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

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

My point: The One Publication document calls the churches to restrict themselves to that subset, to "one publication". I.e. to restrict themselves to and only read Nee and Lee.

No, it doesn’t, Trapped. In saying that you are omitting Brothers Lee direct statement to the contrary. You are framing an argument without including all that was said in the One Publication document. You are selecting sentences and omitting the rest. We’ve already covered that.

In this discussion we have come full circle. We started here. I was content to let the misunderstanding stand but you urged me back in and I agreed under the assumption that the examination would be mutual... it would be Berean. It’s not happening brother.

Let’s each consider before the Lord how to proceed.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

No, it doesn’t, Trapped. In saying that you are omitting Brothers Lee direct statement to the contrary. You are framing an argument without including all that was said in the One Publication document. You are selecting sentences and omitting the rest. We’ve already covered that.

In this discussion we have come full circle. We started here. I was content to let the misunderstanding stand but you urged me back in and I agreed under the assumption that the examination would be mutual... it would be Berean. It’s not happening brother.

Let’s each consider before the Lord how to proceed.

Drake

"all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Don't say it doesn't say that!

By all means, bring up the contrary statements. Include the parts I didn't include. Select the sentences I omitted. I can think of a few, although any contrary statements are so heavily dripping with cautionary language or totally contradicted by actual practice that they are next to worthless as any sort of balancing word.

But I can also understand that you may read my statement in my previous post as an overblown hyperbole, since after all, you can sit down in your comfy chair at home with any non-LSM Christian book of your choice, and no co-worker will come knocking down your door to prevent it......so I can surely see why you might balk at the sweeping nature of my assertion. I can do the same thing too, and have this very week! And no one stopped me from doing it.

So I might modify my conclusion to something more like this: "The only common and shared publication that all the saints and all the churches everywhere should be in is the one publication of Nee and Lee."

I think that describes the reality more accurately. It is not that individual saints cannot read whatever they like....because of course they can. It is that a widespread area of the local churches cannot "be in" whatever they like. By rephrasing my conclusion it allows for the small local publications mentioned in the One Pub that exist without issue (which are only songbooks and sheets according to the examples given.......no books even!) as long as they do not gain "larger geographical status", while still keeping the reality of the situation that there should be nothing but Nee/Lee for the local churches as a whole.

Is that a more accurate representation?

Regarding your note about mutuality and a Berean examination, can you give me some examples from our correspondence? Were there areas in our communications where my response was disingenuous? It is more than possible some punchiness bled through as I'm dealing with some other heavy frustrations in my non lcd.com life. I'm open to hear but need some specifics to help me in the future.

Thanks,

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

My point: The One Publication document calls the churches to restrict themselves to that subset, to "one publication". I.e. to restrict themselves to and only read Nee and Lee........

Drake> "No, it doesn't, Trapped"

Originally Posted by Trapped

"all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Don't say it doesn't say that!

By all means, bring up the contrary statements. Include the parts I didn't include. Select the sentences I omitted.

The One Publication document quoted in the base note does not say anything about what the churches are restricted in reading.

No sir.

Trapped, let's examine in detail the full paragraph you quoted from to see if there is anything in that paragraph that says that. In other words, let's put that sentence above in context:

"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. We have always had publications like this among us, and there have generally been no problems related to these. Songbooks, local tracts, church meeting outlines, testimonies, etc., have long been produced among us without controversy. These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches. These are publications that address local needs. Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter. Otherwise, damage may result. Although technologies now exist that permit the easy dissemination of material, we should not use these technologies at the risk of causing confusion among the saints and of damaging the one accord among the churches. The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Trapped, in this paragraph you cited as proof that the local churches are restricted in what they can read yet there is not one statement, or a shred of a statement, not a hint, not a suggestion, not an implication, nor an innuendo... that they are being asked or told to only read Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Rather, this paragraph, and the sentence that you lifted from this paragraph are speaking about restrictions in publication, producing a publication, disseminating publication, etc. and the reference to local churches is all about the publications they produce for local needs. That is why there is no contradiction with what Brother Lee said in the same document that whether one reads the ministry or not is up to them. That is why there is no contradiction when Brother Lee said whether one reads his writings or not does not determine whether they are a genuine local church. The One Publication document addresses publication, and it addresses the very real problem of some brothers claiming to be part of the ministry but driving their own agenda and publishing their teachings under the umbrella of the ministry. Those brothers have the right to publish their own stuff, but not under the banner of being a part of or the successor to the one ministry by their own self-ascribed determination. That would be an "uncertain sounding of the trumpet" just to close the loop on that bit.

