea and was excited about something for the first time in a long time. I made the mistake of telling one of my parents my idea, thinking they'd share my excitement and support me. Wrong. What I received was a tight-lipped, "Trapped.....do you think the Lord would have you promote this band?"
I was crushed. I mean, crushed. I mean, internally obliterated. Searing shame. The excitement and light in my eyes that hadn't been there in so long anyway went out in a cold wind, and because the Lord was invoked I felt like I was such an evil and sinful person for just wanting to make a few phone calls to some venues to suggest this cool group. This greatly affected my view of God for years and years and years. Along with all the other subtle and overt messages in the church I received that God didn't like to see me smile, this cemented it.
As an adult, I relayed the story to a saint who did not grow up in the church, and their response was, "Pffff, I would have just said to my parents, 'whatever, I don't like your answer, I'm doing it'." I realized they didn't and couldn't understand why I was crushed as a kid. Seeing the situation as it clearly is and vocalizing your disagreement was not an option growing up in the church.
As an adult, I realize my parent's response wasn't a good one. They should have realized it was an innocuous thing, not sinful, not a "promotion" of an evil group, and supported their excited kid in the effort. Now I can see they made a mistake and can forgive them. But it literally took 15 years for me to be able to think critically about the situation.
Anyway that's a poor example to try to show that those who grow up in the church probably literally have their brains wired differently than those who don't, and it is a monumental effort to actually look at something for yourself and decide whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, accurate or inaccurate, from the Lord or not.
If you have the oracle of God, the one man releasing God's up-to-date speaking on the earth, this gem of a difficult to understand old wise Chinese man that for some reason only our little group sees as the minister of the age and the rest of the millions of Christians don't which must mean we are special and chosen and really in the center of the great wheel while everyone else in dark Christianity is flying off the spokes as we crush them.......telling you "truthfully that there is no light in other books", and you are a young impressionable kid who has grown up being conditioned in every way that you must believe the indisputable truth that is being spoken to you from God's lips through a Chinese accent to your ears......there is a problem. And it's a problem that requires that some people speak up.
No LSM doesn't overtly communist Russia control what people read, but they have a deep and far-reaching effect on those who can't think for themselves, and there is a system built up to prevent and discourage anyone in it from thinking for themselves. I received my first non-Nee/Lee Christian book from a dear believer in my early 30s and I was so "Trapped" in my conditioning that I couldn't even open it up and I shelved it on my bookcase immediately quite literally almost wondering if I would be bothered by idols that night as I slept because I dared to have a non-ministry Christian book in my possession. I didn't read it for a year. This was as a FULL BLOWN ADULT IN MY THIRTIES. This is not overt control, but it is deep-seated fear based conditioning.
Getting into the trumpet analogy with Drake and seeing the erroneous application from 1 Cor. 14:8 explains so much of the struggle in my life. For decades I have had my round head hammered into the square peg holes of Lee's writings, rather than into the round peg holes of what the Bible says. No wonder I am bruised and bewildered.
I've been strong-armed my whole life into having to pretend what I am reading and hearing in the ministry matches up with what the Bible says and I see so clearly now that the source of the confusion is not me.
I'd love to say "who cares" like you but because I've lost so much from my youth and young adult years because of crooked speaking and claims like what is in the One Publication, I can't keep quiet anymore.
No one is disputing LSM's right to publish what they want or who they want or restrict themselves to what they want. No one here has any issue with that. The issue is with restricting the saints in the churches to only Nee and Lee. That's all. Having one small paragraph in between many others quietly saying (you are still a local church if you don't take this way) does not allow that the opposite speaking from the rest of the document be let off scott-free. I think you can agree that that restriction is not of the Lord (unless a saint actually feels led from the Lord in that way, then who am I to say, but it actually has to be the actual Lord's leading). LSM does not control the churches. They have no business restricting the saints or the churches to anything, or issuing a statement to that effect. They know the effect they have on people.
Re: One Publication
Hey Drake...I have a feeling your pole is not quite as long as Mr. Z's. (apparently his pole is not so long as to not come and grace us with one of his hit and run, playing devil's advocate, off-topic posts...but hey...that's how the man rolls!)
Care to actually address the topic at hand? No need to actually address what I posted...you never do anyhow. How bout you take a crack at Trapped's last round of posts? Trapped is better than me on his worst day anywho. Go get em champ!
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
"and not just print but video and audio"....yeah, video and audio of WHAT? I'll tell you what...90-95% regurgitation, either literal reading of a footnote or outline or quote/close paraphrase from a published book or message, directly from the mouth of Witness Lee, and ONLY WITNESS LEE...that's what. Drake can jump up and down, and deny the facts all he wants...all the way until the moo cows come home. Does anyone really think quoting from lsm.org is giving anybody the real picture of what is going on during the Local Church meetings? You see, THIS is what Trapped and the rest of us all talking about. Again, most of us know very well that what is stated from the Headquarters over on La Palma Ave in Anaheim, and what is actually taught and practiced on a daily/weekly basis in the local churches, can actually be two totally different things. You see, the dear brothers over at LSM are quite aware of the reputation of the Local Church of Witness Lee with most Christian teachers, apologists, and even the general Christian public - that the words of Witness Lee are often treated on equal plane with the Word of God (and in the case of the epistle of James and some of the Psalms - ABOVE the Word of God) and they try to hide this fact on the publicly available websites.
In regards to the publication of the speakings/writings of Watchman Nee, they are not treated with anywhere near the reverence that is afforded to 李常受; Lǐ Chángshòu; - and they never have been in the West since Witness Lee absconded to our fair shores. So Drake can have a 62 thousand volume set of Nee and it don't mean jack. I would challenge him, or anyone, to bring one of these volumes of Nee to the "prophesying meeting", stand up and read about the part where Nee clearly states that the ministry should be for the church(es) and not the other way around (like it is in the Local Church of Witness Lee). See where that gets him. Most places that would get him a loud rebuke of a sickening monotonic chorus of "ooooooohhhhhhh Llllllloooooorrrrrddddd Jeeeeeeeesuuuuus" from the faithful. Then they would tell him to put down that volume and pick up the outline from "The Ministry", and pray-read point 1) a) v) 6) II) - - "the proclamation of the dispensation of the intrinsic expression of the triune God as the six-fold intensification of the life-giving Spirit (deep breath) in the human spirit of the tripartite man for the building up and expression of the one new man as the living organism (one more breath...almost done!) which becomes the ultimate expression of the corporate God-men consummating in the New Jerusalem". (due to bandwidth limits, and the distinct possibility of contracting carpal tunnel syndrome, I have given the shortened version)
Re: One Publication
Bottom line to me -- if the LC does not control what books you purchase and read who cares. They have the right to publish as many or as few authors as they wish. In this age with Amazon.com, the internet, audible, etc. how could an elder from a local church of a few hundred control what you read? So who cares? If they are otherwise minded from the NT the Lord will show them and adjust them. (now I guess I need to prepare to get whacked)
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
This to many ministers in history was worthy of martyrdom. Remember William Tyndale, who was influenced by Erasmus? Tyndale was betrayed and murdered that we might have the English Bible.
Ironically, and I have mentioned this before, the late Jim Reetzke of Chicago often protested LSM's One Publication Edict saying, "Christians have died for the right to publish." Many in the Midwest thought he was a vanguard of the faith.
Nearly a half millennia after the Reformers, LSM revoked this divine right. They then bribed Reetzke into trading his allegiance to the truths and freedoms of God for printing rights at LSM.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Trumpet
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
An imprint is a trade name of a publisher but its still published by the publisher.
"An imprint of a publisher is a trade name under which it publishes a work. A single publishing company may have multiple imprints, often using the different names as brands to market works to various demographic consumer segments.[1] Wikipedia
In this case Affirmation & Critique is an imprint of LSM. One cannot say LSM is not the publisher of its imprints. You could say that LSM segments the market and publishes under different imprints to reach said market.... that is, publications produced that are fit for purpose. But it cannot be said that a publisher that publishes its imprints is not the publisher of its imprints. That is not logical and is not based on fact and is a distinction without difference.
McDonough is published by LSM, Ministry Magazine is published by LSM, .... and not just print but video and audio are also produced by LSM. Not as some claim that "speakings and writings of Witness Lee (and a scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee)". As we speak I am staring at a 62 Volume Set by Watchman Nee published by LSM. Hardly "scant little" so the whole argument to cast LSM as exclusively publishing one author and imposing those writings on local churches is a misunderstanding at best.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Re: One Trumpet
Ironically, it is totalitarian regimes which also demand one voice, one speaking, one opinion, one publication, etc. Freedom of thought and opinion is a threat to controlling leaders.
Re: One Publication
One Trumpet
Where does it say that one trumpet is required for one certain and clear sound? Why can't many trumpets make one sound? I think of "the sound of many waters" from Revelation 14:2. You have many waters, each making a sound, but they blend together to make one sound. John didn't seem to object to multiple sources for one sound. Why should we?
Conversely the externally derived, one-source-required-for-oneness notion seems a lot like the "oneness" of the Great Harlot, Mystery Babylon. There, they require that everyone have the one seal, else you can't buy and sell. Sounds a lot like a religious book publisher trying to prevent anyone else in the church from publishing. Or is that just a coincidence.
Re: One Publication
Sorry for the intrusion. Please continue.
Re: One Publication
I'd love to agree with you on something (actually I do agree with some of your posts on other threads but just don't have much spare time to say so) but here I have to disagree on both points.
Option 1: One pub which includes many authors:
This DCP website (https://www.afaithfulword.org/contributions/DHo1/) states unequivocally that it is only Nee/Lee: One publication means the "publication of the ministry materials of [Watchman Nee and Witness Lee]" as well as the "ongoing ministry in the Lord's recovery as the extension of the ministry of these two brothers" ( Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery, p. 5).
If the "ongoing ministry" was anything other than refried Nee/Lee then we could talk about many authors, but it is not, it is just repackaged Nee/Lee.
Option 2: 2, 3, 4 publications:
See the two quotes below from the One Pub itself:
According to the practice established by Brother Nee in China, the one publication has always been trumpeted by one practical publication endeavor—in Brother Nee's day by his Gospel Room, during Brother Lee's years after he left mainland China by Taiwan Gospel Book Room, and during his years in the United States by Living Stream Ministry. Today we must be diligent to continue this practice of the trumpeting in the one publication in a practical way through the publication service of Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room. Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room publish both the past ministry that was delivered to us by Brother Nee and Brother Lee and the ongoing, up-to-date speaking that comes out of the fellowship of the blended co-workers and is based on the ministry materials of Brother Lee and Brother Nee. These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lord's recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today.
From the quote above it is clearly stated that one publication is that which is published by LSM.
As much as possible, Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room avoid venturing into other kinds of publications, but according to Brother Lee's own example, occasionally there may be publications of these other kinds which Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room feel to publish either under their own names or under special imprints that serve particular publication needs. For example, Living Stream Books (as opposed to Living Stream Ministry) publishes God's Plan of Redemption by Mary E. McDonough, and A&C Press publishes a translation from French of a scholarly study on deification in the early church.
These other authors are not published by LSM but by totally different entities! LSB and A&C Press. Obviously there is affiliation, but nevertheless they are not published by LSM. By definition this means they are not part of the one publication.
Note the phrase "other kinds of publications". Nowhere does this say that these other authors are part of the one publication.
So from the horse's mouth itself:
1. One publication means the ministry of Nee/Lee and extension thereof.
2. One publication is that which is published by LSM.
3. Other authors are not published by LSM but other entities.
4. Other authors are not part of the one publication but are "other publications".
While you may say, "See! Multiple publications! Not just one!" Welll.......the existence of 2, 3, 4 publications has no effect because the document says the saints should be restricted in "one publication". So even if these other authors (not part of 1Pub) or other publications (not part of 1Pub) exist......the churches are still instructed to restrict themselves to the one publication - i.e. Nee and Lee put out by LSM.
I'm just going by what is written.
P.S. I will give credit to the fact that Mary E. McDonough's book is listed on ministrybooks.org, but it is like a drop in the ocean, come on.
Re: One Publication
I have always understood what brother Lee said. It is not unintelligible (I'm speaking mostly of the analogy here, not the entire document), and it is understandable in its construct. I thoroughly understand the point and the analogy as it is used in the One Pub. It just isn't correct. Nee/Lee's published ministry is not the sounding of the trumpet. It just isn't. That's a non-Biblical claim using a Biblical analogy. Readers are free to disagree. Many do. If it's not correct, it doesn't matter if it's understood because it negates the rest of it.
The orchestra commencement sound was just an illustration to show in an example that most people should have personal experience with (unless everyone here has actually been to battle!) that "many" does not necessarily mean "different" or "confusing". I am clear we are not discussing an orchestra.
Each believer speaking in a meeting is issuing a trumpet sound, according to Paul. He does not say each sound has to be the same or identical in form, function, and sound in every way. Each believer is issuing a trumpet sound. These sounds can come out differently one believer to another. What matters is that the sound is certain. Each believer is sounding. Not an entire entity issuing one sound for a whole affiliated group of believers.
Re: One Publication
Isn't your objection that there is ONE Publication? If they publish Brother Nee, Brother Lee, Mary McDonough, some writings of Jessie Penn Lewis, other authors, the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, Jules Gross, the dozen or so speakers/writers in the periodical Ministry Magazine,etc. etc. then either:
1) There is ONE publication and it includes many authors/speakers/writers
2) There is not just ONE Publication but TWO, THREE, FOUR or more Publications... therefore several pubs for all the writers.
Sorry brother, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is ONE Publication with many authors or there are many Publications for many authors.
Re: One Publication
What happened to both the LC's in Brazil and the Midwest a decade ago was the same. LSM Blendeds stepped in with their agents working for their DCP faction to determine that these LC's were not properly receiving "the ministry." They were not adequately attending LSM's sponsored events. They did not sufficiently purchase LSM's books and materials. They could not be brought under subjection.
LSM and DCP decided whether these LC's were "genuine" LC's, as only they can. Their operatives decided it was time to excommunicate their leaders and file lawsuits to steal their meeting halls and other church assets. They divided churches, families, loved ones. They could care less. Their "vision" of ministry provided them endless justifications for their ambitious ends to justify their non-biblical means.
Today I wouldn't trust an agent from LSM to walk my dog. Their system of loyalty demands them to shipwreck their conscience when it comes to brotherly love.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
We should ask ourselves when does the New Testament ever suggest that one minister on earth possesses the right to call God's people to battle? On the contrary, Paul uses this example of battle trumpets (I Corin. 14.6-11) to expose the reckless practice of tongues in the gatherings of the Corinthian church. Remember this biblical principle: Context is crucial!
Is not this what the Popes have done for centuries, wrongly using Old Testament patterns? Protestant evangelicals have been protesting this false assumption of spiritual power since the Dark Ages. And is it not this false assumption of spiritual power by Rome which thrust the Western world into the Dark Ages.
Moses was never a pattern for a minister or an apostle of the NT church. The Bible clearly tells us that Moses was a notable type of Jesus Christ, our heavenly Prophet, Apostle, and Builder of God's house. (Deut 18.15-19; Acts 3.18-23; Hebrews 3.1-6) Please read the scriptures here!
Both Witness Lee, the Blendeds, and Drake have all erred here. They take a verse out of context and then use it to exalt their "commander-in-chief," bestowing on him certain powers far outside the boundaries of the New Testament. Not only has this practice continually divided the church, but has served to damage thousands of God's children. They have abused and misused this one verse, taken out of context, to exalt themselves, make up this One Publication Edict Bull, and damage thousands of God's people.
Re: One Publication
An orchestra is a fine analogy.... for something else... not a call to battle. In a battle there are certain instruments used to mobilize the troops. Could be a trumpet as the US Calvary used, or a fife and drum as the early American troops used, and those sounds are rehearsed to insure when a soldier hears the sound especially in the heat of battle they know what it means, they know what to do, fight or retreat, assemble.... or take some specific battle action.... as occurred at Jericho....
....., when you say that there were 7 trumpets used at Jericho you are absolutely correct, there were 7 and yet that is a very good example of what multiple trumpets in battle should do... they all sounded out at the same moment and gave the same call for the army to shout in unison.They were not confused precisely because every trumpet issued the same sound, the same implied command (to shout), at the same moment, and as a result the children of Israel were victorious:
"... and when the people heard the trumpet sound, the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat..." Joshua 6:20
That wasn't an orchestra tuning up out there outside Jericho.... though I can imagine an orchestra as a fine analogy for something else but not for what Brother Lee was conveying concerning a call to arms, an enjoining in battle, etc.. Though there were 7 trumpets blowing at Jericho... they produced one sound... "the trumpet sound".... as underlined above, so there was no uncertain sound even though there were 7 trumpets. They all made the one trumpet sound. Not the sound of 6 trumpets and a harmonica.... or 5 trumpets and 2 maracas, or 4 trumpets with 3 others coming from street instruments by Willy and the Po Boys. The whole point of 7 ram's horns is that they were identical in form and function and sound in every way.
I'm not objecting to someone using the analogy of an orchestra... I probably used it myself somewhere along the way.... but that is not the analogy that Brother Lee used so if we want to understand what he meant then we need to explore what he actually said.
Re: One Publication
Okay, I guess we'll get into the trumpet analogy then.
Have you ever attended an orchestra performance? At every one I've ever been to there is a moment before things get started where all the instruments come together into one certain mind-soothing note which silences the entire concert hall and tells everyone exactly what is going on. If you say there can be no certain sounding unless there is only one trumpet and one trumpet only, then you are focusing on the number. You are making the mistake that having more than one trumpet automatically means that there are different tunes and sounds causing confusion.
However, since that example is an orchestra rather than a battle, I'd like to point you to Joshua 6:8, 13, and 16, which do speak of battle:
6 Then when Joshua had spoken to the people, the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams' horns before Jehovah passed on and blew the trumpets...
13 And the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams' horns went before the Ark of Jehovah, continually blowing the trumpets; and the armed men went before them, and the rearguard went after the Ark of Jehovah, the trumpets continually blowing.
16 And at the seventh time the priests blew the trumpets, and Joshua said to the people, Shout! For Jehovah has given you the city.
Here there are seven priests blowing seven trumpets......why isn't the army confused by there being more than one trumpet? All I see is victory.
But we can go back to 1 Corinthians 14 if you want. Verse 8 starts out, "For also if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound..." Verse 10 says, "There are perhaps many kind of voices in the world, and not one is without significance."
Brother Lee's footnote on "voices" says, "In Greek the same as sound in vv. 7-8." Since Paul grants that there are many voices, all of which are significant, and "voices" in 10 is the same as "sound" in 8......then there are many sounds.
There is not just one sound. There is not just one trumpet. Each person speaking is a trumpet, and that speaking should be clear in its utterance. In the analogy, each person's individual speaking is the blowing of their own trumpet "to battle". There is not only one trumpet.
What is the sounding anyway? Is it Christ and Him crucified? Is it the gospel of the kingdom being preached? I hope so. The Bible doesn't speak of a publication or a recovery that needs to be sounded.
