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

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Trapped

PUBLICATION WORK IN THE LORD’S RECOVERY

Through Brother Lee’s fellowship over the years, we have long realized that there should be one publication among us. The one publication is not only a testimony of our oneness in the Body but also a safeguard for the unique ministry in the Lord’s recovery. Without one publication, there is no way to preserve the integrity of the Lord’s ministry among us, which is crucial to the practical oneness among the local churches. Brother Lee gave this word of testimony on this crucial matter in the Lord’s recovery:

I guess I can start out with the first paragraph.

1. My first issue is the title. If LSM truly considers the "recovery" work of the Lord to have broadly started with Martin Luther as they say (see 3rd bullet point here: https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/recovery/), and claim that "the Lord's Recovery" is not a name used to refer to the churches under Nee/Lee, then the title right off is ludicrous.

2. "...there should be one publication among us." To say "among us" is instantly divisive in the Body of Christ, as Nee himself stated. To paraphrase, "if we use the term "we" or "us" to refer to anything other than all the believers in a city, then we are schismatic."

3. "testimony of our oneness in the Body" - I didn't know there was supposed to be a separately grouped entity in oneness within the Body! I thought the whole Body was supposed to be one.

4. "safeguard for the unique ministry in the Lord's recovery" - what does this mean exactly? What is the Lord's recovery, defined? Again, if it goes back to Luther, then Lee/Nee cannot claim uniqueness in anything, and the ones upon whose shoulders they stood should be part of this ministry.

5. I can't even go on, they throw so many overblown buzzwords into the next sentence that my brain short circuits - "no way" "preserve" "integrity" "crucial" "practical oneness" - enough already.

I don't even know if I can do this. Others are more than welcome to jump in and make suggestions for this thread. I just wanted to at least give a place for the One Publication letter specifically.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I guess I can start out with the first paragraph.

1. My first issue is the title. If LSM truly considers the "recovery" work of the Lord to have broadly started with Martin Luther as they say (see 3rd bullet point here: https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/recovery/), and claim that "the Lord's Recovery" is not a name used to refer to the churches under Nee/Lee, then the title right off is ludicrous.

2. "...there should be one publication among us." To say "among us" is instantly divisive in the Body of Christ, as Nee himself stated. To paraphrase, "if we use the term "we" or "us" to refer to anything other than all the believers in a city, then we are schismatic."

3. "testimony of our oneness in the Body" - I didn't know there was supposed to be a separately grouped entity in oneness within the Body! I thought the whole Body was supposed to be one.

4. "safeguard for the unique ministry in the Lord's recovery" - what does this mean exactly? What is the Lord's recovery, defined? Again, if it goes back to Luther, then Lee/Nee cannot claim uniqueness in anything, and the ones upon whose shoulders they stood should be part of this ministry.

5. I can't even go on, they throw so many overblown buzzwords into the next sentence that my brain short circuits - "no way" "preserve" "integrity" "crucial" "practical oneness" - enough already.

I don't even know if I can do this. Others are more than welcome to jump in and make suggestions for this thread. I just wanted to at least give a place for the One Publication letter specifically.

Ok... so...

I’d like to approach it differently and get the lay of the land from a higher slope rather than start hiking in the canyon so to speak.

Therefore, I ask, what explanation is provided in the document about the document? What does it say about its purpose? What problem was it trying to solve, if any? Is there anything in the document that provides context or explains the situation? In what way do the proposed solutions address the problem and are there alternatives to address the same issue? Is scope defined? Are there limitations defined?

I’d say the document addresses most of those questions.

To your first point Trapped about the “Lord’s recovery”... the scope... I do not find the scope of this document to encompass the broader definition of “Lord’s recovery” beginning with Luther. Brother Lee and the document repeatedly state that a narrower definition is being used... it says “According to the practice established by Brother Nee...” and again “When we were on mainland China...” . This is one of the vectors in the scope of the document ... that is, the document is addressing something in these current phases of the Lord’s recovery. If we were to try to apply the points of the document to the broader definition of the Lords recovery beginning with Luther is doesn’t apply or make sense. So anything stated in the document only applies to the period in the Lords recovery, approximately the last hundred years, till today from His recovery beginning, or part way into,in China.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok... so...

I’d like to approach it differently and get the lay of the land from a higher slope rather than start hiking in the canyon so to speak.

Therefore, I ask, what explanation is provided in the document about the document? What does it say about its purpose? What problem was it trying to solve, if any? Is there anything in the document that provides context or explains the situation? In what way do the proposed solutions address the problem and are there alternatives to address the same issue? Is scope defined? Are there limitations defined?

