Is the "One Trumpet" doctrine aligned with the fellowship of the apostles

[ZNPaaneah]

I have realized that the things that the LRC shares in common with other Christians are not the issue. The real issue are the specific, peculiar doctrines to this group.

Ground of the Church and Minister of the Age are the two key ones.

But, the doctrine of "One Trumpet" is really the best example of the leadership of this group exercising their "authority" over the Body. I would characterize it as "lording it over the saints".

However, I would like to examine the scriptural basis in the New Testament for this doctrine and how LSM publications present it as well as the basis for how it was applied, particularly in the excommunication of Titus Chu

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But, the doctrine of "One Trumpet" is really the best example of the leadership of this group exercising their "authority" over the Body. I would characterize it as "lording it over the saints".
However, I would like to examine the scriptural basis in the New Testament for this doctrine and how LSM publications present it as well as the basis for how it was applied, particularly in the excommunication of Titus Chu

This false doctrine asserts that only the MOTA can blow the one trumpet, since he is the Commander-In-Chief of the Lord's army, and the trumpet is a call to battle.

When LSM decided to file a lawsuit against Heritage House Publishers, which they eventually and shamefully took to the SCOTUS, Titus Chu influenced the GLA LC's not to get on board. That made him a marked man. The Blendeds had blown the trumpet, and wanted to go to "war," and he declined.

Later on, however, as the litigation expenses mounted, TC did instruct my LC, already financially strapped, to send a monthly check to DCP. Was that an appeasement or perhaps blackmail, whatever it was, it was a change in policy. The same goes for TC's support of the La Palma purchase.

[ZNPaaneah]

Wow! Can you provide evidence that this doctrine was associated with the lawsuits? Also do they actually liken WL to the "commander in chief"? What a heresy. He is making himself out to be another Christ. That would be a perfect example of the false prophet denying the master who bought us.

Witness Lee creates a bogus doctrine to justify silencing all dissenters so that Witness Lee can ignore the fellowship of the Apostles to sue other Christians and make the saps in the LRC pay for it. Some are not so stupid, like TC, but due to blackmail (which ultimately was carried out in his excommunication for violating the one trumpet doctrine) they fold under pressure.

OK, so that is what it appears to be. Perhaps Evangelical or Drake will take up the call to clear up any misunderstandings.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow! Can you provide evidence that this doctrine was associated with the lawsuits? Also do they actually liken WL to the "commander in chief"? What a heresy. He is making himself out to be another Christ. That would be a perfect example of the false prophet denying the master who bought us.

Here is what I found:

On the one hand, we are an army, and with the army there should be a commander in chief. In the New Testament you cannot find the term “commander in chief.” We can realize this matter, though, by inference from Paul's mentioning of the uncertain sound of the trumpet for the battle (1 Cor. 14:8). Surely the battle implies an army, and in an army there is the need of a general to command the army, to direct the army to fight.. (Elders' Training, Book 07: One Accord for the Lord's Move, Chapter 7, Section 2)


You could certainly understand that brothers like RG and BP would take this and run with WL is the C-in-C.

The following quote is quite disturbing. He is responding to some that have been calling him "C-in-C" and instead of rebuking or rejecting it he implies that they don't understand what is involved in following him. This is as clear as it gets that he has set himself up as the leader for everyone to follow and that he expects a very big commitment from them.

You may say that you follow Brother Lee, that you are one with this ministry. This sounds very good, but I am a little concerned that you may not know what it means to be one with the ministry. You may want to take me as your commander in chief and follow me, but I do not want to have many followers who know nothing about God's New Testament economy. (Elders' Training, Book 07: One Accord for the Lord's Move, Chapter 7, Section 4)


Here he talks about Jesus as the "invisible captain" and Joshua as the visible one, saying that the children of Israel needed a captain. It would be perfectly reasonable (and heretical) for someone to read this and conclude that the church needs Jesus as the "invisible" captain and Witness Lee as the visible one.

The fourth item of intrinsic significance concerns the Captain of Jehovah's army. The children of Israel were ready. They had been circumcised, they had enjoyed the Passover, and they had enjoyed the produce of the good land. However, they still needed a Captain. Then Joshua saw a vision in which Christ was unveiled as the Captain of Jehovah's army. Joshua was the visible commander, but Christ was the invisible One. Before the children of Israel attacked the Canaanites, they were fully prepared and qualified with Christ, the embodiment of God, as their Captain. When they attacked Jericho, they did this under the commanding of the Captain typified by the ark. The ark, a type of Christ, who was their Commander-in-chief, took the lead to attack the enemies. (Life-Study of Joshua, Judges & Ruth, Chapter 5, Section 1)


Here he uses the analogy of a "commander-in-chief" to himself and the way in which he prepares messages for the church.

