Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The analogy is poor and doesn't provide additional benefit above just talking about the actual entities/parties themselves using their actual descriptions.

What does "one publication work in the Lord's recovery" mean, Drake?

Hi Trapped,

I liked the analogy.... but the explanation using the analogy didn't work for you.. ok, let's try this. What follows is my point of view. Any use of plural pronouns is based on my belief that what I think is also what many or perhaps most current members in the local churches would concur with.

The Lord's recovery began in earnest with Martin Luther starting with the recovery of justification by faith as the significant turning point in the Lord's recovery. Since that time the Lord has continued to recover scriptural truths through various servants He raised up. These divine truths were hidden especially during the time that the Bible was locked away. These biblical truths are every believer's heritage and include but not limited to those related to God Himself, the eternal plan of God, the Triune God, the incarnation of God, Christ's Person, the incarnation of Christ, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the eternal life of God, the Spirit, the life-giving Spirit, the mingled Sspirit, Christ's redemption and God's complete salvation (spirit, soul, and body), the believers, the universal church, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the church as the Kingdom of God, the building of God, the Firstborn Son and His many brothers, the local churches, the ground of the church, the overcomers, the reward and punishment of the believers, the life practices (e.g. calling on the Lord, pray-reading the Word, etc.), the meeting life including the functioning of all the members to build up the Body of Christ and consummate the age, the preaching of the gospel and the spreading of His word, and the ultimate consummation of the union of the Triune God with His believers as the great corporate entity and shining as the New Jerusalem for eternity.

There are others but that is a representative summary.

We consider these biblical divine truths, life practices, and related matters as the spiritual inheritance of every christian. We recognize that in the last hundred years the Lord raised up two brothers through whom He revealed several of these divine matters in a fresh and in finer detail, brothers Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. We consider our place in the divine history of the Lord's recovery as the latest in the line of beneficiaries of these riches and we also consider it our responsibility to preserve, practice, publish, and carry out through various ministries the one ministry that God has entrusted to us. Our burden is to share what we believe the Lord has entrusted to us (partial list mentioned above) with the local churches and all believers and unbelievers alike through publications, trainings, conferences, radio broadcasts, internet broadcasts, gospel preaching, Bible distribution and other various outreach programs and therefore, most of these items are available for free without charge. We regard participation in the local churches and this ministry as a personal matter between each believer and the Lord Himself and we consider it a special calling that without we would have no reason to exist as a distinct group.

Again, I use the plural pronoun "we" to mean it is my informed opinion that my point of view expressed above is the intent of the One Publication and is shared by the vast majority of the believers in the local churches and that is what is meant by" one publication work in the Lord's recovery".

Hope that helps.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Trapped,

I liked the analogy.... but the explanation using the analogy didn't work for you.. ok, let's try this. What follows is my point of view. Any use of plural pronouns is based on my belief that what I think is also what many or perhaps most current members in the local churches would concur with.

I also concur and yet probably disagree greatly with many in the Local church.

Originally Posted by Drake

the ground of the church...

I also think that the ground of the church belongs on this list, however, I feel the Apostle's fellowship on the ground is in Ephesians -- the seven ones, and has nothing to do with the geographic boundary of a city.

Originally Posted by Drake

There are others but that is a representative summary.

I don't think so, there were several other truths that are very significant that I learned from my time exposed to WL's ministry. I go into great detail over these in my discussion on the book of James.

Originally Posted by Drake

we also consider it our responsibility to preserve, practice, publish, and carry out through various ministries the one ministry that God has entrusted to us. Our burden is to share what we believe the Lord has entrusted to us (partial list mentioned above) with the local churches and all believers and unbelievers alike through publications, trainings, conferences, radio broadcasts, internet broadcasts, gospel preaching, Bible distribution and other various outreach programs and therefore, most of these items are available for free without charge.

What I have put in bold is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why LSM would exercise editorial oversight over what they do and do not publish. However, it is not a justification for imposing that philosophy on the church. Nor is it justification for overriding the authority of the elders in what they can and cannot preach, whether or not they can publish what they speak, etc.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

the church as the Kingdom of God

If by 'the church' you mean the Lee local church, then, why are you defaming the Kingdom of God?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

I liked the analogy.... but the explanation using the analogy didn't work for you.. ok, let's try this. What follows is my point of view. Any use of plural pronouns is based on my belief that what I think is also what many or perhaps most current members in the local churches would concur with.
Again, I use the plural pronoun "we" to mean it is my informed opinion that my point of view expressed above is the intent of the One Publication and is shared by the vast majority of the believers in the local churches and that is what is meant by" one publication work in the Lord's recovery".