I’d say the document addresses most of those questions.

To your first point Trapped about the “Lord’s recovery”... the scope... I do not find the scope of this document to encompass the broader definition of “Lord’s recovery” beginning with Luther. Brother Lee and the document repeatedly state that a narrower definition is being used... it says “According to the practice established by Brother Nee...” and again “When we were on mainland China...” . This is one of the vectors in the scope of the document ... that is, the document is addressing something in these current phases of the Lord’s recovery. If we were to try to apply the points of the document to the broader definition of the Lords recovery beginning with Luther is doesn’t apply or make sense. So anything stated in the document only applies to the period in the Lords recovery, approximately the last hundred years, till today from His recovery beginning, or part way into,in China.

Drake

Does this make any sense? Call on Martin Luther et. al. for legitimacy, and then say "oh by the way, we change the rules." Luther, via the printing press, opened the floodgates of diverse writings about scripture. Anybody and everybody now had a voice. And a pen. Only the money changers at LSM think this is bad.

W. Lee led us to believe many things about China under W. Nee. Today I don't believe anything he told us. To believe Lee is to negate every other author, both from within and without the Little Flock movement in China. Either W. Lee is right and all other co-workers and historians are liars, or ... You fill in the blanks.

Actually, in the early days in the US, roughly from 1962 to 1980, there were many writers and publishers within the LCM. Lee was just one of many ministers, that is until he took over and threw the rest of them under the bus. By 2010 LSM's takeover was complete when they excommunicated Titus Chu in Cleveland and Dong Yu Lan in Brazil. They have finally purged the last holdouts.

Now they claim "we have always had only one publication, and that's why we have always been so one."

Hypocrites.


.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok... so...

I’d like to approach it differently and get the lay of the land from a higher slope rather than start hiking in the canyon so to speak.

Therefore, I ask, what explanation is provided in the document about the document? What does it say about its purpose? What problem was it trying to solve, if any? Is there anything in the document that provides context or explains the situation? In what way do the proposed solutions address the problem and are there alternatives to address the same issue? Is scope defined? Are there limitations defined?

I’d say the document addresses most of those questions.

To your first point Trapped about the “Lord’s recovery”... the scope... I do not find the scope of this document to encompass the broader definition of “Lord’s recovery” beginning with Luther. Brother Lee and the document repeatedly state that a narrower definition is being used... it says “According to the practice established by Brother Nee...” and again “When we were on mainland China...” . This is one of the vectors in the scope of the document ... that is, the document is addressing something in these current phases of the Lord’s recovery. If we were to try to apply the points of the document to the broader definition of the Lords recovery beginning with Luther is doesn’t apply or make sense. So anything stated in the document only applies to the period in the Lords recovery, approximately the last hundred years, till today from His recovery beginning, or part way into,in China.

Drake

The scope of this document further narrows the subject.... (within that time period of the Lords' recovery commencing during Watchman Nee's ministry to the present) to the ministry... not the Lord's recovery in its entirety.

Brother Lee explains as follows:

"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The scope of this document further narrows the subject.... (within that time period of the Lords' recovery commencing during Watchman Nee's ministry to the present) to the ministry... not the Lord's recovery in its entirety.

Brother Lee explains as follows:

"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."

Drake

Once again this quote by Drake shows the gross disconnect between actions taken by LSM and what some book says. Operatives from LSM came into every Midwest LC 10 years ago to divide these churches over this very matter. The quote by Lee supposedly addresses the ministry only. Actually it places standards on churches, whether they are genuine local churches or not.

Let me be honest here but blunt -- I continue to find everything Drake posts about LSM to be nothing more than horse manure!

I am a contemporary of Drake. I first contacted the LC in Cleveland in 1973. I was actively serving greater Ohio churches for 30 years. Then they came in as thieves to divide and destroy every Midwest church over this one matter -- do we use LSM's books exclusively in our meetings?

[Nell]

If "the ministry" as defined by a bunch of old fat men in "the one publication", were all it claimed to be, it would in fact be UNSTOPPABLE. If you have to legislate allegiance to your "ministry", there is something really wrong with your "ministry."

Does the Bible owe its longevity to a bunch of old fat men who, by mandate, crammed it down the throats of the faithful for centuries in order to keep it alive?