Our use of reference books can be compared to a commander-in-chief who consults his advisers for their opinions in order to develop a strategy. Sometimes these opinions give us good ideas. If we do not read or consult reference books, we limit ourselves. The reference books that we consult can be helpful in improving our understanding. (The Perfecting of the Saints and the Building Up of the House of God, Chapter 5, Section 4)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is what I found:

On the one hand, we are an army, and with the army there should be a commander in chief. In the New Testament you cannot find the term “commander in chief.” We can realize this matter, though, by inference from Paul's mentioning of the uncertain sound of the trumpet for the battle (1 Cor. 14:8). Surely the battle implies an army, and in an army there is the need of a general to command the army, to direct the army to fight.. (Elders' Training, Book 07: One Accord for the Lord's Move, Chapter 7, Section 2)

1Cor 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?

As best I can tell this is the New Testament basis for the elders and leaders of the LSM to issue a ban on all Christian publications other than their publishing arm. The violation of this rule was used to support the excommunication of Titus Chu.

Now the context of this is the speaking of tongues in a church meeting. It seems to me that Paul is concerned with "distinct sound", "understanding what is said".

Verse 9 continues and explains this saying "So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air."

So there is no inference at all that this implies only one speaker, but rather that when you speak you must speak in a clear language that everyone can understand. How do you spin a doctrine of only one publisher out of this?

As for "commander in chief" it seems that is based on Joshua in the OT being the captain of the Lord's army. Since Joshua was a type of Christ it would be appropriate to refer to Jesus as "commander in chief" however, I think "Lord" would be much clearer and more Biblical.

Witness Lee clearly stated that there were some in the elders training who referred to Witness Lee as the commander in chief. That should have been rebuked and repudiated.

[ZNPaaneah]

I take it the lack of response is evidence of how indefensible this doctrine is.

I was reading a little history and about 1/3 of a company of 35 men was the fief and drummers.

In an army you can imagine how many buglers or trumpeters there are.

Granted, the music played would be at the bequest of the commanding officer, and if everyone was under the same "commander in chief" there would be an authority over this. But Jesus is the commander in chief. For Witness Lee, the Blendeds and LSM to usurp that position is to deny the Lord who bought us.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But, the doctrine of "One Trumpet" is really the best example of the leadership of this group exercising their "authority" over the Body. I would characterize it as "lording it over the saints".

In another term the doctrine of "One Trumpet" is promoting a group think environment. If you're not part of the group think, you're not part of sounding of the one trumpet.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

In another term the doctrine of "One Trumpet" is promoting a group think environment. If you're not part of the group think, you're not part of sounding of the one trumpet.

It makes me very angry when WL and the Blendeds build an entire doctrine out of an allegory, and yet completely ignore the allegory.

Let's suppose for a fact that we can build this doctrine out of the allegory of a trumpet call in a war being a type of the word spoken to the believers. Let us also liken the commander that gives the order for the trumpet to sound to be likened to the publishing house.

At this moment it does seem that you can make a claim for one trumpet = one publisher.

The problem is that on a battlefield the commanding officer is very fluid (they do get killed). If I have a small company we have a commanding officer. That officer in turn reports to his superior, who also has a superior, who also, all the way to the Pentagon and to the "commander in chief". We have different theaters of operation, all with different generals, admirals, etc.

Today our "bugle call" could be likened to our radio. Every group, even as small as 10 or 20 soldiers will have their own radio. At best LSM would represent a single general (this is the most favorable description that can be made and certainly not one I would make). Why on Earth would Eisenhower allow MacArthur to control his radio broadcasts? It is idiotic and senseless.

The only person could possibly make the claim to "one trumpet" would be the commander in chief, and contrary to RG, BP and WL that is not WL, it is Jesus. Any claim to the contrary is to usurp the lordship of Jesus and is heresy.

[Evangelical]

This seems to be addressed here:

http://www.lsm.org/onepublication/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This seems to be addressed here:

http://www.lsm.org/onepublication/

Thanks --

"Through Brother Lee’s 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 Lord’s recovery. 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..." (there is more)

This is a complete confusion between the church and the ministry. Witness Lee and Watchman Nee both shared earlier in their ministry that these are two distinct threads, with the ministry to support the church, and the church is completely independent of the ministry.

But here they argue that there should be "one publication among us". This "us" is not those in Living Stream Ministry, but refers to the churches in the LRC. This is a heresy.

[Evangelical]

The distinction seems to be maintained as evidenced by these quotes:

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.

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.

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.

Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church

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.

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.

I am not talking about the churches, I am talking about the ministry. The ministry is one thing, and the churches are another thing.

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,

http://www.lsm.org/onepublication/

Furthermore, the quotations prove that many of the things said about the LC are incorrect - the LC does not control the churches, people are not excluded for not following the ministry, and each locality is free to produce materials for their local needs.

[ZNPaaneah]

This is hysterical. This is precisely what we have discussed in the definition of the church, you are defined by your actions, not your words.

Evangelical, try reading the letter from the Blendeds in which they explained why they were quarantining (i.e. excluding from fellowship) Titus Chu. Not accepting the one publication was the basis for that excommunication.

Yep, it definitely meant that individual churches were not free to publish on their own. This was one of the issues they raised in the quarantine letter.

Yep, TC attitude towards the ministry was definitely used as a basis for the quarantine. It was one of the points they mentioned.

Yep, TC was not allowed to express his opinion, and that also was a basis for this being quarantined.