P.S. It's not a matter of agreeing with the analogy. It is not like the analogy holds water and I just don't agree with it. The analogy holds water like a sieve so there's nothing to even begin to agree with.
Re: One Publication
Three things to discuss based on your last few points. First, this one.
Again, you may not agree with the analogy but that is plainly what Brother Lee said.
Re: One Publication
I told you I would suspend belief on the analogy but on this point I stopped suspending belief about the analogy, so that's "my bad". You can respond to this point or not.
Re: One Publication
Before moving on we need to clarify what is meant by these comments.
I am not really sure we are disagreeing on the uncertain sound vs sound. It seems the same to me.... whether you are thinking about the trumpet of the tribes of Israel at say Jericho... a horn with a certain sound (a ram's horn)... or you are referring to modern military trumpet with a certain tune fit for purpose (e.g. charge, taps, wake up). What is the distinction you are making here? In either case, the sound or sounding of the trumpet in the example is the same.
On the second point, I don't see any "blatant lie 40 times over". Where in the authors explanation (Brother Lee's) of the trumpet, the sound, the ministry, the analogy of an army, is a blatant lie 40 times over? Point it out using the text of Brother Lee's words. That is what we are discussing at this time. Don't just make an accusation like that without substantiating it....we are having a conversation aren't we?.... we have his words in front of us so do the due diligence and show us exactly where. Just clip it and insert it and bold it. No need to accuse me of leaving out something like I'm trying to hide something. The full text or the relevant parts say exactly the same thing. If not, show me where it differs.
Re: One Publication
That's amazing - even if you suspend belief and close your eyes to the analogy that doesn't hold up, and pretend "it doesn't matter" if you agree with the analogy, even if you go with the program, it STILL doesn't pan out even based on the structure of it's own analogy!! Fantastic.
Re: One Publication
The trumpet is not about having the SAME sound. It is about having a CERTAIN (as opposed to uncertain) sound. Whatever sound you put out, whether flute, or harp, or trumpet, it needs to be certain.
That's a cute quote but the ellipses is telling. It also doesn't mean much to have a few sentences with an accepting tone of generality that are surrounded by paragraphs upon paragraphs of the dead opposite.
This is what is missing:
The title of this message does not say "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord's recovery" but "in the Lord's ministry." I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery, but I am talking about the ministry. The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that.
We have already gone over the claim that the message does not refer to the Lord's recovery, which is a blatant lie 40 times over.
But what on earth does "..when you get into the army....you lose your right to say anything" mean? I can see why you skipped over that. Where in the flip is the Biblical basis for that? All this does is to make sure to shut up the saints who disagree with this ridiculous proclamation but are fearful to leave over it.
ANY ministry that is worth ANYTHING should be able to stand up to opinion and question. The Lord did not run from opinion or question. LSM/Lee/BB's are actually stating the truth when they say "the ministry has no capacity for that [opinion]". Yes, the ministry genuinely and truly has no capacity for anything but blind, unquestioning, unthinking obeisance. It truly has no capacity to handle anything but it's own echo chamber.
Continue on with your explanation. Thanks.
Re: One Publication
Case in point: just read the Recovery's classic text on The Normal Christian Church Life. Before I left the LC in 2005, I carefully studied TNCCL and compared it detail for detail with Lee's leadership after the "New Way," and the Blended's leadership after Lee's death. Nothing matched. Let me repeat. LSM's leadership of the last 30-40 years is totally unrecognizable when compared to Nee's so-called "definitive" book TNCCL.
Perhaps that explains why seeking Christians avoid LSM, where one time they sought out Lee because he was with Nee.
Whatever LSM "has been entrusted by the Lord" can only be described as incoherent "noise" worse than the babble of strange tongues. Obviously the most senior commanders in Nee's army (Chen, Kaung, et. al.) could not understand these signals, since they all went in a direction different than Lee. And, during the so-called "new way," the most senior commanders in Lee's army (Ingalls, Mallon, Fung, So, et. al.) could not understand these signals either. In more recent times, the most senior commanders in the Blended army, (Chu, Dong, Tomes, et. al.) could not understand these signals either.
In conclusion, perhaps no human should ever be considered the commander-in-chief of the Lord's army. Only He has the real "trumpet." Usurp the Lord's rightful place, and He will scatter the troops.
Re: "Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery" doc removed from LSM Websites
I think you are reading too much into it but in any case, no matter what happens I'm convinced that you will find fault with whatever is done. If left as is you will say they are in intransigent, if they clarify you will say they are softening, and if a brand new version is produced that is chocked full of scripture, biblical examples, and historical validation then you'd fault them for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Christian public.
Therefore, know this much my brother...whatever they do, you nor this forum will be its beneficiaries because nothing they can do will change the disposition of our brothers and sisters in this forum toward the Lord's recovery. Because we trust the One who knows the thoughts and intentions of the heart, He who shines, who convicts, and who draws and attracts seeking hearts to Himself to full salvation, in life, in living, and for the kingdom then it only matters that we obey the Masters voice.
Re: One Publication
I can see that Trapped is just "itchin" so in the modus and spirit of dialogue vs speeches.... and of the spirit of Bereans vs. Diotrephes let's continue here. Thanks for your patience.
To recap... my summary explanation above is based on the contents of the opening post, where in the last section, Brother Lee borrows the analogy of an army .. and a military trumpet wherein the sound or notes/tune conveys the specific call to action, in this case to battle. In this analogy the trumpet as the instrument blown to sound out the uncertain call to battle, are the publications that are of the same genre, mostly but not exclusively of two authors (Bros Nee and Lee), a few other historical authors (Mary McDonough, Jessie Penn-Lewis; etc.), and the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, gospel outreach materials, ministry magazine etc. However, regardless of the two most prominent authors, or the other authors, or the variety of "target markets" they each address yet they all have the same "sound" that is, they all convey the same mission, beliefs, truths, and practices to which they have been entrusted by the Lord though their specific focus though emphasis will vary.
I believe Trapped that you will not dispute the point that they are of the same "sound" though in so saying, I'm also certain you don't agree with the analogy, the "sound", or its meaning. Yet again, for our discussion, you nor anyone else are requested to believe it.... rather, it is only relevant that you understand that is what the author (Brother Lee) meant to convey. If you don't think that is what the author meant to convey then explain and we can camp out here for a spell. Else we can probably move on to what you deem a "contradictory statement".
One more thing bears repeating because it is often misunderstood and misstated in this forum. Whether a local church accepts or rejects the ministry and its sounding and its mission does not determine whether it is a local church or not. Brother Lee made that perfectly clear as follows in the opening post:
"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church............ The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry."
Re: One Publication
When this thread picked up a few months ago I did a number of searches on the One Pub and the various criticisms and defenses of it. I had forgotten one point until now, which I'd like to bring Drake's attention.
afaithfulwitness.org is a DCP website. This page speaks of the One Publication specifically: https://www.afaithfulwitness.org/war...notes/note102/
On that page there is a section on Ezra Ma, with some brief points about falsehoods that he stated in a meeting in Brazil, and DCP's short correction of those falsehoods. The first correction states:
Ezra represents Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery as Living Stream Ministry's declaration. It is not. It was composed through much prayer and fellowship among the co-workers in the Lord's recovery from many parts of the earth. Under the co-workers' fellowship it was published by LSM.
DCP clearly and unequivocally states that the One Pub is NOT AN LSM DECLARATION.
So we can stop this clearly nonsensical claim that the One Pub is simply LSM saying what LSM will publish.
Re: "Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery" doc removed from LSM Websites
I did a little exercise just now, and went back to the first post and re-read the first 5 or 6 paragraphs. After every sentence, I asked myself, "Is this something one of the authors of the New Testament would have written?" The answer was a continual and emphatic "no". It kept talking about "our long practice", nothing was supported by scripture. Even phrases like "one trumpet" had nothing to do with the original context, and everything to do with the culture that had usurped it.
Re: "Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery" doc removed from LSM Websites
"Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery" doc removed from LSM Websites?
It now appears that , Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery, also referred to "The One Publication", has been taken down from all known Local Church/Living Stream websites, It is not known exactly when it was removed, but it has been listed as "File or directory not found" for at least a couple of weeks now. Since this is one of the most important, and even foundational, documents/declarations produced by the Blended Brothers, it is doubtful that this is merely a technical glitch.
Are the brothers there on La Palma Ave in Anaheim reconsidering the contents of "Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery"? Are they considering a revamped, edited version to re-release to the local churches? Will they produce a watered down, softened version, which will be a bit more palatable to the saints within the Local Church, and even be presented as a more scriptural declaration to the Christian public at large?
Re: One Publication
Again, the phrase "among us" is another telltale. "At times there may be writings among us that could be considered for publication as part of the one publication among us." Who on earth is "among us" if not the saints in the local churches? If this was about what LSM will publish, it would say "....as part of the one publication LSM PUTS OUT" not "...part of the one publication among us."
And "among us" is NOT the signatories (the blended co-workers), since later in that paragraph it says "those who wish to write in this way should bring their proposals TO the blended co-workers". So the "those" "among us" who wish to write should bring it TO the co-workers. "Among us" is the saints. This document is to restrict the saints.
In speaking of writings individual localities may produce, we get: "These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches." Sorry charlie, the "one publication" is not about what LSM will publish. It is about restricting all the churches to only LSM's publications.
Re: One Publication
So LSM wants to be a monopoly ... every publisher wishes they were the only publisher in the world. That would then produce a captive market.
And that's what LSM has ... every publishers dream. Where's Anti-Trust laws when we need them?
Re: One Publication
By "base note" I think he means the opening post, which is is the entire document Publication Work In The Lord's Recovery
To Drake or any current LC member: If this document is only related to what the Living Stream has restricted themselves in publishing, why does it say that
"all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted"?
(emphasis mine)
Re: One Publication
Drake, what is the base note?
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
If Lee wanted to effectively communicate with his "army" of certain saints inside all of the LC's, there are more effective means. Does the US military shut down all media outlets to communicate with their army? Of course not!
If Lee or the Blendeds wanted targeted communications to their "soldiers," there are all forms of communications which are far superior. Think special meetings, group emails, mass mailings, text messages, podcasts, video conferencing, etc.
Silencing other voices, on the contrary, are the tactics of totalitarian regimes. They demand control over all information. They become threatened by other voices, especially those which sound harmoniously and symphonically clear as compared to the oftentimes muddled and conflicted sounds from LSM.
Drake, you constantly claim that opposers to LSM take their words "out of context." Think about what Lee did to Apostle Paul's words here. The context was confusion in church gatherings resulting from tongues. Instead LSM has used this over the years to excommunicate their own people. How does that make sense?
Re: One Publication
Continue in your explanation. The foundation of the analogy drawn is unsupported, but I will "suspend belief" in order to hear your explanation through to the end. We can get into the analogy, or other issues that come up, later.
Re: One Publication
How about the One Publication is simply not scriptural?
1Cor. 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when you come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to edifying.
How can everybody bring an interpretation of scripture if it is 'preinterpreted' by Lee? I know this sounds crazy to the LCers but the interpretation the body requires for edification is of Gods' word, not the word of Witness Lee. And not holy scriptures deciphered for all by king lee.
Drake and LSM are trying to feed Gods' children a lie. The army, Gods' army, is composed of those who hear the trumpet call which lies within the domain of the one publication? What a load of horse apples. According to Drake there are they in the Lords Recovery who heed the call and enter into the Lords Army while the rest of the believers are the civilians!?! I tell you, anyone teaching this is going to fall on their face before the Lord Christ someday and repent for this.
The more I learn about the system I escaped, the more I pity those inside.
To Lee and LSM I say this,..........1Cor. 14:36 WHAT? CAME THE WORD OF GOD OUT FROM YOU? OR CAME IT TO YOU ONLY?
Re: One Publication
Either way is okay by me.
Re: One Publication
This is so fascinating. So, so fascinating!
Of course since my neurons and synapses fire similarly to everyone else's, I do understand mentally the analogy you describe. The problem is the analogy draws from something other than the One Publication: the Bible. And in reading the portion of the scriptures that it draws from, the analogy literally just isn't there. If the very foundation of the analogy falls apart at the outset (i.e. there is no such thing as "the one trumpet" based upon the very verses from which the trumpet motif is taken), what on earth is the point in trying to build anything upon it?!
If I took 1 Corinthians 14:7 and said "since there is a flute and a harp there must be an orchestra. We must have the one flute in the one orchestra for the one symphony in the Lord's recovery. Please note that if you do not play in this one orchestra, it does not mean you are not a musician, but who should ever listen to your music if you are not in the one orchestra? There is no benefit there and any sound you produce must be carefully discerned before listening." And the One Publication became a proclamation that the saints in the churches should only buy CDs and mp3s of the music put out by the "One Orchestra". What would you do?
I hope you would say, "Whoa, whoa......hold on. There is no "One Orchestra". The verses are not talking about having an orchestra! It's talking about speaking in an orderly way in the meetings. I'm not going to go buy a tuba and learn how to play the tuba because brother Lee misapplied or overapplied the analogy of the sound of a flute when Paul was comparing the sound it made to the sound of a believer's sharing in a meeting!"
Same concept for the army. If you wouldn't entertain the concept of a One Orchestra based on 1 Cor. 14:7, why entertain the concept of a one trumpet being the One Publication based on 1 Cor. 14:8?
Now I understand other posters' reference to the king without clothes. It's like......."psssst....but....they're not there! The clothes aren't there! The analogy, the inference, the extrapolation......it isn't there! Why is there a big gathering and parade and push to celebrate the king's clothes when there are no clothes? Why are we being "called" by brother Lee to gather around the extrapolation of an analogy that isn't there and that the Lord isn't calling us to?"
It is so fascinating. There are some people for whom all things must make logical sense in order to build upon it. There are others who can dismiss the logic and keep building. I am the former. I cannot do the latter.
Re: One Publication
Let me provide some LC history: After Lee passed away in 1997, Titus Chu in Cleveland tried to work together with LSM according to W. Lee's own vision and direction. Titus Chu had every Midwest worker and elder read all of Lee's pertinent books related to crucial items concerning "the work, the workers, the ministry, etc." Reams of documents were produced and studied by Midwest leaders. Titus Chu looked up to W. Lee as his "spiritual father," and earnestly desired to continue in his footsteps. TC hand delivered these documents to leading Blendeds for further fellowship. To the best of their knowledge, everything was thrown into the garbage. The Blendeds had no desire to fellowship.
These documents of quotes taken from LSM's own books showed that Lee himself was all over the map concerning these topics. His own quotes one day could be extremely generous, and on another day extremely controlling. Take "Publications" for example. Sometimes Lee encouraged other brothers to write, other times he shut them all down. He fluctuated like the weather in Ohio -- "if you don't like it, just wait a minute, and it will change."
Talk about uncertain sounds of a trumpet! There was nothing certain when it came to the ministry and direction of Lee! He often ministered on whims, like riding the winds and waves of a tempest in the LC teacup. It's like he was speaking in tongues and only the Blendeds could "properly" interpret! Lee manufactured crises, and then manufactured teachings to explain his crises. The history of Lee is filled with these stories. The call for battle from Lee and LSM was never positive. Rather every call to battle signaled another round of excommunications!
That's why Drake has little credibility here. Posters like Trapped, leastofthese, ZNP, and UntoHim regularly dismantle his faulty logic built on sinking sand. Read his posts carefully and you will identify the deceptive mindsets that caused us all to flee that system of error.
Re: One Publication
Our friend Drake wants us to believe The One Publication was produced in a vacuum. He also wants us to believe that it was written by some people who are merely employees of a publishing company. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Let us never forget what the true mandate of Living Stream Ministry really is. It is a California corporation whose sole purpose to be "brother Lee's continuation". The leadership of this California corporation is composed of men who have sworn total allegiance to the person and work of Witness Lee. They have dubbed themselves as "The Blended Brothers". These men function very much like the college of Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church (sans the funny hats!) These are the men who produced The One Publication.
Drake would also have us believe that the Living Stream Ministry is a separate entity from "the local churches". This is even farther from the truth than the myth of LSM simply being a publishing company. The leaders of LSM ARE THE LEADERS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH OF WITNESS LEE. These men dictate what will and will not be disseminated and "fellowshipped" in the various local churches. No local church is considered as "a genuine local church" without following the dictates from these Blended Brothers. Again, to be clear, these are the men who produced the One Publication.
Carry on Trapped, you're doing a great job. Just be careful of letting Drake take you down one of his bottomless rabbit holes.
Re: One Publication
Understand that in trying to help answer your inquiry about two apparently contradictory statements in a single document I am conveying the authors (plural) thoughts in context. They are not contradictory in my understanding but they are in yours so this is a conversation to give my best shot at explaining how I see it and then you can do what you like with it.
So, to that end, besides the part you understand quoted above do you also understand how Brother Lee used the analogy of an trumpet to assemble an army with no uncertain sounding as the ministry (trumpet) with One Publication (as the uncertain component) and how that "sounding" is a call to the churches to assemble (as an army) for battle?
If so, from the base note last section do you also understand how Brother Lee made the distinction of an army in a country as being distinct in purpose and function from the civilians though both are part of the same country?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the analogy. In this conversation between us it doesn't even matter if you accept the application of I Corinthians 14:8 in the analogy. All that matters is if you understand how the author understood and explained it.
I'll pause here for your confirmation before proceeding. So far, we have only discussed one of the contradictory statements but once we understand this one we will juxtapose with the other.
Re: One Publication
I am so glad you brought up 1 Corinthians 14:8 because this has helped me so much to see even more how Biblical phrases are taken, twisted, and misapplied.
Those verses in 1 Corinthians 14 are about the measure of the profitability of speaking being contingent upon the clarity of that speaking. The example of a trumpet in battle, just like the preceding example of a flute or harp in a non-military setting, is simply to show that if what is expressed is not clear, people don't know what to do with it or how to respond.
The trumpet is the speaking (in tongues (?) or with a word "easy to understand" that accompanies the tongues) in a meeting. The emphasis in those verses also has absolutely nothing to do with a restriction on the number of musical instruments (i.e. the "one trumpet"), but rather, an exhortation concerning the clarity or the "certainness" of the sound produced. It is about the quality of the sound, not the number of the instruments.
Since the trumpet is the speaking, it is worthy to note that Paul says he desires that we ALL speak in tongues and prophesy (1 Cor. 14:5). This chapter would then seem to indicate that there can be many trumpets, as long as they are certain in sound and express themselves becomingly and in an orderly way (1 Cor. 14:40). He does NOT say that there should only be one speaking ("one trumpet"), just that there be an order to the speaking.
I disagree with your statement that the army is for the churches. The army IS the church.
I can be sufficiently on board with the rest where you differentiate between the Lord's recovery being all the churches versus the ministry being one part of it.
Re: One Publication
This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).
I'm not done but I'll pause as I would if we were speaking face to face. Does the paragraph above make sense? Good so far?
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
As far as the controlling of the reading material in the LC I can only speak of my experience, and that of other brothers I was close to, even some of them condemned some of the books I was reading.
In the c. in Ft. Lauderdale, for example, some brothers held their fingers in the shape of a cross, like expelling the devil, because I was reading John Nelson Darby.