Hi Drake,
Please forgive my analogy handicap. Ask any of my high school English teachers about how bad I was with anything metaphorical. I much prefer dealing in the concrete.

Thank you for detailing that out in such a clear way. It is wonderful the Lord has recovered so many of His truths. I am sure the Lord wants His truths to be spread throughout the earth.

You mentioned Luther. The Lord entrusted Martin Luther with the recovery of the crucial truth of justification by faith. As you described very clearly, this is part of the Lord's recovery. Who was and is allowed to publish this recovered truth? I ask the same question of the truths the Lord recovered through Guyon, Wesley, Darby, etc. They are part of the Lord's recovery. Who did at the time, and can presently, write about, publish, and spread the truths that the Lord recovered through those servants?

The Lord's truths recovered through these servants have over the years been published by a variety of sources and the benefit of that has been immeasurable and far-reaching. Where did the principle of only one entity publishing recovered truths materialize from this late in the game? That has not been the principle set forth by the Lord for the handling of any of His previous recovered truths. Has God changed His principles?

In the most real sense possible, the truths recovered by the Lord do not belong to Luther, Guyon, Wesley, Darby, JPL, Nee, Lee, LSM, or to the blended co-workers. These truths are simply what the Bible states and reveals. They belong to the Lord and are revealed in His timing to those He chooses. If there are others who want to publish and propagate the precious truths as recovered by the Lord in the last 100 years through his servants Nee and Lee, why should LSM seek to restrict or denigrate the publication and spread of these recently recovered truths by claiming all others who seek to do so are void of light? They are, as you say, every believer's heritage. What purpose does it serve to go through the hassle of stating that anyone else who publishes these same truths of the Lord are "not part of the one publication in the Lord's recovery"? Did Martin Luther only want justification by faith spread to mankind as long as he was the only one publishing this wonderful truth?

"Let His word run....."

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The Lord's truths recovered through these servants have over the years been published by a variety of sources and the benefit of that has been immeasurable and far-reaching. Where did the principle of only one entity publishing recovered truths materialize from this late in the game? That has not been the principle set forth by the Lord for the handling of any of His previous recovered truths. Has God changed His principles?

I've made this point, as well: LSM often cites its "rich heritage", then in practice goes completely against it. Somehow, once Watchman Nee began to write (ahem, copying Penn-Lewis in his "Spiritual Man") all the revelation, which had hitherto been widespread, was now supposedly restricted to one source?

LSM admits the widespread revelation, even promotes it, pre-Nee:

Originally Posted by LSM

Watchman Nee attended no theological schools or Bible institutes, yet he acquired an exceptional knowledge concerning God's purpose, Christ, the Spirit, and the church through his study of the Bible as well as the writings of spiritual men and women. During his early ministry, he spent one-third of his income on books by Christian authors such as D.M. Panton, Robert Govett, G.H. Pember, Jessie Penn-Lewis, T. Austin-Sparks, John Nelson Darby, William Kelly, and C.H. Mackintosh. He was brilliantly gifted in his ability to select, comprehend, discern, and memorize appropriate material. Watchman Nee gleaned all the good, scriptural points from his collection of over 3,000 of the best Christian books, including nearly all the classical Christian writings from the first century on"

http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/lsm/watchman-nee.html

Where did all these 3,000 Christian classics come from? How many separate Christian publishing or dissemination entities?

It reminds me of the 1997 edict: "The Age of Spiritual Giants is over"; they make up rules as they go along, and expect universal compliance, and people are supposed to act like it's self-evident truth. Well, it's not. It is at best, questionable. Lo and behold, websites and online forums spring up, and anonymous posters ask questions.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

You mentioned Luther. The Lord entrusted Martin Luther with the recovery of the crucial truth of justification by faith. As you described very clearly, this is part of the Lord's recovery. Who was and is allowed to publish this recovered truth? I ask the same question of the truths the Lord recovered through Guyon, Wesley, Darby, etc. They are part of the Lord's recovery. Who did at the time, and can presently, write about, publish, and spread the truths that the Lord recovered through those servants?