In fact, the nature of God is to give people the freedom to choose to follow Him---or not. We have the Bible today because of the faithful men and women, Divinely inspired and empowered, who chose to keep it alive for centuries. We are told that the Word of God is living (not the "one publication"). In the beginning was the Word...the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

How does this compare to "the ministry" of Witness Lee, in which Lee points the way to himself and not to Jesus? This "one publication" letter/document/whatever is an embarrassment to those who wrote it...as Trapped has noted. Further, this document is an obvious admission that Lee's "ministry" cannot stand on its own. That is, Lee's "ministry" can only stand as long as some old fat men prop it up with bogus mandatory loyalty imposed on those over whom they have "power". This "one publication" edict is an admission that the "ministry" of a dead man will die without someone (a bunch of old fat men) pumping air into it.

Why do we need "the ministry," the "one publication", when we have the eternal, unstoppable Bible?

Nell

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Why do we need "the ministry," the "one publication", when we have the eternal, unstoppable Bible?

Nell

Nell, Your post conflates two things. In this post I’ll address the first here which suggests that since we have the Bible we don’t need the ministry.

The answer is stated in the Bible itself, ......the Bible, though available to almost every person in the world who wants one, does not build up the Body of Christ by itself. Therefore, Christ in His ascension gave gifts to men to perfect the saints for the work of ministry unto the building up of the Body of Christ.

“For He Himself gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry , unto the building up of the Body of Christ.” Ephesians 4:11-12

Therefore, we have the Bible but we also need the gifts Christ gave.... for instance we need the teachers to teach God’s Word. Every gift given by Christ to us has a function to perfect the saints.

If we neglect the gifts we neglect the perfecting and we miss participation in the ministry that builds up the Body of Christ according to Ephesians 4:11-12

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

If we neglect the gifts we neglect the perfecting and we miss participation in the ministry that builds up the Body of Christ according to Ephesians 4:11-12

Hey Drake. Thanks for bringing this up.

My gift got more than neglected. It got rejected. It got pushed out. Not because I rejected Jesus, God, or the Bible ... or the church. All because of one thing : because I rejected the Lee as the MOTA thing.

They liked my delivery, but told me to restrict my testimonies to repeating Lee, and/or the elders.

All other gifts get neglected and rejected. At least it was that way way back then. Has it changed? I keep an eye on it, and see no proof of that yet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nell, Your post conflates two things. In this post I’ll address the first here which suggests that since we have the Bible we don’t need the ministry.
The answer is stated in the Bible itself, ......the Bible, though available to almost every person in the world who wants one, does not build up the Body of Christ by itself. Therefore, Christ in His ascension gave gifts to men to perfect the saints for the work of ministry unto the building up of the Body of Christ.
“For He Himself gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry , unto the building up of the Body of Christ.” Ephesians 4:11-12
Therefore, we have the Bible but we also need the gifts Christ gave.... for instance we need the teachers to teach God’s Word. Every gift given by Christ to us has a function to perfect the saints.
If we neglect the gifts we neglect the perfecting and we miss participation in the ministry that builds up the Body of Christ according to Ephesians 4:11-12

Every Christian -- and Nell too -- agrees that the body of Christ needs the "work of ministry" for the building up. The Bible says it and we agree.

The real question is why Lee and LSM have twisted this into an abusive money making exclusive book publisher and training center which lords it over all the LC's? This is the question you refuse to answer.

Also, where are all of these "perfected" saints?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Does the Bible owe its longevity to a bunch of old fat men who, by mandate, crammed it down the throats of the faithful for centuries in order to keep it alive?

How does this compare to "the ministry" of Witness Lee, in which Lee points the way to himself and not to Jesus?

Nell,

Your second point above is not accurate and even the document itself refutes that statement. If you really believe it then you’ll need to show us out of the tens of thousands of pages released through this ministry where Brother Lee does not point to Jesus..... for he dedicated this ministry to all that pertains to Christ as the subject in nearly every message.. This ministry’s focus is on Christ as life and the Church as His Body and the expression of the testimony of oneness of the Body in each locality. That is what attracted me to this way over forty years ago..... and still does. Yet, your experience is different, I get that, but it is a completely inaccurate to say this ministry does not point to Jesus but to Brother Lee... so let’s examine this document as the base note specified...,

Your first point above says “mandate”.... ... if there is a mandate implied in the document of any sort it is what LSM will publish on their presses under the banner of this ministry. It is not a read only mandate for everyone, it is not a mandate to every local church to read what LSM publishes, it is not a mandate that no other writings can be published by local churches for its own needs, it is not a mandate for the Lords recovery...etc. On the contrary, any member can read what they want, a local church is a local church whether they use LSM materials or not, any locality can publish their own material for their own need,..it is something directly about the ministry not the Lord’s recovery in general.