I was a big time reader when I came into the c. in Santa Cruz. At the time I was reading 5 books. About a month or so after coming in, and joining a service group, the elders sent a brother to tell me that reading those books wasn't allowed in the local church.
So from the time I joined to the time I left I was told what to read and what not to read.
By comparison, brother Drake's local church sounds great. But my experience, knowing the ways of the local church, tells me that it's prolly just a bait and switch sales pitch.
Re: One Publication
If you could still clarify the contradiction, it would help me. I genuinely do not see how post 222 addresses the contradiction in post 206.
I have read through the One Pub many times, both with a critical mind and my best attempt at an open mind. What jumps out at me in both types of approaches is the assertion that it is NOT talking about something in the Lord's recovery, and yet the document is heavily studded throughout with the phrase "in the Lord's recovery". In fact, "in the Lord's recovery" is repeated 21 times, and "Lord's recovery" and "His recovery" are there an additional 16 times in other various forms for a total of almost FORTY REFERENCES to the Lord's recovery in a proclamation that claims that its contents are not talking about something in the Lord's recovery.......
Drake, this is a critical point, which I will explain below, poorly I am sure, given that I have had a long day.
Towards the end of the One Pub itself (above the signatories, before the Ministry Portions section), there is a paragraph whose first sentence clearly links "the ministry" to "the one publication" (italics mine):
Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith but something related to the one ministry in the Lord's recovery.
The entire One Publication also makes it clear that the "one publication" of LSM refers to brother Nee and brother Lee's messages. This is quite literally LSM's stated purpose, so this cannot be denied.
So: "the ministry" = "one publication" = "Nee and Lee's writings".
After equating the ministry with the one publication, the very next paragraph in the document says this:
Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord's recovery" but "in the Lord's ministry." I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery, but I am talking about the ministry...
Given that "the ministry" was just equated to "the one publication" which is Nee and Lee's writings, this paragraph is saying that if a certain church does not take Nee or Lee's ministry, that fact does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. Great! The next sentence backs up that point by saying "see....look....we are just talking about the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry.....we're not talking about the one trumpet in the Lord's recovery!!!" In other words, since this message says "in the Lord's ministry" and not "in the Lord's recovery", the restriction being stated here (a church going along with one publication) does not determine whether a local church is genuine or not.
Except.....that's not true. It's not true 40 times over. The title of the One Publication DOES say "in the Lord's recovery". "The Lord's recovery" is the backdrop against which the One Publication is painted, it is the setting upon which is couched, it is the overarching theme from which it cannot be divorced. I am not making that claim in a vacuum.....the almost 40 references to the Lord's recovery within the document itself make that undeniable.
What this implies, using basic logic and human understanding, is that if the One Publication IS talking about something "in the Lord's recovery" then the first sentence of the paragraph would be rendered untrue.....in other words, if the One Publication IS talking about something "in the Lord's recovery", this would mean that a church's taking Nee or Lee's writings DOES determine whether that church is a genuine local church.
Since the One Pub IS forty-fold talking about something in the Lord's recovery, the unfortunate conclusion that this generates, is that if you do not take Nee or Lee........you are not a genuine local church.
It is not a stretch in any sense of the word to arrive at this conclusion based solely on what is presented. And guess what? I did it all by staying within the confines of the document itself and without bringing in any of the actual history of the local churches to support the conclusion or launch an attack. I guess you could say I was "restricted in One Publication"........
Re: One Publication
Not sure what to add for either Trapped.... in 222 I explained how a statement could apply to a ministry (1st paragraph) and the Lords recovery (rest of document). I further illustrated that my opinion might very well represent the majority of believers in the local churches and so in stating my view I could also state it in the plural. However, if the statements read contradictory and are unclear then it would have been better to clarify them. Yet, I think how the statements are taken depends on how one is predisposed. I see no problem.
In 243 1st paragraph I stated Gods truths are His and so anyone can publish. Anyone is anyone. As I later stated to Untohim, LSM are not obligated to publish anyone's teachings. Many say that they agree with that but then swing the conversation right back to irrelevant points concerning the One Publication. So, I assume people truly misunderstand what the One Publication is about.
Look, I think the One Publication document is being leveraged to launch points of attack on the Lords recovery that have nothing to do with the One Publication. I'll give you credit for a detailed examination but you realize the dynamic that goes on in this forum right? We could have a conversation but the dynamic doesn't really lend itself to that. But, maybe if I'm not still clear on my answers to your questions we could shorten the Q&A between us.
Re: One Publication
Ah, I see, I did not realize that post 222 was an attempt to explain the (apparent) contradiction detailed in 206.
After reading it again, it seems like 222 is really more an attempt to explain what the phrase "one publication work in the Lord's recovery" means, rather than to clearly explain the opposing statements of "I am not talking about the Lord's recovery, but the Lord's ministry" vs the frequent reference to "....in the Lord's recovery" in the One Publication as described in 206. Can you speak more to the reconciliation of these contradictory thoughts that permeate the document?
My response to your 222 also involved a number of questions concerning prior publications and principles related to those publications in earlier eras of the Lord's recovery; you labelled those questions as "relevant" but did not say anything specific concerning those particular questions. I'm interested in your answers to those questions too.
Re: One Publication
Actually I missed your latest post so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I answered the apparent contradiction statement in post 222.
Let's pick it up from there.
Re: One Publication
"We do not need to control the saints, and even more we do not need to stop them from reading what they want."
Thanks for the posting.
Not sure how much clearer this above statement can be. Anyone with pure intentions can see that there is no desire to control what saints read.
As to the rest, it provides insight as to why the LSM publishes what it publishes and it also shows shepherding in the truth for young ones. It would be irresponsible to just tell young ones to go out there and read anything they fancy as if it were all about the same. It's not.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Yet, this thread is about the One Publication document so:
...please show us from the One Publication document where it says members have to read only Brother Lee...
.. ain't there...
Please show us from the One Publication document where it says members cannot own or read any other authors..
.. ain't there....
Please show us from the Bible were we are to only publish the Bible
..ain't there....
In case you are wondering why I am having these conversations then I suggest you read the basenote.... it is about the ONE PUBLICATION document.. it is not about what an elder said to you, it is not about what you want to believe about preferences in ministries in the local churches, it is not about what Mormons, Catholics, or JW's, publish.... those are completely irrelevant and a fallacy (it looks like this so it must be the same thing)... it is not about who was quarantined and the reasons for it...
....and ain't about green cheese.
Here the problem, the "One Publication" conversation in this forum is not about the One Publication document and its content.... rather, it is about the things you think are related to it..... it is similar to a Russians allegation.... no other explanation will even be considered because the Russians are involved... let's make everything about the One Publication and yet when you actually read the One Publication document it says none of the things you say it means. Now why is that? Why is it that you, rather than demonstrate from the content of the document itself derive all these evil things from it? Why, can't you stop yourself from doing that?
Now, perhaps you can cease and desist with all the generalizations and show me FROM THE ONE PUBLICATION DOCUMENT where it says what you say it does.
If not, then you are merely engaging in Russian like conversations.... effective perhaps at generating some heat... but no light.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
No one has ever said that LSM cannot pick and choose what they publish! They are a business. They can print whatever they want to. Everyone acknowledges this. This has never been a point of contention. This is a manufactured crisis! . Or, as you love to say, a "straw man" argument.
On the contrary, the "One Publication" decree which LSM initiated back in the early 2000's, had the motive to bring ministers like Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lan under subjection to LSM -- or else! The motives behind this decree were no different than the Papal Bulls of the Dark Ages -- bringing supposed "heretics" under subjection.
Re: One Publication
I can't speak to your experience and why the elder demanded that you read only Brother Lee's books. It really baffles me because I have never seen an elder or a leading one exhibit that attitude or behavior in my four decades + about what anyone can read. It's a ridiculous demand and expectation because it goes contrary to the observation above and even if an elder were predisposed to controlling others in that way it is impossible to enforce.
Anyway, here's the thing. The "One Publication" is not about what one can read... it is about what LSM will publish under the banner of the ministry they are entrusted with. Every publisher reserves the right to publish what they feel responsible to the Lord for. I don't see any demands in the One Publication that forbids anyone from reading and owning whatever they like.
And finally, in UntoHim's argument he borrowed the "One Publication" term to make a different point, that being that the ONLY publication we as Christians should have is the Bible. So for you my friend, better get all Fahrenheit 451 with those John Piper books you treasure.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
LSM used their One Publication policy to excommunicate numerous ministers and divide dozens of churches. When has another book publisher ever done that in the course of church history?
It's good that you have the 37 volume Church Fathers set. Which denomination has ever demanded that their member churches read only from that set? When did the Publisher of that set decide to excommunicate ministers who did not teach from only that set?
I do wish you would be a little more straight forward and address the real concerns here, rather than going down rabbit holes like claiming other posters are demanding that ONLY the Bible be read.
Re: One Publication
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
The Bible is very clear that everyone should proclaim Christ, regardless of whether or not you are an apostle commissioned with "completing the word of God" or not.
I have no issue with LSM exercising editorial oversight. Nor is there anything unscriptural about reading spiritual books, it is all part of "the mind set on the Spirit".
The only concern I would have would be the alarm Paul raised in Galatians: 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!
The perversion of the gospel is astonishingly common. It seems everyone does it. WN and WL complained of many examples of the gospel being perverted in Christianity. This forum is examining the doctrines of WL to see if they also "desert the one who called us to live in the grace of Christ".
WL emphasized repeatedly that his message was "different" from Christianity. The question many of us have is was his message different from the gospel?
Also, these Judaizers insist on circumcision because they are afraid of being persecuted by other Jewish religious leaders. It's one thing to agree that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but to teach that circumcision is not necessary will paint a target on their backs. Paul knew that from hard experience! So they take the easy way out and do both. Paul has taught clearly that the two cannot go together (Galatians 5:4).
It seems to me that the perversion of the gospel takes place when people choose the easy way out. King Saul did this when he did not obey. Abraham did not do this when he offered up Isaac. WL took the easy way out when he covered up WN's sin, he did it again with the Sister's rebellion, and he did it again in the 80s with JI, etal.
Re: One Publication
Your argument against supplemental publications is weak.
I am staring at a 37 Volume Church Fathers Set as I type this response... the earliest written almost 1900 years ago. Should those have not been written and published?
Even those who claim to only use the Bible are beneficiaries of the many writings of faithful brothers and sisters who wrote volumes about the Bible. It sounds really spiritual to say one only reads the Bible but in reality there are very few who do or will derive a lot from it for the simple reason that the Lord speaks through the many members and the gifted ones.
Now if you are such a person who reads one publication and only one, that is the Bible, then good for you. You and the Bible got your own thing going. Yet, if the truths that the Lord has released through many faithful servants were not captured in print then those truths would have been lost. Bible Truth Publishers printed early Brethren writings, Loizeaux printed some also, more recently Conley & Schoettle bring us Govett, Pember, Panton, .. well, I think each of these publishers and others did the church a great service by publishing writings that are interpretations of the Bible. The printing press brought good and bad but at least those ideas are not just relying on word of mouth to pass on the ideas.
Look, you might be a really smart and spiritual person and just by reading the Bible you might have seen everything the Lord showed those faithful servants..... but most of us are not like that. I for one am very happy that those teachings and explanations were captured in print. Now I can read for myself what the Lord showed them and have new conversations with the Lord about those too. They will never replace the Bible and the Holy Spirit but it is a false argument to argue that printed supplemental messages and articles should not be printed. I'm not naive enough to think that what the Lord will reveal to me is everything He only revealed to me directly.
... and a happy new year to you too.
Re: One Publication
When someone asks most people, perhaps even the majority of those outside of any Judeo-Christian context, or even those outside of any faith at all: "What would you consider as the 'one publication' of the Christian faith"? I would guarantee you that the vast majority would answer "Why, the Bible of course". But the rubber really only meets the road when one ventures a follow up question: "So you only use the Bible?....you have no other supporting or supplemental publications?"
Different, yet similar, answers will come forth from a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, a member of Christian Science, a Seventh Day Adventist, and finally a Roman Catholic (I'll stop the list here for the sake of brevity!) The follow up answer from the Mormon would quickly be "The Book of Mormon". The follow up answer from a Jehovah's Witness would be "The Watchtower and Awake!" The follow up answer from the Christian Science person would be "Science and Health". The follow up from the Seventh Day Adventist would be "The Pillars of Adventism". The answer from the Roman Catholic would be "The authority and traditions of the Church". (Interestingly enough, a similar answer would come forth from any orthordox Jew - "We hold the Talmud as equal to the Torah".)
Now let's ask any good brother or sister in The Local Church: "What is the one publication of the Local Church(es)?". After giving you a stern mini-lecture about how "the Local Church is NOT our name...it is only a description of how we meet!"...most will set off into a world-class tirade of obfuscation, evading and avoiding (aka shucking and jiving) and just a general denial that they they have any other "one publication" besides the Bible.
Why the obfuscation? Why the evading and avoiding? Why the denials of what is the manifest and undeniable fact? Why do they not proudly proclaim that they have another one publication besides the Bible - like the Mormons do? Like the Jehovah's Witnesses do? Like the Christian Scientists and Seventh Day Adventists do? Like the Roman Catholics do?
Well, the answer is obvious to even the most casual of objective observers. The Local Church of Witness Lee, at least in recent history, wants to be considered as "orthodox, evangelical Christians". They have even joined previously condemned and mocked organizations such as the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. Ironically, if the Local Church/Living Stream had honestly presented their views, beliefs and understandings regarding the personal ministry of Witness Lee, they would have been soundly rejected for membership in the ECPA. Why? For the same reasons as the ECPA rejects the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholics - They have another "one publication" besides the Holy Bible.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Happy New Year, by the way. Hope all is well with you and yours.
Re: One Publication
Thanks for the well wishes; same back to you.
Thanks for categorizing my questions as relevant. How would you respond to them in particular?
I'll respond to this post soon, but am sad to see you have returned to waving the "it's just a publisher saying what it will publish" flag when I was pretty sure we'd gotten past that as we delved into why the Lord's recovery was featured as such a prominent backdrop if it's just a letter from a publisher just stating what it will publish.
I don't see much profit in going any further until you round out the line you started in post #206 where you were going to provide your thoughts on the contradiction of "I am not talking about the Lord's recovery, just the ministry" and the repeated phrase of, for example, "one trumpet in the Lord's recovery". You paused at the end of that post and never picked it back up to throw your explanation out there. I'd like to understand how you rationalize the contradiction you detailed out extensively in that post; that will help me in further correspondence with you about this.
Re: One Publication
Isn't it easier to just answer these simple questions rather than play your silly games?
Re: One Publication
Apparently you aren't following the discussion LofT. I've already addressed that point.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
That was a big mistake and I was so new in the LC I had no idea I had said something wrong. The ramifications included being called into a meeting with the elders of the church in Houston and being told I had 2 strikes against me and was on the verge of being excommunicated. This was right after the whole Max episode and several other saints from Houston had already been excommunicated.
But on the other hand you are right, no one "openly" demanded that I only read WL books. It was up to me to figure out what the "two strikes" were that they were talking about.
Likewise we were strongly encouraged to use footnotes and WL quotes from his books in our testimonies. No one "demanded" this but "strongly encouraged" is an accurate and fair description.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
Don't take my words out of the context in which I spoke them. If you disagree with the context in which I spoke that statement then explain why. Happy to discuss under those circumstances.
You make the same points over and over but you don't need to recast my words to do it, do you?
Re: One Publication
"Though anyone can teach, preach and publish the divine truths"? Really? Who's the "anyone" you speak of here? Please be specific. Also, please relate this to what is practiced in the Local Church, since that is the theme of this thread, and indeed the the theme of this forum. Forget about John Piper. Forget about Zondervan. They are poor, poor Christianity. Stick to the subject at hand.
Re: One Publication
This is a bogus straw man argument that has nothing to do with the actual historical actions of LSM's Blendeds who instituted their One Publication Policy to silence Titus Chu and bring him under subjection to LSM.
Ironically, using Drake's wild example about John Piper, the only case I know of usurping the so-called "mantle" of the former head of a Christian Publisher is Hank Hannegraff. Read the story of how he took over Walter Martin's Christian Research Institute and then milked it dry for his own personal gains.
Re: One Publication
This was the point: Some here like John Piper.... but if anyone here went to the publisher and the producer of John Piper's work and said they were a successor to John Piper and his ministry, or that their messages should be published because they are part of the ministry of John Piper, or demand that John Piper recognize them and also publish their work then Mr. Piper and those responsible for his ministry, publications, etc. would have a good chuckle.... rightfully.
Re: One Publication
But Piper would never call himself as the Minister of the Age. He would not demand his followers @Desiring God Facebook page to read only his books.
Re: One Publication
Regarding the quarantines of Titus Chu of Cleveland and Dong Yu Lan of Brazil, the following are true:
Re: One Publication
Happy 2019 to you and yours.
Your questions are relevant. Bottom line is that God's truths are His truths and are not the exclusive rights of any minister or ministry. Once released into the public domain they are for all of God's people.
But that is not what we are talking about and the objections about "one publication" are not about that.
Though anyone can teach, preach, and publish the divine truths that have been released through all the servants you mentioned and others that God has raised up in recent years those same people cannot demand that their teachings and writings be published by the ministry that bears responsibility for publishing them!
In other words, if the publisher (LSM in this case) does not want to publish anyone's teaching then they are not obligated to. Neither can anyone claim to be a successor of the brother or brothers through whom the Lord spoke and released certain truths. Anyone can teach, preach, post, blog, and publish all they like about divine truths the Lord has released through others or spoken to them directly. Yet no one is obligated to accept, much less publish, those messages. And yet again, if a publisher, also in this case LSM, chooses to ONLY publish the messages, writings, of a certain minister(s) then they not only have the right to limit their mission but have an obligation before the Lord as well.
Some here like John Piper.... but if anyone here went to the publisher and the producer of John Piper's work and said they were a successor to John Piper and his ministry, or that their messages should be published because they are part of the ministry of John Piper, or demand that John Piper recognize them and also publish their work then Mr. Piper and those responsible for his ministry, publications, etc. would have a good chuckle.... rightfully.
One publication is not a statement about what is to be read.... but about the mission of what will be published.
Re: One Publication
And they all have their publishing. I have among my books, publishing from many of them. I have JW publishing's, and Mormon, and even publishing's by Scientology. And some LC publishing's too. They all have their publishing. The LC is no different. And their's is not better than all the rest ... except in their own self aggrandizing -- our-tribe-is-better -- delusions.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
LSM admits the widespread revelation, even promotes it, pre-Nee:
Where did all these 3,000 Christian classics come from? How many separate Christian publishing or dissemination entities?
It reminds me of the 1997 edict: "The Age of Spiritual Giants is over"; they make up rules as they go along, and expect universal compliance, and people are supposed to act like it's self-evident truth. Well, it's not. It is at best, questionable. Lo and behold, websites and online forums spring up, and anonymous posters ask questions.
Re: One Publication
Please forgive my analogy handicap. Ask any of my high school English teachers about how bad I was with anything metaphorical. I much prefer dealing in the concrete.
