Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
[B]Drake> 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.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Hope that helps.
Drake
|
Yes, your post has certainly helped.
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?