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

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Unless I have misread LSM's documentation on the "One Publication" you cannot claim to submit to this doctrine without vetting anything you publish with them.

Now they may not take issue with some very minor publications that are distributed locally, but they would certainly take issue with anything posted on this forum since it is extra local.

Since I only recognize 1 mediator between God and Man, the man Jesus Christ, I am not willing to submit to this beggarly rule.

Since you have already stated for the record that you are not vetting your posts through LSM I cannot understand how you can defend this doctrine if you don't actually submit to it.

Yes, you have misread or misapplied the "One Publication" and I have provided my viewpoint on that through my personal correspondences with Trapped posted in this forum.

There are no LSM police running around trying to control people, telling them what they can read or whether or not they can publish (Titus Chu publishes and sells books yet today....doesn't he?). That would be pointless and impossible to execute even if they were so inclined (which they are not). Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. If God's enemy were blatant then believers would not fall for his wiles. But he is subtle and so creates a small opening, like a crack in the wall, that later turns into something that a Mack truck can be driven through.

Then you end up with a situation like this:

"Today there are churches which are still passing through turmoil because of the influence of Titus Chu and certain divisive workers under his leadership. These workers have deviated from the central lane of God's economy in their teaching and actions. They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness."

So, personally, I appreciate that there are brother's who are mindful of the ministry in the Lord's recovery they have been entrusted with and will address potential issues head on. That's a good and responsible thing to do.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, personally, I appreciate that there are brother's who are mindful of the ministry in the Lord's recovery they have been entrusted with and will address potential issues head on. That's a good and responsible thing to do.

LSM has the right to define the terms of association with them.

They have no right to condemn anyone for choosing not to do so. Whether blatantly or by implying they have left the "central lane of God's economy," which is just BS and double-talk designed to intimidate, anyway.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

LSM has the right to define the terms of association with them.

They have no right to condemn anyone for choosing not to do so. Whether blatantly or by implying they have left the "central lane of God's economy," which is just BS and double-talk designed to intimidate, anyway.

Judge not lest you be judged. I think much of what we share on this forum indicates that they have "left the central lane of God's economy".

When we talk about pure religion being the care of orphans and widows we are making the point that they have left this. When we point out that the apostle's fellowship was to not sue your brother we are pointing out that they have "left the apostle's fellowship" and "gone out from us".

So I think it is fair to conclude that we also have judged that the Blendeds "have left the central lane of God's economy", though instead of all the mumbo jumbo we would use a more scriptural term: "they have left the fellowship of the apostles and gone out from them".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

J
So I think it is fair to conclude that we also have judged that the Blendeds "have left the central lane of God's economy", though instead of all the mumbo jumbo we would use a more scriptural term: "they have left the fellowship of the apostles and gone out from them".

The difference is I'm not saying you have to follow my ministry to be in the central lane. I don't say people can't write books and try to market them to my church. I'm saying the LC leadership should back off and stop being so controlling. That's their sin and that is not something the rest of the Church should tolerate in the way we tolerate other differences.

Here's the bottom line:

There is no "Lord's Recovery." That concept was created to define a special elite club which its caretakers market. They define what it is and what its beliefs are, and hence who is "in" and who is "out."

They proclaim, with amazingly straight faces, which probably implies they actually believe it themselves, that if you are not in this club you are not up to par. But they and they alone have power to define what the rules are for being in the club. If you do and say what they like, you are in. If you don't, you are out. All this controlled by a small group of people.

If you are a member in good standing of their club--which again exists only in their own minds--they will approve you. If you are not, they will discredit you. So they take it upon themselves to be the judges of everyone. They have no problem using these means of intimidation to try to get their way.

Now, does anyone really think that is how God operates?

History shows that God does not operate that way at all. God has always raised up people as he saw fit to innovate and reform his work. Because of this very fact, he has always required us to give freedom to others to follow their consciences and not nitpick about details to try to retain control and numbers.

So their saying they are protecting the purity of their revelation is just wrongheaded. No one's revelation is so pure that it needs to be protected to the point of shutting out all other ideas. Again God just doesn't work that way. He can't. So their attitude actually produces the opposite of what they think it will. Instead of preserving light, it produces ever-increasing dimness.

Titus Chu believed in all the basics of what Lee taught. Yes, he had some other ideas. But anyone who knows how things work realizes that none of us are qualified to do thumbs down on someone simply because they have some minor differences.

But that is exactly the way the LC leadership thinks. They think they get to define what is best and what isn't in the most manipulative and intimidating way that they can--while still preserving plausible deniability. They are completely off base.