Thank you for detailing that out in such a clear way. It is wonderful the Lord has recovered so many of His truths. I am sure the Lord wants His truths to be spread throughout the earth.
You mentioned Luther. The Lord entrusted Martin Luther with the recovery of the crucial truth of justification by faith. As you described very clearly, this is part of the Lord's recovery. Who was and is allowed to publish this recovered truth? I ask the same question of the truths the Lord recovered through Guyon, Wesley, Darby, etc. They are part of the Lord's recovery. Who did at the time, and can presently, write about, publish, and spread the truths that the Lord recovered through those servants?
The Lord's truths recovered through these servants have over the years been published by a variety of sources and the benefit of that has been immeasurable and far-reaching. Where did the principle of only one entity publishing recovered truths materialize from this late in the game? That has not been the principle set forth by the Lord for the handling of any of His previous recovered truths. Has God changed His principles?
In the most real sense possible, the truths recovered by the Lord do not belong to Luther, Guyon, Wesley, Darby, JPL, Nee, Lee, LSM, or to the blended co-workers. These truths are simply what the Bible states and reveals. They belong to the Lord and are revealed in His timing to those He chooses. If there are others who want to publish and propagate the precious truths as recovered by the Lord in the last 100 years through his servants Nee and Lee, why should LSM seek to restrict or denigrate the publication and spread of these recently recovered truths by claiming all others who seek to do so are void of light? They are, as you say, every believer's heritage. What purpose does it serve to go through the hassle of stating that anyone else who publishes these same truths of the Lord are "not part of the one publication in the Lord's recovery"? Did Martin Luther only want justification by faith spread to mankind as long as he was the only one publishing this wonderful truth?
"Let His word run....."
Re: One Publication
But at the same time, why don't we say that Witness Lee putting his admittedly nonspiritual sons in positions where they could (and did) repeatedly stumble church members showed us something of his inner state, his attitude or "heart" (the typical LC metric to assess others' motives - "his heart was dark"); and when current LSM President Benson Philips was railroading the Rapoports or the Andersons or other scapegoats, it showed us something of his motives, and so forth?
Why is it that the Ascended Master's actions, or those of his lackeys, always get put into some judgment-free zone, while everyone else gets castigated for their admittedly poor motives? Again, the parable in Matthew 18 of the servant harshly judging others while begging his own indulgence comes to mind.
Re: Excellent Polemic on "The One Publication"
This was after a recruiting binge in which we were told if we all did such-and-such, we'd each get 2 new ones per year who'd get two more &c and the "recovery" would fill the earth and Lord would return in 15 years.
Then, there'd be a "storm" or some big disappointment and WL would make a remark like he didn't care how many left and how many stayed, as long as those who stayed were pliable.
The One Pub Bull was the Blendeds letting the rank-and-file know that even though the Ascended Master was gone, nothing had changed: recruit everyone you can, and we'll drive out all who aren't immune to ministry excesses and abuses.
Meet the new boss. .
Re: Excellent Polemic on "The One Publication"
LC history has long been filled with these "storms," or as TC would call them periods of "self-destruction." There was a time when I considered every storm was an attack by God's enemy. Later I felt that we were our own worst enemy, and like TC that we had serious internal issues which caused our somewhat regular "self-destruct" events.
Now I see the LC's following the same Exclusive Brethren pattern of "purging." Leadership would make unsavory decisions, offensive to most, apparently just to see who would stick it out to the end. They manufactured a crisis where none existed. Draw a line in the sand, and force everyone to choose sides. Think back to every other storm -- some notable leader(s) would be forced out. Whether TA Sparks, Max et.al., Ingalls, Mallon, So, Dong, Chu, the "storm" was manufactured to purge apparent rivals, just like what the Exclusive Brethren have done.
Re: Excellent Polemic on "The One Publication"
It's a very powerful thought-control programme; people who feel the first adrenaline rush of being loved, needed, wanted, of having all the answers at hand, need to be warned what it's like once you get inside. You literally lose the ability to think. Everything becomes conditioned response. The "One Publication" edict is an initial attempt, post-Lee, to intimidate any who might presume to use their God-given mental faculties.
Re: One Publication
Re: Excellent Polemic on "The One Publication"
The teachings of Lee have become their pipeline, their "filter," their mediator, their advocate with the Father.
The Son of Man is outside, at the door knocking, waiting for some to open the door and dine with Him.
Re: One Publication
Our readers can still note that the fact of Chu & Dong being permanently banned from this group, after spending decades toiling on its behalf, subsequent to the "one publication work" edict, remains in front of us, however you wish to characterize my attitude.
Excellent Polemic on "The One Publication"
Former Local Church member, Philip van Dijk of the Netherlands, recently produced this polemic regarding the One Publication Document.
By Philip van Dijk
21 December 2016
The blended brothers of Living Stream Ministry's fixation with using only one publication, only one evangelistic method, only one gold bar translation i.e. the Recovery Version of the Bible etc. as a testimony for others outside the Lord's Recovery had becoming increasingly clearer in my mind and in my spirit after reading through their document at www.lsm.org/onepublication:
The following words are found in Paul's and Sosthenes' first letter to the Corinthians:
'... Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are different ministries, but the same Lord. And there are different results, but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all ...' (NET)
From the above mentioned passage these brothers revealed that there are different ministries (i.e. kinds of service) within the body of Christ and not that there is only one ministry as claimed within the above mentioned document.
The New Covenant Scriptures are completely silent concerning what believers publish in writing regarding their one faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
After rereading the document, I was immediately struck by the following texts, that had not struck me the first time when I had read it, as being indeed seriously questionable:
'... In a meeting with the brothers to whom he committed the responsibility for Living Stream Ministry, Brother Lee said, My burden is for the recovery based on the interpretation of Brother Nee and me. I am the continuation of Brother Nee; I would like to have a continuation of me, and this needs a corporation ... The Living Stream corporation will continue this ministry (from unpublished notes of a meeting of Living Stream, July 12, 1996). He placed the direction of this corporation for the continuation and publication of the ministry in the hands of a group of blended brothers, who labor to fulfill this charge before the Lord ...'
'... In every way, this practice of passing everything that we publish through a discerning check is best for all of us and best for the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lords recovery today '
(1) What really bugged me after rereading the document was: Where is the Headship and the Lordship of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself in this specific recovery if it truly belongs to Him and Him alone?
(2) If the Lord's Recovery is, as our brother Witness Lee claims, nothing more than a burden based on an interpretation of Watchman Nee and himself, then is this recovery maybe nothing more than another institutional denomination, something this recovery of the Lord vehemently sought to depart from in the first place?
(3) Isn't an institutional denomination just another word for a corporation with a religious agenda and (a) human founder(s) other than Jesus Christ Himself?
(4) So, if all literature published by Living Stream Ministry is the sounding of the one and only trumpet for this present-day Lord's Recovery, are these 2 entities then not one and the same thing in reality?
There were more comments about the document that seemed more intriguing and insightful than I had previously thought:
'... He [Watchman Nee] asked me to help in the publication work. I [Witness Lee] did write some books, among which were a book on the genealogy of Christ, a translation of part of Pember's Earth's Earliest Ages, and some books on the kingdom of the heavens. I [Witness Lee] never published anything by myself ...'
Isn't Witness Lee only stating the obvious by claiming that he never published anything by himself? Watchman Nee had actually asked him to help with the publication work in the first place! Aren't these just basic circular statements?
'... I [Witness Lee] always mailed my manuscript to the Gospel Room, which was under Brother Nee and his helper. It was up to their discernment whether my manuscript should be published or not. I [Witness Lee] liked to have my writings checked as to whether there might be some inaccuracy in the truth. It is not a small matter to write a book that expounds the kingdom of the heavens. I liked my material to pass through their [Watchman Nee and brother Yu] checking. This helped and protected me. Brother Yu, the eye specialist, translated some of the mystical books, but he did not publish anything ...'
Here again, Witness Lee seems to be making more and more circular statements, for want of a better terminology. By mentioning that he (Witness Lee) then mailed manuscripts to Watchman Nee and brother Yu, because it was really Watchman Nee's publication, then claiming that he (Witness Lee) liked to have his contribution to the publication work checked because they (Watchman Nee and/or brother Yu) did not just publish anything etc. ...
'... We only had one publication. Everything was published through Brother Nee's Gospel Room because the publication is really the trumpeting. The sounding of our trumpet is not just in the verbal message but more in the publication. It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications ...'
Suddenly the publication work had become something far more than a publication work alone: It had become the sounding of a trumpet! Witness Lee even mentions that their (Watchman Nee's and Witness Lee's) trumpeting of the apostles' teaching had more prominence than their verbal speaking of the apostles' teaching.
But wait a minute, didn't Paul, Silvanus and Timothy mention in their first letter to the Thessalonians and didn't Paul and Sosthenes also mention in their first letter to the Corinthians
'... For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first ...' and '... in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed ' (NET)
that any trumpeting would be God's trumpeting when the Lord Jesus Christ returns for collecting His beautiful bride for Himself?
Regarding the previously cited sentence within the document:
'... In every way, this practice of passing everything that we publish through a discerning check is best for all of us and best for the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lords recovery today ...'
Are we having to make a choice between:
(1) the sounding of the trumpet as legislated by Living Stream Ministry and
(2) the sounding of the trumpet of God when the Lord returns for His beautiful bride?
Also, regarding the sounding of a trumpet mentioned in Paul's and Sosthenes' first letter to the Corinthians:
'... Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or with knowledge or prophecy or teaching? It is similar for lifeless things that make a sound, like a flute or harp. Unless they make a distinction in the notes, how can what is played on the flute or harp be understood? If, for example, the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will get ready for battle? It is the same for you. If you do not speak clearly with your tongue, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are probably many kinds of languages in the world, and none is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of a language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. It is the same with you. Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, seek to abound in order to strengthen the church ...' (NET)
Yet, the context of the trumpet in the above mentioned passage seems to be conveying that:
(1) just as believers are to understand (with their mind and their spirit) when a revelation, knowledge a prophecy or a teaching is being spoken, so too
(2) a harp and a flute needs to produce a distinctive note or melody and
(3) a trumpet needs to make a clear sound so that an army understands when to prepare for war.
Therefore, the clear sounding of a trumpet in this context does not seem to convey that the saints are called to be restricted to one ministry or even to one publication for that matter!
Even the word teaching in the above mentioned context is being referred to as a teaching that is to be understood and not that the oneness of the teaching itself is implied in this instance.
'... According to my [Witness Lee] truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications [Isn't this just a presumption?]. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications? [Are we not free in Christ to do so?] Because all the publications are mine [So, it's really about ownership then?], it is hard for me to speak such a word. But I am forced to tell the truth. By putting out your own publication, you waste your time and money. You waste the money given by the saints, and you waste their time in reading what you publish. Where is the food, the life supply, and the real enlightenment in the other publications among us? [This is really going quite far, isn't it?] Be assured that there is definitely at least one major revelation in every Living Stream Ministry publication [Isn't this just a presumption?] .... If the Lord can gain ten thousand saints in the United States to go full-time with one kind of teaching, one kind of preaching, one kind of material, one kind of publication, one kind of way, and everything one kind, this will be our morale! The wise way is that we all take the full-time way and speak the same thing, think the same thing, present the same thing, and teach the same thing, having the same essence, appearance and expression. Then we will have the morale, the impact, to defeat the enemy. [Is this of the same essence regarding the oneness of the Spirit that Jesus prayed for before His crucifixion and which Paul appealed to in his letter to the Ephesians?] This is what the Lord needs! ...' [Witness Lee, Elders' Training, Book 8: The Life-pulse of the Lord's Present Move, pp. 161-164, 123-127]
What I have come to establish for myself is that in literally everything where one shared one's life in Christ, ministered His life with others etc. in the fellowship, one had to have it routinely filtered through the writings of Living Stream Ministry.
This filtering system had become the ultimate lockdown for me and eventually explained for me why my own previous attempts at discussing organic body life in Christ outside this filtering system were not being answered or were answered by answers such as ' go and read Witness Lee's Recovery Version footnotes, his Life Studies etc. about this '
These dear fellow saints in the Lord's Recovery seem to have little individual conviction on what the Scriptures are revealing to themselves, but more specifically on the pertinent issues that I had questions on. This probably explains their regular reliance on the writings of Living Stream Ministry for having it revealed to them instead.
Philip van Dijk
Skype: philipvdijk
LinkedIn: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/philipvdijk
Re: One Publication
I have merged several related threads into this one thread entitled "One Publication". I have also transferred a number of recent related posts on the "Spiritual Authority" thread to this thread.
Let's continue the discussion regarding The One Publication here on this thread. There are many great posts made over the years. I suggest that everyone take a few minutes and review what has already been posted.
One Publication
The Blended Training Speakers are so full of themselves that they demand every message given in every Local Church be a regurgitation of what they spoke in the last Training.
One Publication
"We have a voluntary policy, just like Nee had in China, to have only one publisher in the Recovery, and that's us at Living Stream Ministry. Since you didn't "volunteer" the way we told you to, we are kicking you out of our little Recovery Club. Henceforth, you are no longer permitted to speak to any Local Churches."The Judaizers from Jerusalem basically had the same attitude towards Apostle Paul and others working with him.
Some have felt that the Blended's decision was all about money, and that's partly true, but their lust for power and control drove their decision.
One Publication
One Publication
That's as basic as the sunrise for all believers, and LSM would copyright it if they could.
One Publication
Yet, the response above indicates someone who is in a perpetual state of being ticked off.
If I said what beautiful sunrise we had this morning youd respond with This just shows those in the local churches think the sun rises only for them.
One Publication
So, for example, if God shows me that "all your waves and breakers have gone over me" in Psalm 42:7 is the same phrase Jonah used (2:3), typology similar as well to Psalm 18:4 and 18:16, and that since Jesus strongly identified with Jonah's experience, this may be worth ministering to the Christian flock, suddenly I'm a rebel because Witness Lee said these psalms were natural human concepts. Like Chu & Dong, suddenly I'm "thinking differently" and "speaking differently".
As soon as God shines something to you in the Local Church assembly from His Word, you're in danger of being called ambitious and divisive, drawing others after yourself; you'll either be silenced, marginalized, or pushed out of the one-church-per-city assembly. Because in truth, or reality, it's a one-ministry-per-city assembly. The "recovery of one church per city" was a ruse, a lever, an engine to divide the flock, so that it might come solely under the thrall of a single person.
Paul had written, "Whenever you come together, each one has" a portion to share (1 Cor 14:26); the "one publication work" edict, and its enforcement on those like Chu & Dong, shows that in the LC, whenever they come together, only one person has a portion to share. The rest must "get in line", per Watchman Nee, and be "one with the current speaking", per the Blendeds of LSM. The Nee/Lee ministry as promoted by LSM is the sole reason they exist as a distinct group; it's the person of the LC, not Jesus Christ.
One Publication
"Living Stream MinistryLiving Stream Ministry publishes the works of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, providing the authoritative and definitive collections of treasures from these two servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. The writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee focus on the enjoyment of the divine life, which all the believers possess, and on the building up of the church, the goal of God's work with man in this age."
Publisher of Watchman Nee & Witness Lee
Why isn't the "One Publication" edict published on its front page? Otherwise, it shouldn't exist at all. Another example of LC/LSM subterfuge.
One Publication
I liked the analogy.... but the explanation using the analogy didn't work for you.. ok, let's try this. What follows is my point of view. Any use of plural pronouns is based on my belief that what I think is also what many or perhaps most current members in the local churches would concur with.
The Lord's recovery began in earnest with Martin Luther starting with the recovery of justification by faith as the significant turning point in the Lord's recovery. Since that time the Lord has continued to recover scriptural truths through various servants He raised up. These divine truths were hidden especially during the time that the Bible was locked away. These biblical truths are every believer's heritage and include but not limited to those related to God Himself, the eternal plan of God, the Triune God, the incarnation of God, Christ's Person, the incarnation of Christ, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the eternal life of God, the Spirit, the life-giving Spirit, the mingled Sspirit, Christ's redemption and God's complete salvation (spirit, soul, and body), the believers, the universal church, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the church as the Kingdom of God, the building of God, the Firstborn Son and His many brothers, the local churches, the ground of the church, the overcomers, the reward and punishment of the believers, the life practices (e.g. calling on the Lord, pray-reading the Word, etc.), the meeting life including the functioning of all the members to build up the Body of Christ and consummate the age, the preaching of the gospel and the spreading of His word, and the ultimate consummation of the union of the Triune God with His believers as the great corporate entity and shining as the New Jerusalem for eternity.
There are others but that is a representative summary.
We consider these biblical divine truths, life practices, and related matters as the spiritual inheritance of every christian. We recognize that in the last hundred years the Lord raised up two brothers through whom He revealed several of these divine matters in a fresh and in finer detail, brothers Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. We consider our place in the divine history of the Lord's recovery as the latest in the line of beneficiaries of these riches and we also consider it our responsibility to preserve, practice, publish, and carry out through various ministries the one ministry that God has entrusted to us. Our burden is to share what we believe the Lord has entrusted to us (partial list mentioned above) with the local churches and all believers and unbelievers alike through publications, trainings, conferences, radio broadcasts, internet broadcasts, gospel preaching, Bible distribution and other various outreach programs and therefore, most of these items are available for free without charge. We regard participation in the local churches and this ministry as a personal matter between each believer and the Lord Himself and we consider it a special calling that without we would have no reason to exist as a distinct group.
Again, I use the plural pronoun "we" to mean it is my informed opinion that my point of view expressed above is the intent of the One Publication and is shared by the vast majority of the believers in the local churches and that is what is meant by" one publication work in the Lord's recovery".
Hope that helps.
One Publication
One Publication
The analogy is poor and doesn't provide additional benefit above just talking about the actual entities/parties themselves using their actual descriptions.
What does "one publication work in the Lord's recovery" mean, Drake?
One Publication
If 70 X 7 indicates "no true repentance" then you don't have to forgive them 70 X 7. But you do.
If you read the gospels, Peter sinned repeatedly, and repented repeatedly. And Jesus forgave him repeatedly. Jesus was teaching that he had to do the same to others.
One Publication
The publisher decides what to publish. You decide what you will read.
Yet, from your history you might very well mean something like "if a brother stands up in a meeting and starts quoting Joel Osteen what will happen?".
Or are you referencing something else entirely?
One Publication
There are no alumni in my analogy. It's an active campus. We are here until the Lord returns.. there are few graduates in this life,.. Paul indicated he was, martyrs I'm sure are too, etc. As long as we are on this earth we are not graduates for the most part.
Analogies eventually break down but this one still has legs so I'll keep going with it...
Faculty may teach in different colleges as well as have administration duties for the university that are different from their teaching or other duties.. Yet, they are all part of one University. The faculty and the students all have one common mission and there are practices and codes and procedures and norms and rules and etc.