The implication of mandate in your post is stretched well beyond the definition in the document and what Brother Lee has said himself.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Nell

If "the ministry" as defined by a bunch of old fat men in "the one publication", were all it claimed to be, it would in fact be UNSTOPPABLE. If you have to legislate allegiance to your "ministry", there is something really wrong with your "ministry."

Does the Bible owe its longevity to a bunch of old fat men who, by mandate, crammed it down the throats of the faithful for centuries in order to keep it alive?

In fact, the nature of God is to give people the freedom to choose to follow Him---or not. We have the Bible today because of the faithful men and women, Divinely inspired and empowered, who chose to keep it alive for centuries. We are told that the Word of God is living (not the "one publication"). In the beginning was the Word...the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

How does this compare to "the ministry" of Witness Lee, in which Lee points the way to himself and not to Jesus? This "one publication" letter/document/whatever is an embarrassment to those who wrote it...as Trapped has noted. Further, this document is an obvious admission that Lee's "ministry" cannot stand on its own. That is, Lee's "ministry" can only stand as long as some old fat men prop it up with bogus mandatory loyalty imposed on those over whom they have "power". This "one publication" edict is an admission that the "ministry" of a dead man will die without someone (a bunch of old fat men) pumping air into it.

Why do we need "the ministry," the "one publication", when we have the eternal, unstoppable Bible?

Nell

I do have to say in agreement....the only one who can have "up-to-date speaking" after his death is Jesus! He is the only one! For the blended brothers to claim that Lee's refried and rehashed ministry contains the Lord's up-to-date speaking 20 years after the mortal human being passed away is just ridiculous.

I have had conversations with elders in which I asked why we still do certain things (e.g. some aspects of the seven feasts) and they admitted that we only continue to do them because it was the practice that Lee set forth, even though as time goes by the reasons for doing them are no longer relevant and it would actually be beneficial to be able to make a change, but we can't because the man behind it is dead and we are unable to do anything different. (paraphrasing and editorializing a little obviously) We have trapped ourselves into not being able to take care of the needs of the saints and the churches in the best and most beneficial way!

In one sense it is "better" for a church to gather around a practice or teaching, like baptism by immersion or speaking in tongues, rather than gather around a specific man's ministry, because the practice/teaching can last forever, but what does a group of churches do after the man they followed dies?! Pump air into it, like you said

[UntoHim]

Salient points to keep in mind regarding "The One Publication":

First and foremost, it should be noted and understood that nothing...absolutely nothing... in this "declaration" varies or detracts one iota from what Witness Lee clearly and strongly taught for over 50 years - to wit - the he, Witness Lee, was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle, at least since 1945. The New Testament Ministry was vested in Lee's person and work. PERIOD. No other person, no other work, shall be considered. PERIOD. When Lee died over 21+ years ago, the person died, but his personal work, The Ministry lives on...NOT in the persons or works of mere mortal men, but in an American registered corporation - The Living Stream Ministry.
"I would like to have a continuation of me, and this needs a corporation...The Living Stream corporation will continue this ministry”
(from unpublished notes of a meeting of Living Stream, July 12, 1996)

I would make this the first and foremost point because over the years many dear brothers have made the claim that The Blended Brothers have wondered from or even misrepresented Witness Lee. This is not true. Over the years I have challenged anyone to show me where the BBs have wavered from, altered or misrepresented Lee in any significant point of teaching or practice. No one has been able to meet my challenge, and nobody will, because the simple fact is that these men have, for better or for worse, faithfully fulfilled their vow and obligation to become "brother Lee's continuation".
He placed the direction of this corporation for the continuation and publication of the ministry in the hands of a group of blended brothers, who labor to fulfill this charge before the Lord.
(From The One Publication, paragraph 4)
Again, as with the late Witness Lee, these men are totally unambiguous regarding what ministry shall be accepted and imbibed in the Local Churches. Again, The New Testament Ministry was and is vested in the personal ministry of Witness Lee. "God, in these last days, has spoken", not merely by His Son, or the Holy Scriptures, or in the teachings and practices of the Apostles, but in the person and work of 李常受; Lǐ Chángshòu.

Of course there are number of facets and details of this document we can, and should, delve into on our little forum. But I wanted to make a clarification lest some here become successful with their attempt to distract, distort, mitigate, apologize for and water down what this declaration means for current members and for anyone thinking of joining the Local Church movement.
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

The scope of this document further narrows the subject.... (within that time period of the Lords' recovery commencing during Watchman Nee's ministry to the present) to the ministry... not the Lord's recovery in its entirety. Brother Lee explains as follows: "Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."

Well...................................

