First Post kumbaya

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

“Right. Or, like those who say there is One Publication Policy, because, well . . . to avoid confusion. . . you know.”

aron,

You are confounding, as is typical, “one publication” with “one’s reading”. A ministry will publish what they believe is according to their ministry and readers will read whatever they want to. Both sides are free to make that choice in free societies.

Yet, I don’t believe you really give a hoot about the one publication you just use it as a hammer to drive pet peeve nails. Seriously, how many Titus Chu or Dong books are on your personal book shelf right now? Count them. Honestly, how many of either of those author’s books have you even read?

I suspect zero.... to avoid confusion... we’ll, you know.

Drake

Shall I also count how many Witness Lee books I have on my shelf?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Shall I also count how many Witness Lee books I have on my shelf?

I don't have any Milton or Shakespeare either, but I object to any "Farenheit 451" dystopian regime telling me whether or not they can be on my shelves. You know, to avoid confusion. If people read the wrong books they might get ideas, and book sales might drop.

Yes, Drake has me pegged clean - it is a pet peeve of mine. I object to anyone dominating the flock, telling us what we can and can't think, what we can and can't publish, what we can and can't say in gatherings of the faithful.

And it's a peeve of mine just as "KJV only" is with Drake, and for the same reason - it's institutionalized stupidity. God gave us hearts and also brains.

Back to the RecV footnote issue - it's not just that they are apparently contradictory, and arguably questionable. It's that this "reading", as Drake calls it, is placed in these captive assemblies as if it were from God. It cannot be questioned, examined critically, or potentially be subject to correction. As soon as one does that with the ministry, and begins to treat it like the output of any other author, the whole house of cards might come tumbling down.

In that sense it is exactly like the 'KJV only' issue. God's oracle has spoken; how dare we mortals question?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't have any Milton or Shakespeare either, but I object to any "Farenheit 451" dystopian regime telling me whether or not they can be on my shelves. You know, to avoid confusion. If people read the wrong books they might get ideas, and book sales might drop.

I'm here thinking about how far we should go without hijacking Kumbaya's thread, so I looked at her 1st two posts -- LSM selling books and LSM dominating everything -- and determined we are right on topic. So many recent posts on this forum are about LC oppression and bandage, whether it be what books can be read or who to marry and spend your life with.

The "good news" gospel of Jesus Christ is all about liberty, setting the prisoners free. We could summarize the chief complaint about the recovery is stealing that liberty and returning us to bondage. As a young person back in the 70's, I was captivated by the liberty and joy of the Spirit. In Christ I had a liberty never before even thought of. How things have changed!

Paul rebuked Peter in Antipas (Gal 2.11) for returning to bondage. He concluded his rebuke saying, "For if I rebuild what I tore down, I make myself a transgressor." (2.18) Isn't this exactly what those in Anaheim have done? They rebuilt what they once tore down, and now we are here exposing their transgressions.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, Drake has me pegged clean - it is a pet peeve of mine. I object to anyone dominating the flock, telling us what we can and can't think, what we can and can't publish, what we can and can't say in gatherings of the faithful.

Here the thing aron.

You can publish whatever pleases your pea-pickin heart. You just can't publish something and claim it is part of a ministry if that ministry determines it is not. That is the exclusive right of the ministry.

Just like if you wrote a song and published it as a "Lennon-McCartney" tune. You can't do that.

The Living Stream Ministry is not obligated to publish anyone's writings nor are they bound to let authors publish under their banner. You may not like it but it doesn't really matter if you do or not because it is not your area of responsibility. You can go to Zondervan and ask them to publish your writings.... good luck with that. Or you can go to Titus Chu and ask him to publish your writings under his banner... good luck that too.

As for control, who is controlling you? Besides, given full liberty to read the authors who LSM determined not to publish you have not read a single one of them even though they have published their own books. Why not? Were they not worthy to you? If LSM had published the writings of Chu and Dong you certainly would not have contributed to the effort by buying their books else you would have already bought them. You haven't bought even one so why do you expect LSM to print a ready supply? That is why I say you don't really care about this "one publication" issue, it is just a convenient narrative hammer... if it wasn't this it would be something else because you have other issues.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Here the thing aron.

You can publish whatever pleases your pea-pickin heart. You just can't publish something and claim it is part of a ministry if that ministry determines it is not. That is the exclusive right of the ministry.

Just like if you wrote a song and published it as a "Lennon-McCartney" tune. You can't do that.