Furthermore, you may compare in the same document what is meant by "the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China". Again, in that historical account there is nothing about what the churches in China were restricted in reading. 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.

Hope that helps.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

"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. We have always had publications like this among us, and there have generally been no problems related to these. Songbooks, local tracts, church meeting outlines, testimonies, etc., have long been produced among us without controversy. These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches. These are publications that address local needs. Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter. Otherwise, damage may result. Although technologies now exist that permit the easy dissemination of material, we should not use these technologies at the risk of causing confusion among the saints and of damaging the one accord among the churches. The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Drake's quote above from the "One Publication" has many troubling points:

1. Why should materials in one LC not be used outside of their locality?
2. Why should any LC not be permitted to use materials from another LC?
3. Who can stop local elders from using any material they deem fitting for their saints?
4. Why should emails or the internet not be used for fellowship between LC's?
5. Why should use of these technologies cause confusion?
6. Why would use of these technologies damage the one accord?

Is it not interesting indeed that LSM has regularly exploited all of these technologies, while demanding that LC elders do not. This raises a number of other issues:

1. What if LC elders instruct their saints not to use LSM materials?
2. What if LC elders of various LC's near to one another decide that they wish to share materials for their meetings?
3. What if the Lord raises up Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, etc in their region, are these LC's not free to share their gifts from the Lord?
4. What if LC elders decide that LSM's materials cause confusion?
5. What if LC elders decide that LSM's materials damage the one accord?

Brothers like Trapped and aron and others on this thread should begin to ask questions like these, otherwise Drake will continue dissembling and wordsmithing his responses.

[ZNPaaneah]

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?

[Drake]

-1

Brothers,

As a reminder, my posts represent my personal views and are not a proxy officially or unofficially for any other person, organization, or group. No claims are made otherwise and my point of view is a matter of personal conviction.

Therefore, my posts should be evaluated on their own merits and acknowledged or challenged based on the facts presented, the logic used, and relevance to the immediate topic under discussion. Furthermore, I always welcome viewpoints based scripture related to the topic under discussion.

Thanks
Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Drake> "No, it doesn't, Trapped"

The One Publication document quoted in the base note does not say anything about what the churches are restricted in reading.

No sir.

Trapped, let's examine in detail the full paragraph you quoted from to see if there is anything in that paragraph that says that. In other words, let's put that sentence above in context:

"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. We have always had publications like this among us, and there have generally been no problems related to these. Songbooks, local tracts, church meeting outlines, testimonies, etc., have long been produced among us without controversy. These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches. These are publications that address local needs. Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter. Otherwise, damage may result. Although technologies now exist that permit the easy dissemination of material, we should not use these technologies at the risk of causing confusion among the saints and of damaging the one accord among the churches. The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Trapped, in this paragraph you cited as proof that the local churches are restricted in what they can read yet there is not one statement, or a shred of a statement, not a hint, not a suggestion, not an implication, nor an innuendo... that they are being asked or told to only read Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Rather, this paragraph, and the sentence that you lifted from this paragraph are speaking about restrictions in publication, producing a publication, disseminating publication, etc. and the reference to local churches is all about the publications they produce for local needs. That is why there is no contradiction with what Brother Lee said in the same document that whether one reads the ministry or not is up to them. That is why there is no contradiction when Brother Lee said whether one reads his writings or not does not determine whether they are a genuine local church. The One Publication document addresses publication, and it addresses the very real problem of some brothers claiming to be part of the ministry but driving their own agenda and publishing their teachings under the umbrella of the ministry. Those brothers have the right to publish their own stuff, but not under the banner of being a part of or the successor to the one ministry by their own self-ascribed determination. That would be an "uncertain sounding of the trumpet" just to close the loop on that bit.

Furthermore, you may compare in the same document what is meant by "the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China". Again, in that historical account there is nothing about what the churches in China were restricted in reading. 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.

Hope that helps.

Drake

Drake,

Um......if the One Pub restricts what is published........that restricts what is available to be read. If I cannot publish a book, then no one can read that book.

From the One Pub: "...the ministry materials of Brother Lee and Brother Nee. These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lord’s recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today."

"Used" means "read", Drake. If the one publication is what is regularly read by all the saints and all the churches, and everyone else is to be restricted in NOT publishing.......then all the saints and churches are left to only read Nee and Lee. Don't take that to mean that I'm saying they can't read whatever they want in their own home; I've already covered that. I am talking about on a widespread shared scale, not individuals.