This is complete hypocrisy. They say one thing and do another. They use their doctrine in the same way the Greek actors used a mask.

1st point raised in the letter -- 1. The “blended brothers” allege that Titus Chu & his co-workers are “separating themselves
from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the
whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and
Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”. Not being faithful to the ministry of Nee and Lee = exclusion from fellowship.

2. Point 2a –Titus & some of his co-workers are allegedly “challenging and rejecting the
teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee”. -- Expressing an opinion = excluded from fellowship.

3. 3. Titus & co. are accused of “slandering Living Stream Ministry…declaring that Living Stream
Ministry is a headquarters exercising control over the churches throughout the earth.” Speaking an opinion = exclusion from fellowship.

4. The “Warning Letter” says Titus opposes the practice of “One Publication,” which is not an
item of the common faith, but a matter of “one trumpet sound of the ministry.” They say this is not a basis for excommunication, yet they list it as the basis for excommunication in this letter (defined by actions, not words).

5. Titus & his co-workers are condemned for “promoting their own publications” They say that the churches are free to have their own publication and yet Titus is excommunicated for having his own publication.

see (http://www.afaithfulword.org/stateme...2006-10-01.pdf)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is hysterical. This is precisely what we have discussed in the definition of the church, you are defined by your actions, not your words.

Evangelical, try reading the letter from the Blendeds in which they explained why they were quarantining (i.e. excluding from fellowship) Titus Chu. Not accepting the one publication was the basis for that excommunication.

Yep, it definitely meant that individual churches were not free to publish on their own. This was one of the issues they raised in the quarantine letter.

Yep, TC attitude towards the ministry was definitely used as a basis for the quarantine. It was one of the points they mentioned.

Yep, TC was not allowed to express his opinion, and that also was a basis for this being quarantined.

This is complete hypocrisy. They say one thing and do another. They use their doctrine in the same way the Greek actors used a mask.

1st point raised in the letter -- 1. The “blended brothers” allege that Titus Chu & his co-workers are “separating themselves
from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the
whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and
Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”. Not being faithful to the ministry of Nee and Lee = exclusion from fellowship.

2. Point 2a –Titus & some of his co-workers are allegedly “challenging and rejecting the
teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee”. -- Expressing an opinion = excluded from fellowship.

3. 3. Titus & co. are accused of “slandering Living Stream Ministry…declaring that Living Stream
Ministry is a headquarters exercising control over the churches throughout the earth.” Speaking an opinion = exclusion from fellowship.

4. The “Warning Letter” says Titus opposes the practice of “One Publication,” which is not an
item of the common faith, but a matter of “one trumpet sound of the ministry.” They say this is not a basis for excommunication, yet they list it as the basis for excommunication in this letter (defined by actions, not words).

5. Titus & his co-workers are condemned for “promoting their own publications” They say that the churches are free to have their own publication and yet Titus is excommunicated for having his own publication.

see (http://www.afaithfulword.org/stateme...2006-10-01.pdf)

But they say TC published worldwide which is against the ministry and one publication. If he had restricted it to his local church it would have been okay presumably. TC was conducting a "shadow ministry", raising up his own ministry in the shadow of Lee/Nee. This was the problem. This is evidenced in his publications for example "A Sketch of Genesis" which is basically regurgitation of Lee's Life Study of Genesis.

What exactly did TC teach or write that was not already written by Lee/Nee? What unique revelation did God give TC that was not given to WL/WN?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But they say TC published worldwide which is against the ministry and one publication. If he had restricted it to his local church it would have been okay presumably. TC was conducting a "shadow ministry", raising up his own ministry in the shadow of Lee/Nee. This was the problem. This is evidenced in his publications for example "A Sketch of Genesis" which is basically regurgitation of Lee's Life Study of Genesis.

Hold it, you just quoted them as saying:

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.

But now you are saying that this only applies if your publications are limited to a single city? This doesn't make sense. They are still genuine local churches unless they spread the written word beyond the boundary of the city in which case they aren't?

They said "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."


This seems very arbitrary and vague "their local needs". What does this mean? When Barnabas and Paul were first sent out did that violate this principal? Are churches aloud to support evangelists? Why can't churches support extra local ministries? Since the churches are all supporting LSM, then this is hypocritical. What they really mean is that no church can support any other ministry other than LSM, or some local campus work. That is a heresy.

You quoted them saying: 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.

But that is not true. TC was not inclined to be restricted and so they quarantined him.

You quoted them saying: 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.

But that is not true, if they can excommunicate TC for expressing his opinion they are obviously controlling the churches.

I am not talking about the churches, I am talking about the ministry. The ministry is one thing, and the churches are another thing.

[Evangelical]

They still regarded him as being a brother in Christ and being in the local church did they not?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They still regarded him as being a brother in Christ and being in the local church did they not?

Perhaps Ohio would like to respond. I am not from this church and really do not know the full details of what did and did not take place. If my recollection is correct there was a schism between a number of churches, and then LSM came in and sued to get the deed to a meeting hall. So rather than me say things that are incorrect perhaps Ohio could respond.

That said your response reminded me of the saying "with friends like these who needs enemies".