The Living Stream Ministry is not obligated to publish anyone's writings nor are they bound to let authors publish under their banner. You may not like it but it doesn't really matter if you do or not because it is not your area of responsibility. You can go to Zondervan and ask them to publish your writings.... good luck with that. Or you can go to Titus Chu and ask him to publish your writings under his banner... good luck that too.

As for control, who is controlling you? Besides, given full liberty to read the authors who LSM determined not to publish you have not read a single one of them even though they have published their own books. Why not? Were they not worthy to you? If LSM had published the writings of Chu and Dong you certainly would not have contributed to the effort by buying their books else you would have already bought them. You haven't bought even one so why do you expect LSM to make a ready supply? That is why I say you don't really care about this "one publication" issue, it is just a convenient narrative hammer... if it wasn't this it would be something else because you have other issues.

Drake

So Titus Chu and others were only quarantined because they wanted LSM to publish their books?

I don't think so.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So Titus Chu and others were only quarantined because they wanted LSM to publish their books?

I don't think so.

And a major issue for me is that LC leaders discourage members from even reading other books. That is control.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And a major issue for me is that LC leaders discourage members from even reading other books. That is control.

For me it's making LSM publications the basis of fellowship.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So Titus Chu and others were only quarantined because they wanted LSM to publish their books?

The Living Stream Ministry of Witness Lee is about control, at the core of its DNA. Just like Watchman Nee couldn't brook any peers (e.g., Leland Wang), neither could Witness Lee (T. Austin Sparks). Lackeys, sycophants and yes-men only could apply.

It goes to publishing, relations, and everything else that matters. My LC elder tried to hold a regional conference on one of Witness Lee's books. He was told, "Re-speak the latest conference". Someone flew out from Anaheim to 'help'.

Btw I've read books by both Chu, and Dong, as well as Nee and Lee. But that's a different topic, isn't it.

Lee was so good at controlling people, he could say the sky was blue, then two weeks later say it was purple and nobody would point out the discrepancy. I mean, purple is sorta blue. . . as one sister remarked brightly after the latest 'flow' from Anaheim was announced, and sat heavily upon us in the room, "Well, it's the church!"

But Drake has never noticed any of that control. All he's experienced is the 'oneness'.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee was so good at controlling people, he could say the sky was blue, then two weeks later say it was purple and nobody would point out the discrepancy. I mean, purple is sorta blue. . . as one sister remarked brightly after the latest 'flow' from Anaheim was announced, and sat heavily upon us in the room, "Well, it's the church!"

But Drake has never noticed any of that control. All he's experienced is the 'oneness'.

Lee famously said, "Who did I control, I can't even control a mosquito!"

The comment is totally deceptive, as if the inability to control biting insects translates to human minions and lackeys.

Reminds me of those Farmers Insurance commercials. They claim to cover all of the outrageous and the freakish, like being attacked by mountain lions, thus assuring you of their boundless protection. What they are not telling you is that they are not covering the #1 source of home damage -- external ground water. Any insurance company will gladly cover a falling piano or alien invasion; what are the chances of that?

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Drake

Here the thing aron.

You can publish whatever pleases your pea-pickin heart. You just can't publish something and claim it is part of a ministry if that ministry determines it is not. That is the exclusive right of the ministry.

Just like if you wrote a song and published it as a "Lennon-McCartney" tune. You can't do that.

The Living Stream Ministry is not obligated to publish anyone's writings nor are they bound to let authors publish under their banner. You may not like it but it doesn't really matter if you do or not because it is not your area of responsibility. You can go to Zondervan and ask them to publish your writings.... good luck with that. Or you can go to Titus Chu and ask him to publish your writings under his banner... good luck that too.

As for control, who is controlling you? Besides, given full liberty to read the authors who LSM determined not to publish you have not read a single one of them even though they have published their own books. Why not? Were they not worthy to you? If LSM had published the writings of Chu and Dong you certainly would not have contributed to the effort by buying their books else you would have already bought them. You haven't bought even one so why do you expect LSM to print a ready supply? That is why I say you don't really care about this "one publication" issue, it is just a convenient narrative hammer... if it wasn't this it would be something else because you have other issues.

Drake

I understand what you're saying, but I also think you're missing a main point that Chu and Dong, and whoever else cared to write something, would be discouraged to by LSM even if they found their own publisher. I don't think it's biblical to have an elder that is prohibited from publishing their own work outside of a certain publishing company (LSM.)