The Lord's truths recovered through these servants have over the years been published by a variety of sources and the benefit of that has been immeasurable and far-reaching. Where did the principle of only one entity publishing recovered truths materialize from this late in the game? That has not been the principle set forth by the Lord for the handling of any of His previous recovered truths. Has God changed His principles?

Hi Trapped,

Happy 2019 to you and yours.

Your questions are relevant. Bottom line is that God's truths are His truths and are not the exclusive rights of any minister or ministry. Once released into the public domain they are for all of God's people.

But that is not what we are talking about and the objections about "one publication" are not about that.

Though anyone can teach, preach, and publish the divine truths that have been released through all the servants you mentioned and others that God has raised up in recent years those same people cannot demand that their teachings and writings be published by the ministry that bears responsibility for publishing them!

In other words, if the publisher (LSM in this case) does not want to publish anyone's teaching then they are not obligated to. Neither can anyone claim to be a successor of the brother or brothers through whom the Lord spoke and released certain truths. Anyone can teach, preach, post, blog, and publish all they like about divine truths the Lord has released through others or spoken to them directly. Yet no one is obligated to accept, much less publish, those messages. And yet again, if a publisher, also in this case LSM, chooses to ONLY publish the messages, writings, of a certain minister(s) then they not only have the right to limit their mission but have an obligation before the Lord as well.

Some here like John Piper.... but if anyone here went to the publisher and the producer of John Piper's work and said they were a successor to John Piper and his ministry, or that their messages should be published because they are part of the ministry of John Piper, or demand that John Piper recognize them and also publish their work then Mr. Piper and those responsible for his ministry, publications, etc. would have a good chuckle.... rightfully.

One publication is not a statement about what is to be read.... but about the mission of what will be published.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

But that is not what we are talking about and the objections about "one publication" are not about that.

Though anyone can teach, preach, and publish the divine truths that have been released through all the servants you mentioned and others that God has raised up in recent years those same people cannot demand that their teachings and writings be published by the ministry that bears responsibility for publishing them!

In other words, if the publisher (LSM in this case) does not want to publish anyone's teaching then they are not obligated to. Neither can anyone claim to be a successor of the brother or brothers through whom the Lord spoke and released certain truths. Anyone can teach, preach, post, blog, and publish all they like about divine truths the Lord has released through others or spoken to them directly. Yet no one is obligated to accept, much less publish, those messages. And yet again, if a publisher, also in this case LSM, chooses to ONLY publish the messages, writings, of a certain minister(s) then they not only have the right to limit their mission but have an obligation before the Lord as well.

Once again Drake either does not know what LSM's quarantines were all about or he disingenuously misstates them.

Regarding the quarantines of Titus Chu of Cleveland and Dong Yu Lan of Brazil, the following are true:

1. Neither TC nor DYL ever required LSM to publish their writings. Both of these ministers published their own books. Contrary to Drake's comment above, LSM demanded that no minister be allowed to minister, to write, or to publish without their consent.
2. Neither TC nor DYL ever demanded anyone to accept or to buy their books. Contrary to Drake's comment above, it is LSM which demands that all ministers, elders, and members in the LC's buy their books, teach their books, and teach only their books.

[Kevin]

But Piper would never call himself as the Minister of the Age. He would not demand his followers @Desiring God Facebook page to read only his books.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But Piper would never call himself as the Minister of the Age. He would not demand his followers @Desiring God Facebook page to read only his books.

That is irrelevant.... point is he would not remain silent nor accept it if someone claimed to be his successor of any sort..... and no one demands that we only read Witness Lee's books... that is a farce.

This was the point: Some here like John Piper.... but if anyone here went to the publisher and the producer of John Piper's work and said they were a successor to John Piper and his ministry, or that their messages should be published because they are part of the ministry of John Piper, or demand that John Piper recognize them and also publish their work then Mr. Piper and those responsible for his ministry, publications, etc. would have a good chuckle.... rightfully.

Drake

[Ohio]

This is a bogus straw man argument that has nothing to do with the actual historical actions of LSM's Blendeds who instituted their One Publication Policy to silence Titus Chu and bring him under subjection to LSM.