Here's are the dots... if you look at everything this ministry is involved in, the many "colleges" dedicated to a specific purpose, its stated purpose to "higher education" more generally, and the serving ones who carry out the mission of the "university" then it is a whole..... and the whole is greater than the sum of pieces. Whether it is the carrying out of the mission through the many pieces (LSM the publishing arm and the trainings and conferences, DCP, Bibles for America, Bibles for "country", Affirmation & Critique, Lord's Move in Europe, Life-study of the Bible broadcast, etc.) by the many serving ones (blended brothers and others who have consecrated their time and effort), or the hundreds of thousands (students in analogy) whom the Lord has called to this way it is a singular.
Breaking it down is like trying to define the "American Way of Life" by its parts and judging the whole based on what you find in the parts. "How can the part speak for the whole?". So I think, whereas the comments made on the One Publication document are signed by "faculty".. it represents the sentiment of the whole body involved in the university and all the colleges. Technically speaking, not being cute at all, only the signatories own the content of the document. However, in general, I believe it expresses the sentiment of all the pieces, parts, people, etc.
Why isn't that okay with you, Trapped?
Re: One Publication
Hi Drake,
If you are still interested in providing your point of view on this, I am also still interested to hear it. Hope the cynical bents communicated in my view didn't turn you off.
Re: One Publication
The local church have Nee and Lee, claiming the same thing. And they have their Book of Mormon. They just call it One Publication ; Their canon ; Their 'book of Mormon.'
Which one is better? They're both personality cults -- for them they have Smith Jr. & Young, for the LC they have Nee and Lee. What I'd like to know is, which one is less of a cult than the other?
My judgement is biased ... skewed, if you will. I fell for the Nee-Lee. So that's not a cult as much as the LDS to me.
But upon closer look, I'm not so sure.
Re: One Publication
With these many demands, just stick to the Bible, the One Publication Policy by LSM negates them all.
Re: One Publication
The Scriptural Basis of One Publication According to the LSM-brothers
The LSM-brothers assert that One Publication
is solidly based on many fundamental
Scriptural principles, including the following:
1. the uniqueness of the teaching and fellowship of the apostles,Sounds like The One Publican in the local church is tantamount to The Book of Mormon to the LDS ... minus Moroni and the golden plates ... but with Nee and Lee as their idols.
Re: One Publication
A number of great papers were written on this subject of One Publication.
Here is a brief response by Professor and Brother Nigel Tomes to Benson Philips, President of LSM, who instituted this disastrous policy which later divided all the LC's:
Nigel Tomes, "If One Publication is causing Division, How Many Publications will create Oneness?" - A Rejoinder to Bro. Benson Phillips.
A number of other articles are published on the Concerned Brothers site such as these:
Re: One Publication
While y'all go on about particulars, I must point out that One Publication is the same thing as The People's Republic of China declaring that there will be only one internet provider in China.
Then LSM becomes the gatekeeper mainly of Nee (they have copyright on Lee - and non-Recovery Christians like Nee). It's just LSM trying to eliminate all competition. It's a corporation holding to the bottom-line at any cost. It's about mammon. It's the only business Lee could pull off. Another of his business scams ... like Daystar ... and his history of ripping off saints.
But it's working. After all, how many other publishers of Nee do we have left today?
Re: One Publication
Spiritualized legalese by the masters.
Reminds me of all the "new" teachings the Exclusive Brethren came up with after every excommunication and division they instigated. That's the beauty of being in the "recovery."
Re: One Publication
This post is a masterpiece of breaking down the ministry of doublespeak. Well done, bro.
Re: One Publication
Re: One Publication
I agree that it was probably a number of brothers who wrote/reviewed/edited/agreed on the document. Having said that, I personally think it is a very clunky, repetitive, unclear, undefined, bloated, meandering piece of work which could have used several additional months of refining, revising, consolidating, and clarifying. And I say that without a derisive tone.....to me it really is a clunky manatee that isn't up to the normally stringent standards of editing and clarity that LSM holds itself to.
The cynical side of me actually thinks that the letter is that way by design - when something like this is this long and wandering and repeatedly uses undefined nebulous phrases like "the one trumpeting" then that is one tactic that can be used to impose a particular impression without being on the hook to explicitly state it.
My own view on the contradictory statements, which is going to sound cynical again, is that you are giving the authors too much credit that it was intentional to include both statements and hold them as not contradictory. My view is simply that they threw in the quote in question so they could point to it when the inevitable accusation would come that LSM is issuing an edict to all the churches that they can only use LSM materials. The quote in question allows them to say "see, the ministry is not a requirement of a genuine local church" and "see, we aren't restricting the recovery, just the ministry". Even though the rest of the letter says it clearly, there is a portion they can wave on high to try to convince those who disagree otherwise.
Interested in your point of view!
Re: One Publication
Prior to this conversation, I never considered there to be a perceived contradiction between the ministry and the Lord's recovery.... because in my mind they are related but not synonyms. When I hear the ministry I think of the work of the gifts to the Body.. and when I think about the Lord's recovery I think about the actions that God has directed in various era's to recover His original purpose to establish His kingdom on earth, that is to bring the Lord back and depose the evil powers and take over the earth with His saints.
Therefore, I see your point in what appears like an obvious contradiction... the wording appears to be contradictory right on the surface. However, I see no substantive contradiction...so I'll explain my thoughts using the document itself... since that is the point of this thread.
Therefore, we have two seeming contradictory statements:
1) I'll use one from your list which should cover most of the similar statements since this one sounds most contradictory: 4. "sixth paragraph: the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lord's recovery today."
2) And this one near the end: " The title of this message does not say "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord's recovery" but "in the Lord's ministry." I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."
The reason I labored on the point about both statements being in the letter is because if they weren't then it could easily be understood that the authors inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lee's statement and in so doing showed they would have not been expressing his thoughts on the matter... and as has been said many times in this forum the blended brothers are faithful to Brother Lee's word to them.
So, with the two statements above there are four possibilities of what the authors intended to mean by including both statements:
First, they may have intended the reader to understand that the first statement (penned by the authors) was their meaning but not the second. That is not logical.... why include the second statement at all then.
Or secondly, they may have intended the reader to understand that the second statement (by Brother Lee) was their intended meaning but not the first. That is even less sensible because they are the authors of the first statement!
Third option is that the authors did not mean either statements to be their intended meaning. That would be ridiculous.
Fourth then and lastly , the authors included both statements because they believed that both statements are the intended meaning. This really is the only logical choice. If the one publication had been penned and released by a single author then it might be reasoned that the author was out of touch ... but since it was probably at least 8, 10, or a dozen brothers reviewing and agreeing on the release of this document, its content, and its intended meaning, then it is of a surety that they meant both seemingly contradictory statements to be true... and they were perfectly comfortable juxtaposing them for public consumption.
If that is the case, and the logic favors that view, then the only question is how two seemingly contradictory statements are in fact not contradictory in the minds of the authors?
I'll pause here before providing my own point of view on that last question.
Re: One Publication
In my eyes the ramifications are significant.
The quote states that the genuineness of a local church is not determined by whether or not that church "takes the ministry" (which I have to assume means Nee/Lee's ministry?).
It then goes on to explain that the one trumpet should be in the Lord's ministry, rather than in the Lord's recovery, indicating that a church that does not take the ministry/one trumpet is still a genuine local church. Since ministry is juxtaposed with recovery, the implication is that if the letter stated the one trumpet should be in the Lord's recovery, then churches that do not take the ministry are thus not genuine local churches.
The problem is, the letter states that - one trumpet in the Lord's recovery - in spades.
Re: One Publication
Ding! I understand now. Thanks.
I did not intend to indicate in post #25 that the statement you quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. That was not my intention or position (as revealed by my confusion in the last post!) - I fully acknowledge from the get-go that the statement you quoted is part of the letter. I think I should have said something like "then ELSEWHERE in the letter" or "when compared to the OTHER contents of the letter" but just neglected to say that because it was obvious in my mind and isn't everyone else a mind-reader?
Yes, my problem is that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things. When one quote says "I don't mean x linked to z" but repeated throughout the letter is "x is linked to z", then that, in my eyes, is a problem. The one instance of "I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery" gets swallowed up by the repeated point that there must be one publication in the Lord's recovery.
Re: One Publication
....in post 25 you indicated that the statement I quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. In post 26 I argued that it was.... then you seemed to acknowledge it was but then said in the "letter itself" indicating Brother Lees statement was not part of the letter itself... throwing me off ...
Here is the point I am making......That the letter itself includes the statement about this being a matter of the ministry not the Lords recovery by Brother Lee. It is part of the letter itself since it is above the signatory of the letter. Therefore, I asked if your problem was that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things, that is, in the front part of the letter itself it says a matter of the Lord's recovery... but in the latter part of the letter the statement by Brother Lee says not a matter of the Lords recovery.
The difference is meaningful.... if Brother Lees statement is not in the actual letter but only found elsewhere then the authors of the letter could have inadvertently or deliberately left out Brother Lees statement.... but if the authors included it in the body of the letter itself then Brother Lees statement must be taken as part of the definition of the letter since the authors took the time to include it juxtaposed next to their statement.
That is what I meant.... sorry I probably confused us.
Re: One Publication
I am so sorry....I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm just stuck. I just can't grasp what you are trying to say. Could you restate it, or slip-n-slide into it from farther away with the background of what is behind it? I feel dumb but I do want to understand your point.
It is included as part of the letter. Did I somehow make it seem like it wasn't? Help me out here!
Re: One Publication
We may be as two knights passing on a ship... or something like that...
what I mean is the letter includes the statement and is part of the letter since the signatories are below that statement. That statement is also repeated in the supplement reading from Brother Lee below the signatories.
It should be included as part of the letter since it is in the body of the letter. That is how I see it,
Re: One Publication
I have no issue with anyone serving in LSM and thinking they are serving the Lord. I may get a little uncomfortable when they uplift a man, I may disagree with some of their doctrines, and I may feel that they need to be more accountable and responsible with dealing with sin.
The real issue I have with them is when they bring the Body of Christ into bondage based on a lie all with the goal of making merchandise of the saints.
Re: One Publication
I seem to recall up until a particular time during the 70's perhaps, there were multiple publications available in bookrooms. Restriction to one publication as the author indicates didn't occur until later.
Re: One Publication
So Drake is now "Trapped."
Re: One Publication
Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.
Re: One Publication
The following link is a post from the Lawsuits topic. It discusses Witness Lee's deposition in the Mindbenders lawsuit as compared to the "One Publication."
Title: Witness Lee's Sworn Statements vs. Local Church Teachings
Post by: afazio on November 11, 2005, 02:39:21 AM
On the Bereans Forum (now defunct as related to the Local Churches).
Re: One Publication
If we are going to be precise let's be so in all aspects.
The statement quoted was from the letter. Not that the letter said one thing and the statement quoted was only found elsewhere.
So then, is your objection that the content of the letter contradicts itself?
Re: One Publication
Unfortunately, the letter goes on to make a very clear connection between the one publication and the Lord's recovery (not the Lord's ministry), over and over.
Letter itself
1. In the title: PUBLICATION WORK IN THE LORDS RECOVERY
2. First paragraph: ... this crucial matter in the Lords recovery
3. Third paragraph: These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lords recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today.
4. Sixth paragraph: the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lords recovery today.
6. Seventh paragraph: We all must realize that the one publication in the Lords recovery is quite a serious matter.
7. Seventh paragraph again: Since Brother Nees day we in the Lords recovery have been restricted in one publication
8. Eighth paragraph: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lords recovery.
9. Tenth paragraph: Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is ... something related to the one ministry in the Lords recovery.
Ministry portion following letter
1. First paragraph: One thing that has caused the Lords recovery trouble is the fact that we have different publications.
Re: One Publication
Simple. The One Publication Policy was a means for Lee and the Blendeds to remove their rivals and potential threats to their power.
Re: One Publication
There is a paragraph one or two above this one quoted that states essentially that LSM is the sole publisher of Nee and Lee's materials. I have no problem with that, in principle. What I get confused by is when statements are made such as the ones bolded in the above paragraph. Can anyone define what "the one publication" even is? That phrase is paraded and repeated over and over in the letter, but there is no definition. By inference I would think the one publication are Nee and Lee's materials only; however, what does "writings among us that could be part of the one publication" even mean after both men's death, practically? Does this mean that if Brother Smith wrote a book, it would be submitted to LSM for review, and if it passed whatever nebulous test LSM would put it through, that LSM would publish that book showing it as written by Smith? Or if it had the same "flavor" as Nee/Lee, it would just be published as LSM material with no mention of Smith? Is anyone here aware of any example, besides those provided in the letter itself (the only true one of which seems to be Affirmation and Critique which are LSM publications but which include articles authored by other people), where this has occurred? Where a non-Nee/Lee writing among the LCs has been published and disseminated officially as part of "the one publication"?
Is Journey through the Bible that used to be used years ago one of those? I don't think so. Who wrote and published that?
Re: One Publication
Salient points to keep in mind regarding "The One Publication":
First and foremost, it should be noted and understood that nothing...absolutely nothing... in this "declaration" varies or detracts one iota from what Witness Lee clearly and strongly taught for over 50 years - to wit - the he, Witness Lee, was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle, at least since 1945. The New Testament Ministry was vested in Lee's person and work. PERIOD. No other person, no other work, shall be considered. PERIOD. When Lee died over 21+ years ago, the person died, but his personal work, The Ministry lives on...NOT in the persons or works of mere mortal men, but in an American registered corporation - The Living Stream Ministry.
"I would like to have a continuation of me, and this needs a corporation...The Living Stream corporation will continue this ministry"
(from unpublished notes of a meeting of Living Stream, July 12, 1996)
I would make this the first and foremost point because over the years many dear brothers have made the claim that The Blended Brothers have wondered from or even misrepresented Witness Lee. This is not true. Over the years I have challenged anyone to show me where the BBs have wavered from, altered or misrepresented Lee in any significant point of teaching or practice. No one has been able to meet my challenge, and nobody will, because the simple fact is that these men have, for better or for worse, faithfully fulfilled their vow and obligation to become "brother Lee's continuation".
He placed the direction of this corporation for the continuation and publication of the ministry in the hands of a group of blended brothers, who labor to fulfill this charge before the Lord.
(From The One Publication, paragraph 4)
Again, as with the late Witness Lee, these men are totally unambiguous regarding what ministry shall be accepted and imbibed in the Local Churches. Again, The New Testament Ministry was and is vested in the personal ministry of Witness Lee. "God, in these last days, has spoken", not merely by His Son, or the Holy Scriptures, or in the teachings and practices of the Apostles, but in the person and work of 李常受; Lǐ Chángshòu.
Of course there are number of facets and details of this document we can, and should, delve into on our little forum. But I wanted to make a clarification lest some here become successful with their attempt to distract, distort, mitigate, apologize for and water down what this declaration means for current members and for anyone thinking of joining the Local Church movement.
Re: One Publication
I have had conversations with elders in which I asked why we still do certain things (e.g. some aspects of the seven feasts) and they admitted that we only continue to do them because it was the practice that Lee set forth, even though as time goes by the reasons for doing them are no longer relevant and it would actually be beneficial to be able to make a change, but we can't because the man behind it is dead and we are unable to do anything different. (paraphrasing and editorializing a little obviously) We have trapped ourselves into not being able to take care of the needs of the saints and the churches in the best and most beneficial way!
In one sense it is "better" for a church to gather around a practice or teaching, like baptism by immersion or speaking in tongues, rather than gather around a specific man's ministry, because the practice/teaching can last forever, but what does a group of churches do after the man they followed dies?! Pump air into it, like you said
Re: One Publication
To respond to your first post, I will be fine if some posts in this thread are emotional rather than analytical given the seriousness of repercussions that resulted from the letter, I just don't want the thread to be dominated by it and I don't expect it will.
Regarding your suggestion above, I like that approach better than mine, but it will take some time for me to be able to provide any kind of coherent response. (Of course others can provide their responses in the meantime!)
The very short answer seems to be that the letter is saying "hey look, anyone can publish, but if you do it won't be considered part of the awe-inspiring 'One Publication'". Long-story-short it's basically it's a book publisher saying "we only publish Nee and Lee and if anyone else writes something it won't be endorsed by us and we are heavily insinuating that it will most likely cause damage so run away from it." Sadly they are addressing this letter to a specific collection of churches, which is why we are known as LSM CHURCHES!!!!
I got a little sarcastic there but let me get serious again: one thing that would help me to respond is to know a little bit more about the context of what was going on in the local churches before this letter was put out. It wasn't written in a vacuum, right? It seems obvious it is in response to some turmoil and most likely is attempting to address the "problems" inherent in the situations. Could you (or anyone) give me some background info there?
Re: One Publication
While the message quoted may say that, unfortunately the title of the whole letter is "...in the Lord's recovery" so it's difficult to see how they don't mean just that.
Another issue with the quote you provided is "in the Lord's ministry". They should have said "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in Nee/Lee's ministry". This is one big problem I have seen over and over again - LSM equates/conflates/substitutes "Witness Lee's ministry" with "the ministry" with "the Lord's ministry" with "the New Testament ministry".
The Lord's ministry is actually all over the whole earth and is much larger than just Nee or Lee's ministries. It is THE LORD'S! The Lord is working in people's lives through people all over the earth in ways that have nothing to do with Lee or Nee. THAT is the Lord's ministry, not just that which proceeds out through the mouth of Lee, in which case it once again is ludicrous to say there should only be one publication in the whole of the Lord's ministry.
Re: One Publication
The real question is why Lee and LSM have twisted this into an abusive money making exclusive book publisher and training center which lords it over all the LC's? This is the question you refuse to answer.
Also, where are all of these "perfected" saints?
Re: One Publication
Hi awareness,
I understand. Based only on your testimony in the past, I have a deep impression that the Lord's provision for you in that situation was Ron's shepherding ... his plea and request for you to join him.
It did not happen, it's water under the bridge, but looking in the rear view mirror that is how it appears from here.
Re: One Publication
My gift got more than neglected. It got rejected. It got pushed out. Not because I rejected Jesus, God, or the Bible ... or the church. All because of one thing : because I rejected the Lee as the MOTA thing.
They liked my delivery, but told me to restrict my testimonies to repeating Lee, and/or the elders.
All other gifts get neglected and rejected. At least it was that way way back then. Has it changed? I keep an eye on it, and see no proof of that yet.
Re: One Publication
Your second point above is not accurate and even the document itself refutes that statement. If you really believe it then you'll need to show us out of the tens of thousands of pages released through this ministry where Brother Lee does not point to Jesus..... for he dedicated this ministry to all that pertains to Christ as the subject in nearly every message.. This ministry's focus is on Christ as life and the Church as His Body and the expression of the testimony of oneness of the Body in each locality. That is what attracted me to this way over forty years ago..... and still does. Yet, your experience is different, I get that, but it is a completely inaccurate to say this ministry does not point to Jesus but to Brother Lee... so let's examine this document as the base note specified...,
Your first point above says "mandate".... ... if there is a mandate implied in the document of any sort it is what LSM will publish on their presses under the banner of this ministry. It is not a read only mandate for everyone, it is not a mandate to every local church to read what LSM publishes, it is not a mandate that no other writings can be published by local churches for its own needs, it is not a mandate for the Lords recovery...etc. On the contrary, any member can read what they want, a local church is a local church whether they use LSM materials or not, any locality can publish their own material for their own need,..it is something directly about the ministry not the Lord's recovery in general.