Drake, I am not unsympathetic to LSMs concerns over what may have been legitimate problems caused by DYL, etc, although I do not know many of the gory details of the whole situation. I personally cannot fault LSM or those affiliated for putting out a statement "discrediting" anyone who tries to put out publications that falsely claim they are a continued representation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's ministry. If WL did not "appoint" someone as a continuation of his own personal ministry (and my personal belief is that he did not) then, of course, it is not okay for anyone to publish as if they are such a continuation. If I wrote a bestseller and someone else wrote a sequel to it and tried to pass off that I had designated them to do so when I didn't, I would have a problem. Given that LSM's stated purpose is to publish WN and WL, and that purpose hasn't changed, it follows that anyone else, DYL or otherwise, is not part of their publication.

But unfortunately, the One Pub failed miserably, and I mean miserably, at getting that point across, if indeed that is the point.

I'd like to propose a revised version of the Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery. It's not perfect or all-encompassing, but here goes:

----
There are some brothers among us who are putting out their own publications under the claim that they are a continuation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's ministry. This is a false claim. Before his passing, brother Lee did not appoint any brother as his continuation and did not authorize further publication of his ministry by any person or entity besides LSM. LSM is the sole publisher of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's books, and any material published by other saints are not LSM publications.

While we all have a basic right to publish, anyone among us who publishes should not do so claiming affiliation with LSM, Watchman Nee, or Witness Lee as part of their publication. In addition, they should not use any such affiliation as a basis for promotion of their own work. Portions or excerpts of brother Nee or Lee's ministry may not be quoted or referenced without receiving explicit written permission from LSM to do so, and should only be done in a manner consistent with existing copyright laws. Furthermore, any saint who publishes should find an independent publishing company to do so.

As with any spiritual nourishment we take in, each saint should discern for themselves the benefit and truth found in any published work. Any Christian publication, whether put out by LSM, by a saint in the Lord's recovery, or by another Christian author, should be held to the light of the truth in the word. The credence given to any publication should be based on the light received, its accuracy according to the truth, and whether it brings you to know and love the Lord Jesus in a deeper way. The publication of divine truths is a serious and weighty matter. We recommend that any saint desiring to publish should not do so lightly or without much prayer before the Lord and fellowship with other believers.
----

While they certainly can make clear that anyone who publishes is not part of the one publication, the co-workers have no business restricting anyone from publishing if they are led by the Lord to publish, or restricting the scope of that publication. Claiming that this restriction is to be "governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross" is a shocking disrespect to the cross of Christ. If the One Pub is a reaction to DYL, it is quite a simple task to get that point across, given the brainpower behind who was probably involved in writing it, but somehow, that group of brilliant, eloquent, educated men couldn't do it.

Trapped

P.S. Ohio's points are excellent and I'd love to elaborate there too but am short on time. But goodness......if someone in a locality produces a tract that preaches the good news of the gospel, is the wide-eyed warning that "damage may result" if that tract is used in other churches really warranted? Why would something used locally that is spiritually beneficial to one locality suddenly become damaging when passed around to others? It's just ludicrous.

Also for anyone to sweepingly claim that other's publications contain "no new light or life supply" is just.......arrogance to the max. Argh!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Trapped

..if the One Pub restricts what is published........that restricts what is available to be read. If I cannot publish a book, then no one can read that book.
These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lord’s recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today."
"Used" means "read", Drake.

Yes, to most people, restricting what is published is tantamount to restricting what is read. And yes, to anyone not from Planet Lee, "used" does mean "read". But for followers of Witness Lee, and his Swiss cheese logic, up can also be down, square pegs can fit into round holes and "do what I say, not what I do" is the order of the day.

"One publication among us today" may seem somewhat innocuous to the uninformed, but in the Local Church of Witness Lee it is well-understood and taken as seriously as a heart attack. There is a very good reason why Lee is to be considered as "The One Minister with The One Ministry for The Age"...because that's exactly how he presented himself when he was alive, and this is how he is presented by The Blended Brothers "among us today".
-

[awareness]

Of course One Publication is a joke. Anyone can publish. But it's not a joke in the the recovery movement. It means only LSM publications can be used and read in the LC.

Like the Watchtower to the JW's ... and the book of Mormon to the LDS.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course One Publication is a joke. Anyone can publish. But it's not a joke in the the recovery movement. It means only LSM publications can be used and read in the LC.

Like the Watchtower to the JW's ... and the book of Mormon to the LDS.

