Drake,
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"........
Trapped