The implication of mandate in your post is stretched well beyond the definition in the document and what Brother Lee has said himself.
Re: One Publication
The answer is stated in the Bible itself, ......the Bible, though available to almost every person in the world who wants one, does not build up the Body of Christ by itself. Therefore, Christ in His ascension gave gifts to men to perfect the saints for the work of ministry unto the building up of the Body of Christ.
"For He Himself gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry , unto the building up of the Body of Christ." Ephesians 4:11-12
Therefore, we have the Bible but we also need the gifts Christ gave.... for instance we need the teachers to teach God's Word. Every gift given by Christ to us has a function to perfect the saints.
If we neglect the gifts we neglect the perfecting and we miss participation in the ministry that builds up the Body of Christ according to Ephesians 4:11-12
Re: One Publication
If "the ministry" as defined by a bunch of old fat men in "the one publication", were all it claimed to be, it would in fact be UNSTOPPABLE. If you have to legislate allegiance to your "ministry", there is something really wrong with your "ministry."
Does the Bible owe its longevity to a bunch of old fat men who, by mandate, crammed it down the throats of the faithful for centuries in order to keep it alive?
In fact, the nature of God is to give people the freedom to choose to follow Him---or not. We have the Bible today because of the faithful men and women, Divinely inspired and empowered, who chose to keep it alive for centuries. We are told that the Word of God is living (not the "one publication"). In the beginning was the Word...the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
How does this compare to "the ministry" of Witness Lee, in which Lee points the way to himself and not to Jesus? This "one publication" letter/document/whatever is an embarrassment to those who wrote it...as Trapped has noted. Further, this document is an obvious admission that Lee's "ministry" cannot stand on its own. That is, Lee's "ministry" can only stand as long as some old fat men prop it up with bogus mandatory loyalty imposed on those over whom they have "power". This "one publication" edict is an admission that the "ministry" of a dead man will die without someone (a bunch of old fat men) pumping air into it.
Why do we need "the ministry," the "one publication", when we have the eternal, unstoppable Bible?
Re: One Publication
Let me be honest here but blunt -- I continue to find everything Drake posts about LSM to be nothing more than horse manure!
I am a contemporary of Drake. I first contacted the LC in Cleveland in 1973. I was actively serving greater Ohio churches for 30 years. Then they came in as thieves to divide and destroy every Midwest church over this one matter -- do we use LSM's books exclusively in our meetings?
Re: One Publication
Brother Lee explains as follows:
"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord's recovery" but "in the Lord's ministry." I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."
Re: One Publication
I think the letter speaks for itself, it doesn't even take a critical eye so see its absurdity (I don't intend for this to be inflammatory, but I know of no other way to describe this message). Some passages I found interesting from different paragraphs:
Without one publication, there is no way to preserve the integrity of the Lord's ministry among us, which is crucial to the practical oneness among the local churches.
Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room publish both the past ministry that was delivered to us by Brother Nee and Brother Lee and the ongoing, up-to-date speaking that comes out of the fellowship of the blended co-workers and is based on the ministry materials of Brother Lee and Brother Nee. These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lord's recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today.
It is important to note that Brother Lee spoke directly about the continuation of the ministry among us. He felt that after his departure the ministry should be carried out by a group of co-workers who are blended, just as his own service in the ministry was under his coordination with the co-workers.
occasionally there may be publications of these other kinds which Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room feel to publish either under their own names or under special imprints that serve particular publication needs.
Thus, those who wish to write in this way should bring their proposals to the blended co-workers as well as to Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room and have their proposals checked to see whether they should be published or not.
We all must realize that the one publication in the Lord's recovery is quite a serious matter. Anyone who participates in it must genuinely have the portion from the Lord to do so, and this portion should be easily recognizable to the churches and affirmed by those who take the lead in the ministry and those who take the lead in the publication work.... For decades we all have been nurtured and richly supplied by the one publication. The benefits of being restricted in one publication can hardly be denied.
Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter.
Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith but something related to the one ministry in the Lord's recovery. The ministry is the sounding of the trumpet among us in the Lord's recovery, and there should be no uncertain sounding of this trumpet, as Brother Lee has mentioned on a number of occasions. However, the one publication should not become the basis of our accepting or rejecting any persons in the communion of faith or in the fellowship of the churches; it should not be insisted on as an item of the faith. If any are not inclined to be restricted in one publication, these ones are still our brothers; they are still in the genuine local churches. We would like to conclude with these words from our Brother Lee and wish to recommend that the full context of his words be read from Elders' Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lord's Move, pp. 74-75:
I have to be faithful to the Lord, faithful to so many of you who have been very much affected by this ministry, and faithful to myself. For this reason, this ministry cannot allow anyone to pretend to be in it and yet still say something different. This does not mean that I ask you to stay away from your local church or that your local church is no longer a local church. What I am fellowshipping about is the impact of the ministry for the fighting of the Lord's interest in His recovery.
Re: One Publication
W. Lee led us to believe many things about China under W. Nee. Today I don't believe anything he told us. To believe Lee is to negate every other author, both from within and without the Little Flock movement in China. Either W. Lee is right and all other co-workers and historians are liars, or ... You fill in the blanks.
Actually, in the early days in the US, roughly from 1962 to 1980, there were many writers and publishers within the LCM. Lee was just one of many ministers, that is until he took over and threw the rest of them under the bus. By 2010 LSM's takeover was complete when they excommunicated Titus Chu in Cleveland and Dong Yu Lan in Brazil. They have finally purged the last holdouts.
Now they claim "we have always had only one publication, and that's why we have always been so one."
Re: One Publication
Yes, the dark ages were dark indeed, but there never was a time when the faith or the scriptures were completely "lost" as Lee would want us to believe. In yet another irony, Martin Luther is simultaneously declared the first Minister of the Age (MOTA) and a total failure for the Lutheran state church. Supposedly he began the recovery but ruined the church. Oh well.
The tenets of the "Recovery" are built on the sinking sands of hagiography. It exists merely to serve the legitimacy needs of their MOTA. In principle there is no difference from the RCC's claim that Peter was their first Pope, and the recovery's claim that Luther was their first MOTA. Like the mythological lineage of popes, it really gets crazy when they attempt to establish the lineage of MOTAs after Luther. Anyone ever hear of Madame Guyon? Yep, a bona fide MOTA. Just ask LSM archivists.
Re: One Publication
I'd like to approach it differently and get the lay of the land from a higher slope rather than start hiking in the canyon so to speak.
Therefore, I ask, what explanation is provided in the document about the document? What does it say about its purpose? What problem was it trying to solve, if any? Is there anything in the document that provides context or explains the situation? In what way do the proposed solutions address the problem and are there alternatives to address the same issue? Is scope defined? Are there limitations defined?
I'd say the document addresses most of those questions.
To your first point Trapped about the "Lord's recovery"... the scope... I do not find the scope of this document to encompass the broader definition of "Lord's recovery" beginning with Luther. Brother Lee and the document repeatedly state that a narrower definition is being used... it says "According to the practice established by Brother Nee..." and again "When we were on mainland China..." . This is one of the vectors in the scope of the document ... that is, the document is addressing something in these current phases of the Lord's recovery. If we were to try to apply the points of the document to the broader definition of the Lords recovery beginning with Luther is doesn't apply or make sense. So anything stated in the document only applies to the period in the Lords recovery, approximately the last hundred years, till today from His recovery beginning, or part way into,in China.
Re: One Publication
4. Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.By mandating their "One Publication" bull, LSM has negated the scriptures. They have robbed the body of Christ of a varieties of ministries by allowing only the ministry of Lee.
Rather than keeping the oneness of the body, this divides the body. This makes all the member LC's "of Lee." The oneness of the body of Christ requires the work of the Spirit thru many gifts and the work of the Lord thru many ministries. LSM has replaced the work of God with the fleshly efforts of a publishing house in Anaheim.
By veering way off the instruction of the scripture, LSM continues to produce the exact opposite results of their published objectives.
Re: One Publication
I'm not sure going paragraph by paragraph is the best way because there are clarifications near the back that explain the what is near the front.
Re: One Publication
I guess I can start out with the first paragraph.
1. My first issue is the title. If LSM truly considers the "recovery" work of the Lord to have broadly started with Martin Luther as they say (see 3rd bullet point here: https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/recovery/), and claim that "the Lord's Recovery" is not a name used to refer to the churches under Nee/Lee, then the title right off is ludicrous.
2. "...there should be one publication among us." To say "among us" is instantly divisive in the Body of Christ, as Nee himself stated. To paraphrase, "if we use the term "we" or "us" to refer to anything other than all the believers in a city, then we are schismatic."
3. "testimony of our oneness in the Body" - I didn't know there was supposed to be a separately grouped entity in oneness within the Body! I thought the whole Body was supposed to be one.
4. "safeguard for the unique ministry in the Lord's recovery" - what does this mean exactly? What is the Lord's recovery, defined? Again, if it goes back to Luther, then Lee/Nee cannot claim uniqueness in anything, and the ones upon whose shoulders they stood should be part of this ministry.
5. I can't even go on, they throw so many overblown buzzwords into the next sentence that my brain short circuits - "no way" "preserve" "integrity" "crucial" "practical oneness" - enough already.
I don't even know if I can do this. Others are more than welcome to jump in and make suggestions for this thread. I just wanted to at least give a place for the One Publication letter specifically.
Re: One Publication
I realize the shortcomings of this type of forum as the vehicle for discussion of a letter of this length and concerning what I know is a topic that has caused a lot of problems, so I am not sure how this will go. I'd love to go line by line, or paragraph by paragraph, but it is difficult in a forum format.
What I really want is a sober-minded, non-inflammatory, logical, rational look at the document. I personally see many flaws and double-speak, but I don't want to get into it in an irrational way.....I am looking for more of a "detached" analysis, if you will. A level-headed discussion about it without getting into high emotions. Please note that I have no intention to dismiss the many, many hurts, pains, sufferings, or lives that have found themselves thrown off a moving vehicle and skidding along a gravel highway at 100 mph because of this letter and the ramifications thereof. I have just personally found that if I speak to elders or co-workers in a more analytical way about things like this, they are much more willing to listen and even agree. An emotional response is more than valid given what has occurred in the local churches, I fully recognize that, but within the restrictions of what I am trying to accomplish with this thread, a more detached approach would help.
I don't even know where to start but wanted to get this much written for now so I would be on the hook to keep going.
One Publication
I didn't see a thread anywhere dedicated to the "One Publication" letter put out by LSM. The letter is reproduced below, but can be found online here: https://www.lsm.org/onepublication/
Through Brother Lees fellowship over the years, we have long realized that there should be one publication among us. The one publication is not only a testimony of our oneness in the Body but also a safeguard for the unique ministry in the Lords recovery. Without one publication, there is no way to preserve the integrity of the Lords ministry among us, which is crucial to the practical oneness among the local churches. Brother Lee gave this word of testimony on this crucial matter in the Lords recovery:
When we were on mainland China, only Brother Nee had a publication, and the Gospel Room belonged solely and uniquely to him. He asked me to help in the publication work. I did write some books, among which were a book on the genealogy of Christ, a translation of part of Pembers Earths Earliest Ages, and some books on the kingdom of the heavens. I never published anything by myself. I always mailed my manuscript to the Gospel Room, which was under Brother Nee and his helper. It was up to their discernment whether my manuscript should be published or not. I liked to have my writings checked as to whether there might be some inaccuracy in the truth. It is not a small matter to write a book that expounds the kingdom of the heavens. I liked my material to pass through their checking. This helped and protected me. Brother Yu, the eye specialist, translated some of the mystical books, but he did not publish anything. We only had one publication. Everything was published through Brother Nees Gospel Room because the publication is really the trumpeting. The sounding of our trumpet is not just in the verbal message but more in the publication. (Elders Training, Book 8: The Life-pulse of the Lords Present Move, pp. 161-162. See the larger context of this quotation in the attached ministry portions.)
According to the practice established by Brother Nee in China, the one publication has always been trumpeted by one practical publication endeavorin Brother Nees day by his Gospel Room, during Brother Lees years after he left mainland China by Taiwan Gospel Book Room, and during his years in the United States by Living Stream Ministry. Today we must be diligent to continue this practice of the trumpeting in the one publication in a practical way through the publication service of Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room. Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room publish both the past ministry that was delivered to us by Brother Nee and Brother Lee and the ongoing, up-to-date speaking that comes out of the fellowship of the blended co-workers and is based on the ministry materials of Brother Lee and Brother Nee. These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lords recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today.
When Brother Lee was among us, he took the lead in both the ministry and the publication work. As he released the Lords ministry to the churches, he directed Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room to publish that ministry throughout the churches so that the saints everywhere could be kept in the up-to-date fellowship of the one ministry. Because the ministry was released originally in either English or Chinese, he formed Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room as publication offices that would carry out the practical service of publishing the ministry for the churches. Today, by the Lords mercy, the ministry continues. Now it is carried out by fellow slaves who serve in a blended way according to Brother Lees realization and fellowship shortly before he went to be with the Lord. He called this the Lords sovereign provision for His Body, and the up-to-date way to fulfill His ministry (A Letter of Fellowship with Thanks, March 24, 1997). It is important to note that Brother Lee spoke directly about the continuation of the ministry among us. He felt that after his departure the ministry should be carried out by a group of co-workers who are blended, just as his own service in the ministry was under his coordination with the co-workers. Further, the need to publish the ongoing ministry still exists, and to this end Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room, a blended service overseen by a group of blended brothers who serve in coordination with the blended co-workers, continue to publish the Lords speaking among us in all the seven annual feasts and the weekly ministry meetings. In a meeting with the brothers to whom he committed the responsibility for Living Stream Ministry, Brother Lee said, My burden is for the recovery based on the interpretation of Brother Nee and me. I am the continuation of Brother Nee; I would like to have a continuation of me, and this needs a corporation...The Living Stream corporation will continue this ministry (from unpublished notes of a meeting of Living Stream, July 12, 1996). He placed the direction of this corporation for the continuation and publication of the ministry in the hands of a group of blended brothers, who labor to fulfill this charge before the Lord.
What Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room do, as set forth in the Living Streams Articles of Incorporation, is to promote the enlightenment and revelation regarding the Bible as interpreted by the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. It was Brother Lees express wish that Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room would be the sole publishers of his and Brother Nees ministry. According to this wish and arrangement, Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room should be responsible for the publication of the ministry materials of these two brothers, and any use of Brother Lees materials or of The Collected Works of Watchman Nee should be done in coordination with Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room, and only with their express permission, according to their guidelines, and in proper fellowship with them. This includes the translation of these materials into any language as well as any republication in any form or through any medium. Further, Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room also publish the ongoing ministry in the Lords recovery as the extension of the ministry of these two brothers. The ongoing ministry is carried out according to the fellowship of blended co-workers and is based on outlines compiled from Brother Lees and Brother Nees ministry materials. As has been apparent to all the saints everywhere, this labor produces the same ministry with the same taste as has been enjoyed in all the churches since Brother Nees time. The up-to-date speaking among us is published primarily in the outlines of the messages for the seven feasts, The Holy Word for Morning Revival, and The Ministry magazine by Living Stream Ministry and in corresponding publications by Taiwan Gospel Book Room. In addition, Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room publish works that support the Lords ministry. There are a number of publications which Brother Lee initiated that fall into this category, most notably the journal Affirmation & Critique, which presents the truths of the Lords recovery to an academically-trained audience as we have received them from Brother Lee. As much as possible, Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room avoid venturing into other kinds of publications, but according to Brother Lees own example, occasionally there may be publications of these other kinds which Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room feel to publish either under their own names or under special imprints that serve particular publication needs. For example, Living Stream Books (as opposed to Living Stream Ministry) publishes Gods Plan of Redemption by Mary E. McDonough, and A&C Press publishes a translation from French of a scholarly study on deification in the early church.
At times there may be writings among us that could be considered for publication as part of the one publication among us. As Brother Lee points out in the quote from Elders Training, Book above, these proposals should be checked as to whether there might be some inaccuracy in the truth. Discernment must always be exercised when expressing matters related to the divine truth, the divine life, and the gospel. The exercise of this sort of discernment not only protects the teaching among us and the spiritual supply to the saints; it also helps and protects those who endeavor to write. Hence, it is proper that those who endeavor to write in this way bring their work to those who take the lead in the ministry and those who take the lead in the publication work, and those who take the lead should exercise the discernment as to whether or not such proposals should be published as part of the one publication. This was the practice when Brother Nee took the lead in the ministry and in the publication work in China, and it was our practice when Brother Lee took the lead in the ministry and in the publication work among us. It should be our continued practice today. Thus, those who wish to write in this way should bring their proposals to the blended co-workers as well as to Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room and have their proposals checked to see whether they should be published or not. In every way, this practice of passing everything that we publish through a discerning check is best for all of us and best for the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lords recovery today.
We all must realize that the one publication in the Lords recovery is quite a serious matter. Anyone who participates in it must genuinely have the portion from the Lord to do so, and this portion should be easily recognizable to the churches and affirmed by those who take the lead in the ministry and those who take the lead in the publication work. No one can take up this portion in the Lords recovery on his own. While we all have a basic right to publish, in the Lords recovery we are governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross in a blended way in the Body, especially when it affects the churches and the dear saints everywhere. Since Brother Nees day we in the Lords recovery have been restricted in one publication (Elders Training, p. 161), and this restriction has resulted in one testimony among us. For decades we all have been nurtured and richly supplied by the one publication. The benefits of being restricted in one publication can hardly be denied.
But being restricted in the one publication does not mean, and has never meant, that individual churches are not free to produce and distribute materials for their local needs. We have always had publications like this among us, and there have generally been no problems related to these. Songbooks, local tracts, church meeting outlines, testimonies, etc., have long been produced among us without controversy. These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches. These are publications that address local needs. Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter. Otherwise, damage may result. Although technologies now exist that permit the easy dissemination of material, we should not use these technologies at the risk of causing confusion among the saints and of damaging the one accord among the churches. The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lords recovery.
Technology today allows almost any individual to publish whatever he or she desires, and it should not be the intention of the responsible ones in the Lords recovery to suppress the rights of individuals to express themselves (unless, of course, such expressions are sinful, heretical, or divisive). Some saints have a desire to write church histories, to produce childrens materials, to record music, and even to give and publish messages. Without much effort these can be reproduced in a variety of media and distributed widely, especially on the Internet and on CDs and DVDs. But the fact that these publications can be produced and distributed should not give them any more credence among the churches than anything else that can be published today, secular or religious. These are simply other publications that our brothers and sisters may or may not be interested in. They are not part of the one publication in the Lords recovery, and they are not necessarily beneficial to the spiritual good of the saints among us. The churches, through the elders, should be educated to understand this, and the saints and the churches need to discern the value of these publications for themselves. As shepherds of the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2), the elders everywhere should have a proper care for the churches with regard to publications, and they should guard the flock from things that could cause damage (Acts 20:28-29). As long as the churches do not become platforms for the dissemination of these publications, these publications should not become matters of issue among us.
Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith but something related to the one ministry in the Lords recovery. The ministry is the sounding of the trumpet among us in the Lords recovery, and there should be no uncertain sounding of this trumpet, as Brother Lee has mentioned on a number of occasions. However, the one publication should not become the basis of our accepting or rejecting any persons in the communion of faith or in the fellowship of the churches; it should not be insisted on as an item of the faith. If any are not inclined to be restricted in one publication, these ones are still our brothers; they are still in the genuine local churches. We would like to conclude with these words from our Brother Lee and wish to recommend that the full context of his words be read from Elders Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lords Move, pp. 74-75:
Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lords recovery but in the Lords ministry. I am not talking about something in the Lords recovery, but I am talking about the ministry...
I have to be faithful to the Lord, faithful to so many of you who have been very much affected by this ministry, and faithful to myself. For this reason, this ministry cannot allow anyone to pretend to be in it and yet still say something different. This does not mean that I ask you to stay away from your local church or that your local church is no longer a local church. What I am fellowshipping about is the impact of the ministry for the fighting of the Lords interest in His recovery.
Ministry Portions
The blended co-workers in the Lords recovery
June 30, 2005
One thing that has caused the Lords recovery trouble is the fact that we have different publications. If we mean business for the Lords recovery, we must avoid any kind of involvement in problems. When we were on mainland China, only Brother Nee had a publication, and the Gospel Room belonged solely and uniquely to him. He asked me to help in the publication work. I did write some books, among which were a book on the genealogy of Christ, a translation of part of Pembers Earths Earliest Ages, and some books on the kingdom of the heavens. I never published anything by myself. I always mailed my manuscript to the Gospel Room, which was under Brother Nee and his helper. It was up to their discernment whether my manuscript should be published or not. I liked to have my writings checked as to whether there might be some inaccuracy in the truth. It is not a small matter to write a book that expounds the kingdom of the heavens. I liked my material to pass through their checking. This helped and protected me. Brother Yu, the eye specialist, translated some of the mystical books, but he did not publish anything. We only had one publication. Everything was published through Brother Nees Gospel Room because the publication is really the trumpeting. The sounding of our trumpet is not just in the verbal message but more in the publication.
I hate to see that some of the brothers would try to publish something by copying my points mixed with their spices and their color. Why do they need to put out some points from my writings in this way? Brother Nee taught us concerning the kingdom of the heavens. I received the basic knowledge from his teaching, but he never expounded on it very much; he simply gave a sketch. It was I who from 1936 began to expound upon the sketch given to me by Brother Nee. After I published my exposition, Brother Nee admired it and told me personally that it was very good.
I hope that some of you brothers would do much development and expounding of all the messages I give. Do not merely speak some points, adding your own color and spices. This changes the taste. It damages my messages. You must receive the ability to expound all these things. I am not narrow. I would like to see that all of you will be great servants used by God. How wonderful that would be. But I do not like to see that some would merely repeat what I have said, pretending that it is their work with their spices and color.
It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications? Because all the publications are mine, it is hard for me to speak such a word. But I am forced to tell the truth. By putting out your own publication, you waste your time and money. You waste the money given by the saints, and you waste their time in reading what you publish. Where is the food, the life supply, and the real enlightenment in the other publications among us? Be assured that there is definitely at least one major revelation in every Living Stream Ministry publication.
I was burdened to publish the Life-study Messages to stress the matter of life because this matter has been neglected, missed, and even lost to the uttermost in todays Christianity. In most of the commentaries and expositions there is not much of life. Even the term Life-study is a new term. I have used this term for thirty-two years. In 1954 and 1955 I finished a Life-study on the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation in Taipei.
This does not mean that I am so capable or so knowledgeable. It all depends upon whether or not our sovereign Lord has given you this portion. Even though I wrote some books in mainland China, I never dared to publish anything by myself. I do not like to have another sounding. Our sounding must be one, so we must be restricted in one publication. My intention in calling a writers conference was to encourage you to write something, but not in the way that came out. This fellowship may preserve and protect us from doing things lawlessly.
If some localities would have gone the proper way of the recovery, using all the materials of the ministry, their number would have increased greatly. Some are wasting their time by writing and publishing their own material. This is not their portion. I would like to see that many brothers had this portion with the riches of truth. This would be marvelous and wonderful, but this is our problem today. I advise all of you to take care of this matter. You have to swallow up the dissension. Do not let dissension eat you up.
I hope this fellowship will render some help to all the churches. Take these principles, pray before the Lord, and consider the real situation in your locality. Then you can make some adjustment of the eldership. (Elders Training, Book 8: The Life-pulse of the Lords Present Move, pp. 161-164, Witness Lee)
The Lords commission is His recovery, and His recovery today is to recover Christ as life, to recover the church as our living, to recover the enjoyment of Christ as everything to us, and to recover all the significances of the church life for the purpose of not only preaching the gospel but also spreading the truth. I believe that this is the unique reason that He has given us nearly all the truths in todays Christianity. He has given us His truths for us to spread them not only to Christians but even to the unbelievers. The entire globe is under darkness. Every human being on the earth needs to hear the truth, but our spreading of the precious truths we have received has been strongly limited. There have been many strong testimonies concerning people getting attracted and caught by the notes in the Recovery Version, but who has the burden to go out and spread these truths?
Some brothers who are with us do not use these truths when they teach and preach. They teach and preach what they feel is good, yet they do not realize how poor their messages are. Some brothers among us continually put out some publications. I was honest to tell them that there was no light and nothing new in what they put out. The points in our publications are full of life and light, but these brothers would not present them as they are. I could not understand why they have to change the messages we publish to present something in their own style and in their own way. There are no new points of life or light in what they publish. Any life or light in their material is altogether adopted from this ministry. I have been observing this situation among us for years. I would like to see whether some younger brothers among us would be raised up by the Lord to speak something. If I could see this, I would praise the Lord. On the other hand, I have seen some who like to build up something around themselves.
The Lord has commissioned us with His recovery, and He has surely opened up the New Testament to reveal many dear and precious truths to us. What the Lord needs is for thousands of His dear saints who love Him, who live to Him, and who know nothing but His recovery to take one way. Regardless of whether the saints are from Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, England, Thailand, Indonesia, or the United States, we all bear the same burden, take the same way, and spread the same truths. We dispense the truths embodied in the gold bar, the Recovery Version. We have no other merchandise! If we would be like this, the entire earth will be taken!
It breaks my heart to see some practicing to have another ministry, using the material of the ministry. We all have to pray, Lord, rescue me from my ambition to be somebody in the recovery. We should only know the truths of Gods New Testament economy. We only use one way by one accord, prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. This is what I believe the Lord is after, and this is what we all expect in the depths of our being. Everyone will feel happy about this.
When we go out, we do not go in a dissenting or ambitious way. If you go out with your ambition to build yourself up and I go out with my ambition to build my ministry up, we are finished. The Lord has to go to others. We all need to go out in one way like an army. Then we will have the morale and the impact.
We do not need to do that much. We just need to go out with a pure heart, without anything to ourselves but all things to Him. Just go out with all the truths and the Recovery Version to read to people. I assure you that you will catch someone every week. You do not need to preach your teaching or your kind of doctrine with your terminology. We have to see what the Lords recovery is. The Lords recovery has been commissioned with a big enterprise to spread the Lords truths. He has given us the truths which we are holding. But we need the faithful, pure-hearted ones, who do not have any intention to live to themselves but to Him, to go out to spread these gold bar truths. There is no need for you to preach or teach in your way. Open up the Recovery Version and read some of the notes with the hungry ones.
Actually, though, I do not care that much for the increase. I care for the spreading of the truths so that they can get into the needy hearts. If we spread these truths, we will become the faithful servants to serve food to the Lords people at the appointed time (Matt. 24:45). Then we will fulfill the commission of the Lords recovery. This is where my heart is. I will die to this. I told the brothers in the Far East I will not stop until my entire being is exhausted by this ministry. I hope you all will say the same thing.
If the Lord can gain ten thousand saints in the United States to go full-time with one kind of teaching, one kind of preaching, one kind of material, one kind of publication, one kind of way, and everything one kind, this will be our morale! The wise way is that we all take the full-time way and speak the same thing, think the same thing, present the same thing, and teach the same thing, having the same essence, appearance and expression. Then we will have the morale, the impact, to defeat the enemy. This is what the Lord needs! (Elders Training, Book 8: The Life-pulse of the Lords Present Move, pp. 123-127, Witness Lee)
Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lords recovery but in the Lords ministry. I am not talking about something in the Lords recovery, but I am talking about the ministry. The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that. The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry.
Paul told us that all who were in Asia turned away from him (2 Tim. 1:15). The believers in Asia who had formerly received the apostles ministry now forsook him. They did not lose their status as local churches due to the fact that they gave up Pauls ministry, but in fighting the battle, Pauls ministry could not depend upon them. For Pauls ministry they could not be counted on. To say that the ministry cannot depend upon a certain church does not mean that that church has been cut off from being a local church. It is still a local church, but we must realize that the ministry is a fighting unit. In this fighting unit there is no capacity and no time for your opinion.
I mean business for the Lords interest. I have sacrificed my entire life for the Lords ministry. I gave up everything to take the way of the Lords recovery. Now I must be faithful to myself. Furthermore, through my ministry on this globe, thousands of saints have come into the recovery, so I must be faithful to them. Many of the saints have given up high degrees to follow the Lord in His recovery, yet it seems what they are in is tending to be disappointing. This burdens me. Some of the saints became what they are in the Lord one hundred percent due to my ministry, and I do not want my ministry to waste their time. I have to do something to insure their investment of their whole being into the Lords recovery. They have given up their future in the world, but they cannot have much encouragement in the Lords recovery. I have to be faithful to the Lord, faithful to so many of you who have been very much affected by this ministry, and faithful to myself. For this reason, this ministry cannot allow anyone to pretend to be in it and yet still say something different. This does not mean that I ask you to stay away from your local church or that your local church is no longer a local church. What I am fellowshipping about is the impact of the ministry for the fighting of the Lords interest in His recovery.
Whatever I would say concerning the home gatherings, the full-timers, the truth lessons, and the spreading of the gospel is not for anyone who does not feel good about my ministry, who is dissenting to my ministry, who is pretending to be here under the ministry yet actually is not. I still love all the dear saints who may fall into this category and still count them as brothers in Christ, but we need to have an army full of impact, and this army has no capacity and no time for anyone to express any kind of opinion. We are fighting a battle. The army began the fighting already in Taiwan. Now we want to see this army increasing to fight the battle not only in the United States but also in Canada, in Central America, in South America, in Europe, in Africa, in Australasia, and in the entire continent of Asia. This is what I want to see. I am not talking about the churches, I am talking about the ministry. The ministry is one thing, and the churches are another thing. These two things can be differentiated in the Epistles written by Paul. Pauls ministry is one category, and the churches are another category. Paul never tried to force all the churches to follow him in his ministry, but Paul surely had a ministry for the churches. (Elders Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lords Move, pp. 74-76, Witness Lee)
© 2005 Living Stream Ministry
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
The LSM/LC just like many denominations and non denominations man made 'church' institutions have lost their first love: Jesus.
How is possible that a 'proper bookroom' 'pleasing book displays' etc is more important than building up the body of Christ and seeking Christ with all our hearts and minds and spirits of course?
I don't get it.
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
The direct source for this quote: https://www.livingstream.com/cwwl/
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
This announcement about CWWL bothered me when it came out. Aside from the "monumental step in church history" nonsense, the other one was: "Possessing this set is a unique opportunity to preserve the priceless supply of the ministry..." ?????? No, I think LSM and all the digital records are preserving it, me buying it does not preserve it. Stop using overblown language to create the "we must" "we need" frenzy already! Invaluable? I think you meant unvaluable!!
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
I have heard that one thing that is being pushed now is called something like "Bookroom Service Workshop" where saints in the bookroom (plus a mandatory elder) fly out to Anaheim to get instructed how to carry out a proper bookroom, i.e. pleasing book displays, how ordering from LSM works, making sure the saints know about the bookroom, the importance of the ministry, and other topics on HWMR, CWWL, etc, etc. Of course to show loyalty many localities will feel obligated to participate. The instant I heard about it I just thought "money", but also "uhmm, seriously?"
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Perhaps after a number of years and an unseemly number of dollars spent on books coming out left and right, some people saw through the façade? Others might say, why am I pretending? Buying books never read only to collect dust in their garage, bookshelves, closets, etc.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
I think if the person is in the Spirit when they write something, or record something, then that amount of the Spirit, in keeping with the spirit in which they wrote or spoke it, continues to bear witness to it. The Spirit is the eternal Spirit. He is not subject to time.
For example, if you watch a video of a person speaking in the Spirit, you will realize they were/are speaking in the Spirit. I remember a brother who used to remark, "I don't see how the Spirit can get on tape." Well, the Spirit bore witness when it happened, and he will continue to bear witness when it is replayed, or re-read.
However, Evangelical has a point. The anointing experienced also depends on the reader/listener. Some listeners hear a message which many others would witness was anointed, yet they might say they are untouched by it. So there are two sides to it.
He that has an ear, let him hear.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Books are not anointed, only people are.
One person may say a book is anointed, another may say it isn't. It depends on the person, not the book.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
-1 I was responding to the notion of "never anointed".
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Personally, I wouldn't deny the possibility of a book being anointed, but I think there is a lot more ambiguity with books. Going back to the Billy Graham example, it is easy to characterize speaking as being anointed in a particular place and time. If a recording or transcription of that meeting is made, how do we know it will retain a lasting impact? The fact is that no one can guarantee or know if it will. Most importantly, it seems a presumptuous to look at the impact a message, then assume publishing a book based on that meeting would have the same impact.
Of course, there are plenty of books that do have a noticeable impact. When The Purpose Driven Life was published, there was definitely something special about the book that resulted in it becoming so popular. Whether someone wants to call it 'anointed' or not doesn't make any difference to me, but I would be comfortable saying that the full impact of that particular book has already been realized. In other words, most of the people who will might find help from that book have already received help from it.
WL might have given numerous messages that most people who were there would say characterize it as being anointed. However, for those who were not there, reading a book is not going to recreate the environment of actually being there. Whether or not that book is helpful depends mostly on the individual. Dont forget that in their own words, LSM calls this current book drive a promotion. If LSM books are everything they are claimed to be, then why do they need to be promoted? Why do people need to be pressured to read them? Books that people actually want usually sell themselves. Go on Amazon and look at all the top selling Christian books and Bibles. People actually pay money to purchase those. The LCM struggles to give away the RcV for free.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
OBW"A book (other than the Bible) is never anointed."
The wording of this sentence obfuscates the spiritual reality.
For instance, if Billy Graham speaks and 1000 people come forward to receive the Lord then there can be no doubt that his speaking was anointed. The anointing being the Spirit operating on a person as a result of the spoken word.
If that same message is transcribed into print, and people read it and the Spirit operates causing them to come to the Lord then that also confirms the same word is anointed.
Spoken or written the message is anointed, it is the Spirit's speaking.
Re: Irrelevance
A book (other than the Bible) is never anointed. What it says may be (in part) and if it is then it should always be, even if not readily understood in other contexts, cultures, times, etc.
But when it comes to LSM books, my question is "what needs did LSM books ever meet?"
And I would suggest that it was the need to get deeper into a garlic room of misdirection and confusion. And I say that no matter how much many of us once held them in (at least somewhat) high esteem. I admit I was fooled once. But no more. At least not by that source.
Re: Irrelevance
Re: Irrelevance
Even if one was to go by Witness Lee's final conference. What he spoke was edited to appear quite differently. Just by removing one word hear or there, it becomes quote easy to take out of context what was actually spoken.
Re: Irrelevance
Basic error of the cult books was to base their study off of the written word instead of getting the video tapes.
Re: Irrelevance
For example, why the Blendeds felt compelled to cut off Titus Chu when nothing, even in their own books, would warrant it.
Re: Irrelevance
I attended a Witness Lee meeting in Dallas in the '90's wherein he shared about "man becomes God". I was shocked by this, as it was a fairly new topic for Lee. I waited for months to obtain a copy of this Dallas conference message in print. When it was finally released, I was shocked again that "man becomes God" was nowhere to be found. I was there. I heard it with my own ears. It was in my notes.
This was only one example. Several times I thought I heard something ...controversial... looked it up in my notes and there it was. Yet it never made it to print. I cited a passage from "Elders Training #9" to an LC member. They came back "That's not in my ET#9". Sure enough, it wasn't. I had the original publication, my friend did not...so he did not believe WL said what I cited.
The spoken messages are transcribed, then often manipulated for a desired effect, applicability and an "updated relevance".
Re: Irrelevance
I noticed that in the advertising for the CWWL they say that a significant portion of the material is previously unreleased. That may very well be true. But there is a big thing people forget about WL. He wasn't an author. He didn't write much of anything. He spoke messages. Lots of them.
Messages are delivered to audiences, and the content of a spoken message is not usually considered to have a long term applicability. It is spoken in the here and now. So what the LSM is actually releasing is a bunch of content that has a highly questionable applicability and relevance.
Re: Irrelevance
Oh right...I forgot. Don't say anything negative. Are you sure that applies to Hamburger Helper?
How long do i have to retract before I get banned?
Re: Irrelevance
Definitely tasted better than repackaged Lee.
Please retract your negative comments!
Re: Irrelevance
This doesn't say much for Lee being the "Minister of the Age", does it? Perhaps Lee's "age" is OVER? Lee's ministry ended with his death. All that's left is recycled and repackaged books...like eating Hamburger Helper every meal.
However, Martin Luther's contribution, justification by faith, is ageless and timeless. Lee's contribution is ... not.
Re: Irrelevance
Re: Irrelevance
LSM's books are not meeting people's needs, and hence have become worse than boring. From spoken messages to Life Studies to Rainbow Booklets to Green Volumes to Crystalization Studies to Blended Rehashings, the same teachings have been reprinted, repackaged, and resold for profit to the same customers. Nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing anointed.
Their people are starving, yet they claim to be stuffed with riches.
Re: Irrelevance
Anyways, if the LSM is so intent on selling books, maybe they should learn from Dong Yu Lan and start opening BooKafes
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
What I find more concerning, however, is knowing what kind of problem they are creating for LC members when they encourage they to promote the LSM books with what they call "proper aggression." That is bound to backfire sooner or later. For example, one of their outlines on that website tells members to suggestively place ministry books around their home in "convenient locations" in hopes that family members or guests will read the books.
I've seen these types of subtle attempts they use to pressure LC members. It's what most people would call passive-aggressive behavior. For example, I was just telling someone recently about how in the city I'm from, the elders used to sign people up for conferences without asking them, and then tell them that they have been signed up already and need to attend.