That is why they have had no growth in 40 years. Because the Lord left their club to them desolate.

[ZNPaaneah]

How is this a disagreement with what I said?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How is this a disagreement with what I said?

I removed "I disagree" from my previous post.

[Cal]

LSM has the right to publish or refuse to publish anything they want.

They do NOT have the right to:

• Control, either by edict or intimidation, what materials local church members publish or consume.
  
  
• Control, either by edict or intimidation, what materials local churches make available or consume.
  
  
• Imply or state that if a teaching deviates from theirs it is "out of the central lane."
  
  Again "central lane" is one of those vague, equivocating terms that means whatever LSM wants it to mean, but no one else can pin down. Basically "central lane" is whatever they claim they teach or mean, even if they actually taught or meant something different in the past. In short, THEY are the central lane. All others are not, by definition.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

LSM has the right to publish or refuse to publish anything they want.

They do NOT have the right to:

• Control, either by edict or intimidation, what materials local church members publish or consume.
• Control, either by edict or intimidation, what materials local churches make available or consume.
• Imply or state that if a teaching deviates from theirs it is "out of the central lane."
  
  Again "central lane" is one of those vague, equivocating terms that means whatever LSM wants it to mean, but no one else can pin down. Basically "central lane" is whatever they claim they teach or mean, even if they actually taught or meant something different in the past. In short, THEY are the central lane. All others are not, by definition.

I agree with that .....and so does the One Publication except the last point.

Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given, a fact, and a responsibility before the Lord.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree with that .....and so does the One Publication except the last point.

Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given.

Drake

Not at the excruciating level of micro-managing detail the LC leadership employs.

Their approach effectively squelches any innovation the Lord may be trying to lead the believers there to. This cannot be denied. The LCs cannot innovate or reform, they cannot adapt because the leadership prevents them. That's one reason they have no growth. They are still believing in techniques that never worked and are even less appropriate now.

The fact is the LCs anal-retentive style of leadership hinders the Lord's advancing his people and work in the LC churches. A difference in degree is eventually a difference in kind. And they are a different kind.

Also, let an LSM-associated local church try to teach based on another contemporary ministry and watch the La Palma keystone cops start firing elders before you can finish one Max Lucado book.

Also, Drake, no one has such a perfect vision that they can go around saying that someone has "left the central lane" just because they differ a little. Again, Titus Chu was not that different from Lee. The Blendeds ousted Titus Chu not because he taught anything really unhealthy, but because he was a little different and wouldn't let them control him.

I cannot believe anyone has the nerve to justify the Blendeds going in and waylaying Great Lakes churches based on the historical evidence. The Blendeds accused Titus first, he was simply defending himself, which was then called dissension. I can't believe some people can't see their domineering for what it is, and then justify it as some kind of defense of truth. It's not about truth with them, it's about control. If it was about truth they'd obey the truths about giving people freedom, not lording, being humble, not thinking more highly of themselves that they ought to, respecting other's consciences and so forth.

I mean, come on. This is not nuclear science. This stuff should be simple for anyone who really knows the Bible and God's loving nature.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given, a fact, and a responsibility before the Lord.

Drake

Are not those entrusted with a ministry also required to serve with all good conscience? (Acts 23.1; II Cor. 1.12)

Should they not also renounce the hidden things of shame? Should they also not walk in craftiness nor adulterate the word of God? (II Cor 4.1-2)

Where did Titus Chu or DYL deviate from the truth? Is not the plain words of the Bible our only standard for truth? By all accounts TC and DYL only "deviated" from LSL's directives, which you have labeled the "central lane." The Bible never identifies any restrictions like these as relevant to ministry. Your so-called "central lane" is man-made, divisive, and contrary to scriptures. The Bible instructs us to "mark" ones at LSM for their evil work. (Romans 16.17-18)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given, a fact, and a responsibility before the Lord.

Drake

Yes it is. Glad to see we can agree. It is in fact the purpose of this thread to challenge the deviation from the truth.

But is there any way to challenge the deviation of the truth by the "one Publication" edict while still submitting to it? Isn't the edict designed to prevent anyone from challenging their authority?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, you have misread or misapplied the "One Publication" and I have provided my viewpoint on that though my personal correspondences with Trapped posted in this forum.

There are no LSM police running around trying to control people, telling them what they can read or whether or not they can publish (Titus Chu publishes and sells books yet today....doesn't he?). That would be pointless and impossible to execute even if they were so inclined (which they are not).