Looking at that writing years ago, I got the impression there's only one publication and if you want to write something, you must clear it with the LSM.
It seems we all understand that you can't publish something attributing that it is the LSM without consultation with them.
But since this is considered the ministry of the age, God's authority comes from he who can interpret the word, etc, any other publishing can be considered
competition with the one ministry based on ambition.
I have a compound question, did Titus and Dong just publish under their own name or did they claim it was with the LSM or "the one ministry of the age."
Any Christian should be able to write and publish, as long as proper accreditation is given to any sources. It seems the issues came up as to how they were promoted and distributed.
On a side note, I've tried numerous times to access that "One Publication" site, it still is "403."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course One Publication is a joke. Anyone can publish. But it's not a joke in the the recovery movement. It means only LSM publications can be used and read in the LC.

Like the Watchtower to the JW's ... and the book of Mormon to the LDS.

One characteristic of abusive sects or cults is to fetter the children of God and rob them of their liberties in Christ. Jesus came to set us free, as the Good Shepherd sets the sheep free.

In the apostolic age, it was the Judaizers who attempted to bring the liberated believers into bondage. During the Dark Ages it was the Roman Pope who did the same. Today it is insular and exclusive sects who do the same.

I grew up with the Catholic Missal. It defined the Lord's Day service for every parish on earth. Now the LC's have the Holy Word for Morning Revival published by LSM. It does the same thing.

Hi Drake, please show us one collection of churches (ie denomination) in history which has used a One Publication Policy and remained healthy in the faith. Every single one, including the Plymouth brethren, has used this policy to its own demise.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'd like to propose a revised version of the Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery. It's not perfect or all-encompassing, but here goes:

Trapped, Your suggestion makes some good sense, which of course means its logic will be lost on some of the very ones you are trying to convince.

Here's the thing. Any Christian group has the right to set up rules for its members. We can argue whether those rules are right or wrong in the broad sense, but that is different from arguing whether the group itself can hold such rules.

For example, a group might have a rule that men wear ties and women wear dresses to meetings. We can argue whether that in general is a "good" rule or not, but in the end you have to concede if a group wants to have such a rule that's its business.

The "Lord's Recovery" obviously has some rules that most would find odd, and we might even be able to mount arguments as to why the LR should not have such rules, but in the end its their call. The beauty of that is, if you don't want to be a member of the LR, then don't. There are plenty of groups. The vast majority of Christian groups understand this. They believe in their particular vision, but allow others the freedom to disagree with them.

Not the LR, however. They just don't think their way is better. They think all other ways are invalid and you are evil for following them. They are not content just to have their own group and follow the Lord according to their own consciences, they want to compel the consciences of others to remain in their group, to the point of grievously unethical spiritual intimidation. As Ohio said, it's about control. This is plain evil, and this is where sheep dogs like myself feel to step in.

So trying to reform the LR without addressing their core problem of serious spiritual abuse is, I'm afraid, a waste of time. If they are not going to see the problem of their major abuses they certainly are not going to see the problem with their minor ones. If they aren't bashful about threatening members with 1000 years in outer darkness for leaving God's unique move on earth and his one true ministry, aka their little sect, do you really think they are going to give a rat's rear end whether they shouldn't restrict their members from publishing?

So, in general, if you like the LR, join up and follow their rules. If you don't like the LR, then leave without a giving a second thought to their stupid threats. But don't expect them to change anything as long as their attitude is that by definition they can do no wrong. By all means warn others, but don't expect to be able to change the LR.

[Ohio]

Years ago someone commented about my former LC minister Dr. Philip Comfort saying, "perhaps our hearts in the churches needs to be enlarged." I immediately had to get a hold on my anger. After a bit, I commented, "the church loved Phil, it was the heart of TC that needed to be enlarged."

For years I heard LC teachings about trusting the Lord. Ministers were to be patterns for the church. When it comes to the ministry at LSM, there is no such thing as trusting the Lord. For decades they have operated according to fleshly wisdom, and sometimes they just employed the flesh without any wisdom at all. Just open to any of Paul's writings, and you will see endless details of healthy patterns of ministry long rejected by those at LSM. Their One Publication Policy is just the tip of the iceberg.

For example. Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2.11) publicly in Antioch over discarded Kosher law, yet Peter later extolled "beloved brother" Paul's writings as the scripture itself. (II Peter 3.15-16) Compare this to Lee. When John Ingalls approached him privately a dozen times about his fleshly son Philip, Lee turned on him publicly to smear his reputation. Compare this also to the Blendeds. When Midwest brothers addressed their controlling ways, they quarantined them in return.

Our real pattern -- Paul -- was honest and humble, these guys are dishonest and arrogant.

[ZNPaaneah]

The bottom line is that LSM has the right to tell people whether or not they can speak (publish) in the name of LSM. They don't have the right to tell us whether or not we can speak (publish) in the name of Jesus. Their attempt to do so is weak, beggarly, and usurps the Lord's authority. Only a fool would would agree to submit themselves to this ordinance. The only one that can forbid us to speak in the name of Jesus is the Spirit (Acts 16:6).

