[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Drake> "No, it doesn't, Trapped"

The One Publication document quoted in the base note does not say anything about what the churches are restricted in reading.

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.

Drake

Drake,

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.

Trapped

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!