Ironically, using Drake's wild example about John Piper, the only case I know of usurping the so-called "mantle" of the former head of a Christian Publisher is Hank Hannegraff. Read the story of how he took over Walter Martin's Christian Research Institute and then milked it dry for his own personal gains.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

That is irrelevant.... point is he would not remain silent nor accept it if someone claimed to be his successor of any sort..... and no one demands that we only read Witness Lee's books... that is a farce.

I had an interesting experience with this in the church in Houston many years ago. I was buying a book in the book room by Watchman Nee and the brother behind the counter recommended that I would be better served with a book by Witness Lee. I told him I had tried one and hadn't gotten anything from it.

That was a big mistake and I was so new in the LC I had no idea I had said something wrong. The ramifications included being called into a meeting with the elders of the church in Houston and being told I had 2 strikes against me and was on the verge of being excommunicated. This was right after the whole Max episode and several other saints from Houston had already been excommunicated.

But on the other hand you are right, no one "openly" demanded that I only read WL books. It was up to me to figure out what the "two strikes" were that they were talking about.

Likewise we were strongly encouraged to use footnotes and WL quotes from his books in our testimonies. No one "demanded" this but "strongly encouraged" is an accurate and fair description.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

Though anyone can teach, preach, and publish the divine truths that have been released through all the servants you mentioned and others that God has raised up in recent years those same people cannot demand that their teachings and writings be published by the ministry that bears responsibility for publishing them!

Drake, please stop preaching to us like we're "new ones". Most of us have been around ya know, and didn't just fall off the Local Church of Witness Lee turnip truck. We all can recite these LC/Living Stream talking points in our sleep.

"Though anyone can teach, preach and publish the divine truths"? Really? Who's the "anyone" you speak of here? Please be specific. Also, please relate this to what is practiced in the Local Church, since that is the theme of this thread, and indeed the the theme of this forum. Forget about John Piper. Forget about Zondervan. They are poor, poor Christianity. Stick to the subject at hand.

One publication is not a statement about what is to be read.... but about the mission of what will be published.

What's the practical difference in the Local Church? What is published by Living Stream is what is to be read by the members - both at home and in the meetings. NO OTHER PUBLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED. PERIOD. Those Local Churches that read from other publications are quickly "quarantined" and the elders of those churches vilified and called "rebellious", "evil ones" and "destroyers of the divine building". This is why The Local Church is commonly known as "The Local Church of Witness Lee" - They only publish, disseminate, promote and read the teachings of Witness Lee. (and a minute amount of the teachings of Watchman Nee)
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Though anyone can teach, preach and publish the divine truths"? Really? Who's the "anyone" you speak of here? Please be specific.

Anyone is anyone.

Don't take my words out of the context in which I spoke them. If you disagree with the context in which I spoke that statement then explain why. Happy to discuss under those circumstances.

You make the same points over and over but you don't need to recast my words to do it, do you?

Thanks,
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Anyone is anyone.

Amen. Paul even said the same in Philippians when he said that some preached the gospel out of envy and strife.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Anyone is anyone.

Don't take my words out of the context in which I spoke them. If you disagree with the context in which I spoke that statement then explain why. Happy to discuss under those circumstances.

You make the same points over and over but you don't need to recast my words to do it, do you?

Thanks,
Drake

Who are the authors on the list of these “anyone”’s who have published under your ministry?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Who are the authors on the list of these “anyone”’s who have published under your ministry?

Ummmmm...What?

Apparently you aren’t following the discussion LofT. I’ve already addressed that point.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Trapped, Happy 2019 to you and yours.
Your questions are relevant. Bottom line is that God's truths are His truths and are not the exclusive rights of any minister or ministry. Once released into the public domain they are for all of God's people.

Drake,

Thanks for the well wishes; same back to you.

Thanks for categorizing my questions as relevant. How would you respond to them in particular?

I'll respond to this post soon, but am sad to see you have returned to waving the "it's just a publisher saying what it will publish" flag when I was pretty sure we'd gotten past that as we delved into why the Lord's recovery was featured as such a prominent backdrop if it's just a letter from a publisher just stating what it will publish.