However, if you read Acts that attempt to forbid the apostles to speak in the name of Jesus is common (Acts 4:17, 5:28), nothing new about what LSM is doing. If you want to speak the word of God you need a backbone, can't be a reed bending in the wind.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm saying they can't read whatever they want in their own home; I've already covered that. I am talking about on a widespread shared scale, not individuals.

Okay Trapped. Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate that, yet you are also aware that is a minority viewpoint in this forum. Since we agree on the freedom to read personally whatever we want then we can move forward in our conversation.

Originally Posted by Trapped

... I personally cannot fault LSM or those affiliated for putting out a statement "discrediting" anyone who tries to put out publications that falsely claim they are a continued representation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's ministry. If WL did not "appoint" someone as a continuation of his own personal ministry (and my personal belief is that he did not) then, of course, it is not okay for anyone to publish as if they are such a continuation. If I wrote a bestseller and someone else wrote a sequel to it and tried to pass off that I had designated them to do so when I didn't, I would have a problem. Given that LSM's stated purpose is to publish WN and WL, and that purpose hasn't changed, it follows that anyone else, DYL or otherwise, is not part of their publication.

Right! This is the key point of the One Publication document.

Originally Posted by Trapped

While they certainly can make clear that anyone who publishes is not part of the one publication, the co-workers have no business restricting anyone from publishing if they are led by the Lord to publish, or restricting the scope of that publication.

Yes, again. That was stated clearly in the One Publication document.... unless you mean that any one should be able to send their personal ministry to the local churches and no one will object. Then we still have a disagreement.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Claiming that this restriction is to be "governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross" is a shocking disrespect to the cross of Christ. If the One Pub is a reaction to DYL, it is quite a simple task to get that point across, given the brainpower behind who was probably involved in writing it, but somehow, that group of brilliant, eloquent, educated men couldn't do it.

Setting aside the snarky aspects of your point above I believe you brought up an important matter. All believers should be "governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross", shouldn't they? Since you object to the statement being made and characterize it as a "shocking disrespect to the cross of Christ" then please eleborate.... Are we not called to live a crucified life in personal things and in our service to the Lord? Practically speaking, shouldn't every post published in this forum be governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross? If not that, then what? And if you agree, then what specifically is it to serve under the cross of Christ? Why shouldn't what serving ones publish, here or everywhere, be fully under the governing vision of the cross of Christ?

Thanks,
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Right! This is the key point of the One Publication document.

Protecting their name may be the key point to you, but it is certainly not the key objection.

“I never published anything by myself. I always mailed my manuscript to the Gospel Room, which was under Brother Nee and his helper. It was up to their discernment whether my manuscript should be published or not.” Post #1 — Publication work in the Lord’s recovery, Being restricted in one publication.

“It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications?” Post #1 — Publication work in the Lord’s recovery, Being restricted in one publication.

The objection that I have is that LSM wants to stop anyone else from doing what they are doing. That was a major justification for the discipline on Titus Chu. That is why they warn the saints away from forums like this. That is why WL said it bothered him that saints put out publications. If WL can speak for the Lord why would he try to stop others speaking for the Lord?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Protecting their name may be the key point to you, but it is certainly not the key objection.

ZNP,

"Protecting their name" is not the key point, ....really not even a meaningful point in my view.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, again. That was stated clearly in the One Publication document.... unless you mean that any one should be able to send their personal ministry to the local churches and no one will object. Then we still have a disagreement.

Who has the right to try to stop someone from sending his publications to a local church for possible use? Answer: No one.

This is the root of the problem: LSM or the Blendeds or whomever have no right to try to stop people from publishing, nor do they have a right to try to stop people from distributing those publications to whomever they wish. Ministries do not own churches, they do not own people, and they certainly have no right to try to restrict people from what they should have the freedom to do.

Here's basically what the One Publication means in reality. LSM says essentially:

If you want to be associated with LSM, then you are going to do what we say. If you don't do what we say we are going to discredit you and say you are no longer part of the glorious "Lord's Recovery" and not even a legitimate church, and any other condemnation we can think of to try to intimidate you.

As if anyone should give a hoot whether they are part of this imaginary thing called "the Lord's Recovery," or whether LSM thinks they are a church or not. But that's the "game of thrones" LSM is playing. It's all intimidation based on a non-existent entity called the "Lord's Recovery." No church, whether ever associated with LSM or not, is under any obligation to respect it. That's true of any other ministry or movement which takes that tack.

It's all a game of intimidation based on lies. It's ridiculous. It's flat wrong.