Let's not conflate the issue, I have not said one word about LSM controlling what you can read. I am not aware of what Titus is doing today, however I am aware that he was disciplined by the Blended brothers for "not being absolute for the ministry of WL and WN" and for "publishing" outside of their control.

Originally Posted by Drake

Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. If God's enemy were blatant then believers would not fall for his wiles. But he is subtle and so creates a small opening, like a crack in the wall, that later turns into something that a Mack truck can be driven through.

Then you end up with a situation like this:

"Today there are churches which are still passing through turmoil because of the influence of Titus Chu and certain divisive workers under his leadership. These workers have deviated from the central lane of God's economy in their teaching and actions. They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness."

So, personally, I appreciate that there are brother's who are mindful of the ministry in the Lord's recovery they have been entrusted with and will address potential issues head on. That's a good and responsible thing to do.

Drake

Still don't understand the bigger issue. Is it that there are those who are "propagating unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery"?

If that is the "bigger issue" then this doctrine is stupider and more ridiculous than I even imagined. The Lord said "[It is] sufficient for the disciple that he should become as his teacher, and the bondman as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?"

If you are a disciple of the Lord it comes with the territory. If you don't realize that then you are a fool or a pretend disciple.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

There are no LSM police running around trying to control people, telling them what they can read or whether or not they can publish (Titus Chu publishes and sells books yet today....doesn't he?). That would be pointless and impossible to execute even if they were so inclined (which they are not). Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. If God's enemy were blatant then believers would not fall for his wiles. But he is subtle and so creates a small opening, like a crack in the wall, that later turns into something that a Mack truck can be driven through.

Then you end up with a situation like this: "Today there are churches which are still passing through turmoil because of the influence of Titus Chu and certain divisive workers under his leadership. These workers have deviated from the central lane of God's economy in their teaching and actions. They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness."

This is laughable. Or perhaps I should be crying.

And Mr. Drake who are these "brothers" who alone can judge whether Titus Chu is a "serving one under the governing vision of the cross?" Their chief condemnation of Titus Chu at the Whistler Kangaroo Court was that he visited and ministered in China after WL told him not to. Ought not TC have the right to obey God, and not man? (Acts 4.19; 5.29)

Would these ones be the Blended Bosses at LSM? Those same ones who protected Philip Lee, a known abusive sexual predator operating under the protections of his father? Those same ones who launched a slanderous smear campaign against the men of God who tried to protect the saints, brothers like John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, etc?

Do you expect us to believe these Blended Bosses at LSM -- BP, RK, MC -- are uniquely able to discern who is "serving one under the governing vision of the cross?" Unbelievable!

Let me suggest that Drake's "crack in the wall" metaphor, the so-called "deviation," actually refers to the failed and errant teachings at LSM. Look, for example, at the situation in China. First LSM claimed 10 million followers in China, called "Shouters". Then they disowned them all when abnormalities arose, so-called "Mack Trucks," which sullied LSM's pristine reputation. Instead of ministering to these new-borns, they try to stop ministers like TC, who was born in China, from returning to help their fledgling faith. One day LSM will be judged for this. They abandoned these young ones, and prevented others from helping them. True modern day Pharisees. (Mt 23.13)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And Mr. Drake who are these "brothers" who alone can judge whether Titus Chu is a "serving one under the governing vision of the cross?"

More intimidation. The "governing vision of the cross" to those brothers is that you do whatever those brothers tell you to do. There's really nothing more to it, other than grandiose phraseology and phony posturing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

More intimidation. The "governing vision of the cross" to those brothers is that you do whatever those brothers tell you to do. There's really nothing more to it, other than grandiose phraseology and phony posturing.

LSM's checkered history is so fraught with error and unrighteousness that for them to cite the "governing vision of the cross" is an affront to every minister on earth.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LSM's checkered history is so fraught with error and unrighteousness that for them to cite the "governing vision of the cross" is an affront to every minister on earth.

I think it is very funny and if they have comedy shows in the New Jerusalem it will be a perennial hit.

Think about this, the "big issue" with the "One Publication" edict

Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. Drake

The vision I have of the cross includes false witnesses, a kangaroo court, and unprincipled attacks, some of which are anonymous "prophesy to us who hit you" and "He saved others Himself He cannot save".

They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness

This is in fact what it means to be under the cross. The Lord knew this, John the Baptist knew this (they did with him whatever they wished), Peter was told this would be his end as well. Yet the blendeds think they can make some edict which will exempt them from the cross all under the guise of being the arbiter of "who is serving under the cross".