I don't see much profit in going any further until you round out the line you started in post #206 where you were going to provide your thoughts on the contradiction of "I am not talking about the Lord's recovery, just the ministry" and the repeated phrase of, for example, "one trumpet in the Lord's recovery". You paused at the end of that post and never picked it back up to throw your explanation out there. I'd like to understand how you rationalize the contradiction you detailed out extensively in that post; that will help me in further correspondence with you about this.

Thanks,

Trapped

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

Anyone is anyone. Don't take my words out of the context in which I spoke them.

This is nearly an impossible task since you are constantly making the context a moving target. This is why I immediately followed up with:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Though anyone can teach, preach and publish the divine truths"? Really? Who's the "anyone" you speak of here? Please be specific. Also, please relate this to what is practiced in the Local Church, since that is the theme of this thread, and indeed the the theme of this forum. Forget about John Piper. Forget about Zondervan. They are poor, poor Christianity. Stick to the subject at hand.

Of course you have ignored my request. No biggie...I'm used to that. So, in any event, maybe you will show a little more courtesy and forthrightness to our friend Trapped.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'll respond to this post soon, but am sad to see you have returned to waving the "it's just a publisher saying what it will publish" flag when I was pretty sure we'd gotten past that as we delved into why the Lord's recovery was featured as such a prominent backdrop if it's just a letter from a publisher just stating what it will publish.

And please, for God's sake (and ours) spare us the canned, prepackaged Local Church drivel....you're wasting everyone's time (including your own, by the way) by merely presenting the company line. We know you know better. You have the game to defend the indefensible...you've been doing it at the highest level for years. Go for it, my man!

Happy New Year, by the way. Hope all is well with you and yours.
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I hope you haven't forgotten my post!

Hi Trapped,

Actually I missed your latest post so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I answered the apparent contradiction statement in post 222.

Let’s pick it up from there.

Drake

[Trapped]

Drake,

Ah, I see, I did not realize that post 222 was an attempt to explain the (apparent) contradiction detailed in 206.

After reading it again, it seems like 222 is really more an attempt to explain what the phrase "one publication work in the Lord's recovery" means, rather than to clearly explain the opposing statements of "I am not talking about the Lord's recovery, but the Lord's ministry" vs the frequent reference to "....in the Lord's recovery" in the One Publication as described in 206. Can you speak more to the reconciliation of these contradictory thoughts that permeate the document?

My response to your 222 also involved a number of questions concerning prior publications and principles related to those publications in earlier eras of the Lord's recovery; you labelled those questions as "relevant" but did not say anything specific concerning those particular questions. I'm interested in your answers to those questions too.

Thanks,

Trapped

[Drake]

Not sure what to add for either Trapped.... in 222 I explained how a statement could apply to a ministry (1st paragraph) and the Lords recovery (rest of document). I further illustrated that my opinion might very well represent the majority of believers in the local churches and so in stating my view I could also state it in the plural. However, if the statements read contradictory and are unclear then it would have been better to clarify them. Yet, I think how the statements are taken depends on how one is predisposed. I see no problem.

In 243 1st paragraph I stated Gods truths are His and so anyone can publish. Anyone is anyone. As I later stated to Untohim, LSM are not obligated to publish anyone’s teachings. Many say that they agree with that but then swing the conversation right back to irrelevant points concerning the One Publication. So, I assume people truly misunderstand what the One Publication is about.

Look, I think the One Publication document is being leveraged to launch points of attack on the Lords recovery that have nothing to do with the One Publication. I’ll give you credit for a detailed examination but you realize the dynamic that goes on in this forum right? We could have a conversation but the dynamic doesn’t really lend itself to that. But, maybe if I’m not still clear on my answers to your questions we could shorten the Q&A between us.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

... we have no reason to exist as a distinct group.

Taking it out of context, I now have something from Drake to agree with!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

... we have no reason to exist as a distinct group.

I noticed that statement too. Brother Drake just admitted that the Nee/Lee/LSM/Recovery group is just another sect of Christianity.

And they all have their publishing. I have among my books, publishing from many of them. I have JW publishing's, and Mormon, and even publishing's by Scientology. And some LC publishing's too. They all have their publishing. The LC is no different. And their's is not better than all the rest ... except in their own self aggrandizing -- our-tribe-is-better -- delusions.