That's the same type of tactic as it seems they are promoting here - trying to pressure people without asking them a question directly, which would allow for a yes/no response.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
These videos, websites, and letters show the real condition of the LC. The LC is the religion of Witness Lee and Witness Lee's books.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
"Those two books turned my life around"
"The Ministry Book that Stopped Me from Arguing with Brother Lee"
"Crucial Matters in the Bible Revealed to Me by the Books of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee"
"The Writings of Witness Lee Opening Up Truth after Truth from the Bible"
"Redeeming the Time By Using the App to Enjoy the Ministry"
"Becoming the Church in Our Locality through These books"
"A Deep Impression On a Scholarly Family"
"The Traditional Concept Being Changed through the Life studies"
"The Benefits of Having Ministry Books in the Home"
"The Ministry Books Revealing to Us What the Church Really Is"
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
"The Interpreted Word saved me ..."
Witness Lee has "risen" above Jesus and His word.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Pages of brothers and sisters preaching about "the books." This is the LC.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Encouraging responses from the saints in Florida after hearing the burden of getting into the ministry publications.
After the speaking, we allowed 20 to 30 minutes for testimonies of the saints' experience of reading the ministry publications. The saints were very appreciative of the visits and they all eagerly received and confirmed the burden. We focused our sharing on building up a daily 30-minute habit of reading the ministry, becoming a "scholarly" family by reading and accumulating books, and lending books. We recorded the testimonies of saints who gave us permission to share their testimony on the internet. We collected a minimum 10 testimonies per meeting. These will be used in our weekly newsletter.
The net effect of the church visits was not only a renewed appreciation of the ministry publications for personal and corporate enjoyment and distribution, but the visits were an encouragement and shepherding to the saints as well. The saints in Ft Meyers/Seabring were especially happy and receptive to the sharing, even promoting the ministry publications during their testimonies using the LSM flyers that we brought.
Both Samuel and I felt that there is a benefit to sharing the burden church by church. Moreover, there was great value in having Ted join us to gain a perspective of each church's local situation. This provides good foundation for his future revisits to the churches.
Afternoon meeting with about 100 responsible brothers from Florida, Atlanta, Tennesee, South Carolina, and one brother from Brazil. We reviewed Br. Lee's burden for the leading ones to get into the truth, participate in building up a local book service, and leading the saints into the truth. Rick Scatterday was present and gave an excellent, short concluding word.
Documents distributed to brothers: LSM Sept 30 letter, eleven ministry exceprts, Propagation of the Truth in the Lord's Recovery, LSM package and CWWL flyers, booklists for LSM packages, outline: Fellowship on Establishing a Book Service, outline: How to Lend Books, outline: Faithful and Diligent Spreading of the Truth, excerpt from CWWL 1997, vol 1, "We Become What we Read", Ray's sheet containing accounts of David Livingstone and Hudson Taylor borrowing books.
For the ministry propagation brothers,
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
We in the GLA always heard that Titus Chu was "different" in this matter.
Then it all hit close to home, prior to the GLA quarantines, and the perpetual "prevarications" of LC leadership smacked me upside the head, and this sleeper awoke. (Ephesians 5.14)
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
One item I cannot get over is how LSM receiving local churches can say they are not ministry churches. As soon a locality no longer receives LSM publications, it is no longer received by fellow localities. Moses Lake in Washington state and countless more in the Great lakes area.
By the way the GLA turmoil from the previous decade I feel in part was revenue based. You may say Titus had a work within a work, but from afar it didn't seem he was trying to compete against LSM.
Once the quarantine edicts were issued and lawsuits began, it was localities that had real estate were targeted. Others were passed over.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Let's be honest, as much as LSM would like the truth to be different, the Lord is just not anointing their ministry any more. That's why it has no appeal. They can't just keep blaming all the readers and the hearers! The problem is with the source of their ministry, not with The Spirit of God or the children of God.
The leadership at LSM has never acknowledged nor repented of their past unrighteousness, especially how they have abused, mistreated, and slandered both former members and the Christian public.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
The fact of the matter is that most people, even in the LC, simply do not enjoy reading Witness Lee. Even in the FTTA, this would be admitted to each other in hushed tones like a confession. After years of trying, I got fed up with forcing myself to read so much stuff that I just did not enjoy.
Freedom made an insightful observation in another thread when he pointed out that most LCers these days collect books more than read them. Once the publication of the CWWL is finished, I'm sure it will be a rite of passage for every young brother to acquire a complete set (as well as a set from the penultimate Minister-of-the-Age). The interesting thing is that this will become LSM's nearly only actual market.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
I assume that income considerations must also be a factor, though I'm not entirely certain why.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
As for the churches that are trying to demonstrate how to have a good "book service", I would think that the only reason for them doing so would be to demonstrate that they are in line with what the blendeds are saying, and maybe get a little bit of credit for being the first to implement something.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
The LC obsession with the sale of LSM books is truly bizarre and becoming more and more so.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
From Church News:
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
It amazes me how they cannot even admit for a second to the possibility that even small portions Lee's ministry might not be helpful to some people.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
This is an interesting thread. Just seeing it for the first time today.
Some thoughts:
* young people leaving Christianity will likely continue to rise accross the board -- I say this because of the Internet, where atheists have a very loud voice, and overall trends of society becoming more secularized.
* I was in FTT for a time, and many of the trainees weren't that healthy in terms of attitude or practice. A large percentage go because of obligation/pressure. Not a good motive for successful training, even though the trainers themselves (Blendeds) seemed to think just getting them there is the main thing, then good things will happen.
* Haven't read anything of WL in a decade and gave away my box of books (almost entirely from FTT) years ago.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
And that's the problem in Lee-land. It's everyone else's problem, but not Lee himself, because neither he nor his teachings could be anything but God-ordained and Spirit-anointed. And that includes such notables as LinKo, DayStar, and tennis rackets. At least the Papal Infallibility Doctrine was limited to matters of faith or morals. Lee's Infallibility in practice also included his two sons, Timothy and Philip.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Everything about these types of promotions suggests there is some kind of underlying resistance or reluctance to read LSM books (which we know to be true), so to me, it exposes what a big sham it really is. If someone wants to read WL's books, then fine, go for it. But why do people need to be pressured or prodded to do so?
The fact that they have to 'promote' a basic interest in certain aspects of the LCM, basically defeats everything they think the LCM stands for. Maybe if they could bring themselves to admit that much there could be change, but that is unlikely.
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
VIDEO: Revitalized Book Service in a Rented Meeting Place - The Church in Ontario, CA.
Encouraging the Saints to Build Up the Habit of Reading
We also want to encourage the brothers and sisters to build up the habit of reading spiritual books after every meal and before going to bed. They will gain a great benefit from reading in this way.
Finding Ways to Promote the Truth
We must have a proper attitude and be positive and aggressive, doing our best to urge people to read His word. If we do not find ways to promote the truth or pray, how can the Lords word be spread? If we take the Lords word lightly, how can we have boldness to promote the publications among the saints? (CWWL, 1984, vol. 5, The Faithful and Diligent Spreading of the Truth", pp. 189‐190, 207)
Re: Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints
Living Stream Ministry
2431 W. La Palma Ave.
Anaheim, CA 92801
PO Box 2121
Anaheim, CA 92814
September 30, 2016
Dear Brothers,
For some time, we have been burdened about encouraging the saints to read ministry publications. In 2013, we released some excerpts from Brother Lees speaking on the burden and importance of the matter. He said: I hope that all the churches in all the localities, which have received the supply in the Lords word from this ministry, will do their best to help the publication of the ministry We want to encourage the brothers and sisters to build up the habit of reading spiritual books. He hoped that the elders in each locality would give the saints some help and encouragement so that each household would have a supply of spiritual books. He charged us to lead the saints to have a proper attitude to be positive and aggressive, doing our best to urge people to read His word. He also said,
Based on the above words, we hope that you will fellowship about this matter among the saints. In particular, we hope that you will devote a devote a dedicated time to share this burden to the whole church. Jim Miller, Steve Watts, and Michio Miyake are quite burdened to help carry out this burden among us. We have proposed that the brothers visit the churches to fellowship more in depth about this burden. The brothers will be contacting you soon. We hope that you will arrange a time for these brothers to share with the elders and the saints the importance of this reading habit. This can be done over a weekend, or during a blending time of the churches in your region, or any time convenient to you.
May the Lord bless His recovery through His rich supply in His ministry and through the cooperation of the saints.
Your brothers,
Benson Philips, Ray Graver, Andrew Yu
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
As I see it, LSM is definitely taking a big risk by doing what they're doing. LC members sacrifice vacation time and money to attend trainings based on a perception that by traveling to Anaheim, they will be part of the "up-to-date speaking." They feel that nothing else could be a better use of time. As such, there is already the understanding that the training will be used to release the latest 'burden', so I think they are more or less prepared whatever the latest thing is that LSM is trying to sell or pressure people with. The real issue, however, is how well they can sell their gimmicks and make it seem legitimate. When I attended the semi-annual trainings, it was in the mid-2000s and they were talking about the GLA quarantine and the one publication. It seemed reasonable that they wanted to 'warn' everyone about the problem, so I didn't read too much into it at the time. I did question the relevance of what was being spoken, as I had no clue to any of the people involved in the scuffle, but I didn't question the larger relevancy. I just assumed that most others knew things that I didn't (but I now seriously doubt that this was the case).
At any rate, the point I'm getting at here is that by using their trainings and conferences to promote gimmicky things, LSM risks alienating some of those who would otherwise attend. Before I had any LC-specific concerns or came to this forum, I stopped attending the LSM trainings. It wasn't because I didn't want to go and be part of the 'environment', it was because I realized that there was little point in attending. I realized that I didnt need to hear all the special fellowship that seemed to make its way into the trainings. Also, I realized that the church would eventually cover the material from the training anyways (in the HWFMR). Eventually, I came to realize that the material being covered was also questionable, but that wasn't what initially prompted me to avoid the trainings, it was the way the time was being utilized.
I would suspect that at least some LC members get frustrated over such things. It's kind of a slap in the face to get confronted with a sales pitch after paying an exorbitant training fee + flight + hotel (I recall that LSM started limiting who they would provide hospitality for). I think LSM is walking on thin ice with what they're trying to do. But that is their problem, not anyone elses problem. For so long, they have been disdainful towards any notion that there would cease to be an unwavering demand for what they have to offer. Now that interest is waning in a noticeable way, the LSM is scrambling to find a solution. It seems they are willing to take risks.
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
What I find striking though, is that is seems that the LSM is no longer that interested in putting much effort into disguising their intentions. In the past, it seems they at least wanted to hide behind some teaching (like the one publication), but now they are simply trying to increase sales by telling everyone that they should read more ministry books (as if LC members don't already read enough LSM publications). The fact that they are publicly advertising these book sets along with the different price points doesnt really do a good job at hiding anything. Anyone willing to be honest with themselves can easily tell whats going on.
The only ones fooled are those who are opening their wallets and buying books that they don't need.
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
I also saw these posts on Facebook showing a giant video screen advertising these ridiculous library sets as well as other books and book packages.
This has to bother some people.
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
Does THIS look like $4,524.58 worth of "riches" to you?
But wait...there's more....does it include those compressed wood bookcases?
Re: "Promoting Reading the Publication of the Ministry Among the Saints"
I came across a Facebook post and apparently LSM made a big deal about purchasing and reading their publications during their winter training. Here is their latest gimmick:
The following are display/library sets offered as packages by the Living Stream Ministry with the purpose of providing churches or individuals with a set of Living Stream publications for physical display and sale of ministry material or to serve as a library for loaning out to individuals. For ordering, please contact us directly.
The 'comprehensive' package is only $4524 . It's sad to think that all the LC members who sacrifice their hard earned dollars and vacation time go all the way to Anaheim only to be subjected to LSM's latest sales pitch. They don't even realize what is happening either. If LSM makes a point encouraging people to read and buy their books, LC members think it's for good reason, without questioning it. The vast majority of LSM's publications are readily available to read online for free, so if people really wanted to read them that bad, they would. It's really that simple.
Apparently LSM thinks an increased physical presence of their books in meeting halls and homes is going to result in more sales. They couldn't be more wrong. If nothing else, they better pick more exciting cover art for their books.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
Thanks for finding that quote.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
The most damaging and dangerous situation for a cult or false prophet is a member that only has one lord, Jesus Christ.
I used to think, "why do they care so much about other publications, most of these are non profit, what they publish is essentially free" just like no one has to pay to read or participate in this forum. But that is what is so dangerous. Siphoning money from 10,000 saints is how those in the administration of LSM get their salaries. The most damaging "competition" is from those who "freely received and freely give", that is something they have no way to compete with.
If you do not align yourself with the leadership hierarchy (and if the local hierarchy does not align itself with the LSM hierarchy) then they will treat that as the most serious attack on them, while at the same time winking at idolatry and fornication among the leadership.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
But Kuhlman's message was simple, two words: "Welcome home". What power. Don't try to tell me the Lord's spirit wasn't there.
Of course there were failures abounding. Many stumbled and fell. But the core of the gospel message is there: that we are all deformed, fallen; that Jesus is the way - repent, believe and be saved. That core message was there, and by God's mercy thousands came in, and Lee in Anaheim benefitted enormously from it all. And then he presumed to channel it exclusively, and his befogged disciples created a corporation presuming to exclusively market God's revelation on earth. One Trumpet was merely the formalization, the fossilization, of a long-established LC understanding. In Lee's words, a consummation.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
This discussion brings to light the LCM's hypocrisy about hierarchies as well.
LCMers love to say the LCM is not a hierarchy and that all hierarchies in the Church are invalid.
But what is their determination of whether a person is in proper relation with God?
It's whether that person is in proper relation to their leadership hierarchy.
If a person submits the leadership hierarchy of the "Recovery" then the group regards him or her as properly in God's move. Only then can any work he or she does be regarded as genuine.
If a person does not submit the leadership hierarchy of the "Recovery", he or she is regarded as out of line with God's move. Even though it might appear God is working through someone not in line with the "Recovery" hierarchy, that person and his or her work are disregarded.
Thus alignment with the LCM leadership hierarchy is their absolute test for spiritual validity, all while claiming they have no hierarchy.
By this standard they define God's move by their leadership hierarchy (something they claim does not even exist). They are effectively one and the same. God's hands are tied. He must go through them. Anything else will be categorically rejected. But since the leader at the top of the hierarchy (Lee) has passed on leaving his words set in stone, no further recovery is even possible. Thus "Recovery" becomes an ironic misnomer.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
What makes God's people truly a "peculiar treasure" is that they are not puffed up, they are not special, they are not sitting in the chief seat, rather they are the offscouring of the world.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
So to put it as simply as possible, once leaders of a group say it represents God in an exclusive way, they guarantee it does not.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
The fact that Lee tried to lead the "Recovery" proves the "Recovery" was just his movement. The "Recovery" is not God's move. If it was, no one would be trying to lead it but God.
Note the history of the "Recovery" as told by Lee: God raised up people in his good time to "recover" certain truths. But in all instances prior to Nee and Lee, these people did not consider themselves in some special move. They were simply following the Lord. But as Nee came along and especially with Lee, they began to presume to represent God's move and even to have some say in its direction. The "Recovery" thus became self-conscious and self-directing. Put simply, men presumed to take control of it.
Whether God's move was ever embodied in the "Recovery" prior to Nee and Lee is really not the point. The point is once Nee and Lee presumed to be it and to lead it they reduced whatever it was to simply their own movement. And that's what the "Recovery" is today, nothing but a movement of human beings. Do they have God's presence at some level? Sure, as do thousands of other collections of Christians.
God continues to move, of course, as he always has, completely unobligated to play by Lee's rules or anyone else's. He who sits in the heavens shall laugh, at me, you, Lee, and anyone else who gets too big for their britches.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
When Paul writes about the gifts of the members of the Body, he begins by speaking of dumb idols. In verse 2 Paul reminds them that when they were of the nations, of the Gentiles, they were led away to dumb idols. Here Paul does not say they were led away to sins, lusts, or the world; he says that they were led away to dumb idols, in whatever way they were led. No matter by what way they were led, they were led to dumb idols. Paul's use of the adjective dumb implies that both the idols and those who worship them are dumb, unable to speak . But after coming to believe in Christ, they are now worshippers of the living God.
It is by speaking that we prove that we are living. Our God is living. The Bible reveals that our living God is the speaking God. Throughout the centuries, especially in this New Testament age, God has been speaking . Because the God whom we worship is the living and speaking God, we also speak and thereby prove that we are the living members of the Body of Christ. (Witness Lee, Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 57, Section 2)
This doctrine of "one trumpet" is merely the leading the saints away to dumb idols.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
But it wasn't the Revelation of Nee. So it doesn't count. All of which shows that indeed the Lord's Recovery is based on one man's interpretation. One man's interpretation, another man's marketing of that interpretation, and a corporation claiming sovereignty over the marketing of that interpretation.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
it's a completely different thing for him to presume to direct God's very move. God's move is God's alone.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
To me the Lee quote that ZNP just provided can be summed up simply as: "This is not God's thing, it's my thing."
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications? Because all the publications are mine, it is hard for me to speak such a word. But I am forced to tell the truth. By putting out your own publication, you waste your time and money. You waste the money given by the saints, and you waste their time in reading what you publish. Where is the food, the life supply, and the real enlightenment in the other publications among us? Be assured that there is definitely at least one major revelation in every Living Stream Ministry publication. (ELDERS' TRAINING, BOOK 08: THE LIFE-PULSE OF THE LORD'S PRESENT MOVE, Chapter 11, Section 2, Witness Lee)
I am glad that Witness Lee gave us a truthful observation, it does reveal what he felt. It is certainly judgmental "no new light or life supply there". I kind of wonder who forced him to tell the truth, because if we knew how to do that we might have found out some other things as well.
When I read his word "by putting out your own publication you waste your time and money. You waste the money given by the saints, and you waste their time in reading what you publish" I am reminded of the Lord's word "judge not lest ye be judged, for with what judgement you judge you shall be judged.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
One of the biggest flaws in the logic and teaching of Lee and the LRC is that there is something called God's flow that is smaller than all that Christians are doing on the earth through the leading and power of the Holy Spirit.
God's flow includes every speaking of the gospel, from fire-and-brimstone preachers to simple homilies in any of the liturgical traditions. It includes the righteous living of His followers as they demonstrate something worthy of note in the world, even when there is nothing spoken. If Christians are in obedience, then God is flowing. In every thing that they do. From washing the dishes to going to the far reaches of the earth to evangelize those who have never heard of Jesus.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk
Van Dijk brushes up against this insight but never quite gets it.
On the one hand Lee talked about the "Recovery" as if it is God's pure unique "move." On the other hand he talked about it as something he (Lee) should be able to control like a captain controls a ship. Certainly there is no precedent in the NT age for anyone to be given such power. Even Paul didn't have it.
It's one thing for a leader to presume to direct his church or ministry, it's a completely different thing for him to presume to direct God's very move. God's move is God's alone. He alone leads it and is entitled to change its direction, to appoint other representatives, to bless ministries, to raise up workers from stones, to inspire new insights--all without our counsel or even notifying us.
So for Lee or anyone else to say the "Recovery" should do this or the "Recovery" should do that is simply to verify that the "Recovery" is not God's move but rather simply an organization of human beings.
Van Dijk like many LCMers, despite his insights, still seems confused about this.
Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk