Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Ok... so...
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.
Drake
|
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?