Many people think they've take things too far by limiting other elders or members in that way.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I understand what you're saying, but I also think you're missing a main point that Chu and Dong, and whoever else cared to write something, would be discouraged to by LSM even if they found their own publisher. I don't think it's biblical to have an elder that is prohibited from publishing their own work outside of a certain publishing company (LSM.)

Many people think they've take things too far by limiting other elders or members in that way.

Sure, and they did.

The question here is not one of right to publish... the issue is representation. Does this or that represent the ministry. If the answer is yes, then all is well. If the answer is no and someone insists that they are representing the ministry and want to publish even elsewhere then things do not go as well. Usually.

Drake

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure, and they did.

The question here is not one of right to publish... the issue is representation. Does this or that represent the ministry. If the answer is yes, then all is well. If the answer is no and someone insists that they are representing the ministry and want to publish even elsewhere then things do not go as well. Usually.

Drake

You believe the blended brothers took their control too far?

I'm not aware of whether or not those brothers wanted LSM to publish their work and I can understand if they did, and it was decided that it wasn't a representative of the ministry- how they could be denied that right. But, I also know there was a power struggle with real estate at hand, and can't help but think that was an issue in the decision as well.

But, if they wanted to publish their own work with another publisher, and still be an elder in a locality- that should have been fine, given they were writing sound Biblical teachings. There is nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of that would justify how far the BB's took the situation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure, and they did.

The question here is not one of right to publish... the issue is representation. Does this or that represent the ministry. If the answer is yes, then all is well. If the answer is no and someone insists that they are representing the ministry and want to publish even elsewhere then things do not go as well. Usually.

Drake

This is all hogwash!

Titus Chu ministered to LC's in greater Ohio area since the 1960's, long before many of the Blendeds came along. Then in ~2005 the Blendeds got to decide that TC "does not represent the ministry." Whose ministry is it anyways? Since when does LSM get to decide what "ministry" is representative?"

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is all hogwash!

Titus Chu ministered to LC's in greater Ohio area since the 1960's, long before many of the Blendeds came along. Then in ~2005 the Blendeds got to decide that TC "does not represent the ministry." Whose ministry is it anyways? Since when does LSM get to decide what "ministry" is representative?"

Yes- all the localities should have voted and agreed to accept the decided outcome with no fear of backlash. That’s the healthy way- right? There was probably blame on both sides but looking on- the blame on the BB’s is clear- they created division with their need to control. How “blended” are the brothers if they only represent one way of thinking? What they did to “quarantine” an entire church is an enormous offense. They try to justify it on “afaithfulword” but it doesn’t justify their actions IMO.

I wonder what would happen if they included a comment section on their faithfulword site? Ha!!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is all hogwash!

Titus Chu ministered to LC's in greater Ohio area since the 1960's, long before many of the Blendeds came along. Then in ~2005 the Blendeds got to decide that TC "does not represent the ministry." Whose ministry is it anyways? Since when does LSM get to decide what "ministry" is representative?"

Time is irrelevant.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure, and they did.

The question here is not one of right to publish... the issue is representation. Does this or that represent the ministry. If the answer is yes, then all is well. If the answer is no and someone insists that they are representing the ministry and want to publish even elsewhere then things do not go as well. Usually.

Drake

I earlier mentioned that the RecV footnotes contradict each other. One says that the psalmist crushing his enemy's skull and bathing his feet in his enemy's blood is a picture of Christ defeating Satan, while another footnote says that the Christian sentiment is to forgive your enemy and therefore the psalmist's violent antagonism is merely vain concepts.

How is that representing the ministry? Can we critique the ministry and represent it?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I earlier mentioned that the RecV footnotes contradict each other. One says that the psalmist crushing his enemy's skull and bathing his feet in his enemy's blood is a picture of Christ defeating Satan, while another footnote says that the Christian sentiment is to forgive your enemy and therefore the psalmist's violent antagonism is merely vain concepts.

How is that representing the ministry? Can we critique the ministry and represent it?

Maybe we can represent the ministry in a special edition of "Affirmation & Critique".

One article: "Women's roles: 1915 versus 2015". Ask what roles Jessie Penn- Lewis, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee and ME Barber might have in the modern 'church life'.

And another on contradictory RecV footnotes in the Psalms, and a comparison of WL's reception of the Psalms compared to the reception in the NT.

I think we might begin to give an contemporary representation of the ministry today.