While the message quoted may say that, unfortunately the title of the whole letter is "...in the Lord's recovery" so it's difficult to see how they don't mean just that.

Another issue with the quote you provided is "in the Lord's ministry". They should have said "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in Nee/Lee's ministry". This is one big problem I have seen over and over again - LSM equates/conflates/substitutes "Witness Lee's ministry" with "the ministry" with "the Lord's ministry" with "the New Testament ministry".

The Lord's ministry is actually all over the whole earth and is much larger than just Nee or Lee's ministries. It is THE LORD'S! The Lord is working in people's lives through people all over the earth in ways that have nothing to do with Lee or Nee. THAT is the Lord's ministry, not just that which proceeds out through the mouth of Lee, in which case it once again is ludicrous to say there should only be one publication in the whole of the Lord's ministry.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry."

This is to further detail out the contradiction found in the statement quoted above when compared to the contents of the letter.

Unfortunately, the letter goes on to make a very clear connection between the one publication and the Lord's recovery (not the Lord's ministry), over and over.

Letter itself

1. In the title: PUBLICATION WORK IN THE LORD’S RECOVERY
2. First paragraph: ... this crucial matter in the Lord’s recovery
3. Third paragraph: 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.
4. Sixth paragraph: the sounding of the one trumpet in the Lord’s recovery today.
6. Seventh paragraph: We all must realize that the one publication in the Lord’s recovery is quite a serious matter.
7. Seventh paragraph again: Since Brother Nee’s day we in the Lord’s recovery have been “restricted in one publication”
8. Eighth paragraph: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery.
9. Tenth paragraph: Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is ... something related to the one ministry in the Lord’s recovery.

Ministry portion following letter

1. First paragraph: One thing that has caused the Lord’s recovery trouble is the fact that we have different publications.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This is to further detail out the contradiction found in the statement quoted above when compared to the contents of the letter. Unfortunately, the letter goes on

Wait.

If we are going to be precise let’s be so in all aspects.

The statement quoted was from the letter. Not that the letter said one thing and the statement quoted was only found elsewhere.

So then, is your objection that the content of the letter contradicts itself?

Drake

[Nell]

The following link is a post from the Lawsuits topic. It discusses Witness Lee's deposition in the Mindbenders lawsuit as compared to the "One Publication."

Title: Witness Lee's Sworn Statements vs. Local Church Teachings
Post by: afazio on November 11, 2005, 02:39:21 AM
On the Bereans Forum (now defunct as related to the Local Churches).

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...9&postcount=15

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Wait.

If we are going to be precise let’s be so in all aspects.

The statement quoted was from the letter. Not that the letter said one thing and the statement quoted was only found elsewhere.

So then, is your objection that the content of the letter contradicts itself?

Drake

Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.

So Drake is now "Trapped."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.

Great point. To work for a publisher whose policy is the "one trumpet" is quite reasonable. To then apply this policy to the church which by definition is full of members who are not part of this publisher is abusive. It is also confusion. If you were a volunteer who served in this ministry without ever becoming an employee are you also now bound by this policy?

I have no issue with anyone serving in LSM and thinking they are serving the Lord. I may get a little uncomfortable when they uplift a man, I may disagree with some of their doctrines, and I may feel that they need to be more accountable and responsible with dealing with sin.

The real issue I have with them is when they bring the Body of Christ into bondage based on a lie all with the goal of making merchandise of the saints.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, exactly. The statement you quoted was part of the letter. That statement itself says that we are not talking about one trumpet in the Lord's recovery, but in the Lord's ministry. However, in that letter itself it says many times the one trumpet or one publication in the Lord's recovery.

Trapped,

We may be as two knights passing on a ship... or something like that...

what I mean is the letter includes the statement and is part of the letter since the signatories are below that statement. That statement is also repeated in the supplement reading from Brother Lee below the signatories.

It should be included as part of the letter since it is in the body of the letter. That is how I see it,

Drake

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Trapped

[/SIZE][/FONT]Since Brother Nee’s day we in the Lord’s recovery have been “restricted in one publication”
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]
]

Is this really accurate?
I seem to recall up until a particular time during the 70's perhaps, there were multiple publications available in bookrooms. Restriction to one publication as the author indicates didn't occur until later.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok... so...

I’d like to approach it differently and get the lay of the land from a higher slope rather than start hiking in the canyon so to speak.

Therefore, I ask, what explanation is provided in the document about the document? What does it say about its purpose? What problem was it trying to solve, if any? Is there anything in the document that provides context or explains the situation? In what way do the proposed solutions address the problem and are there alternatives to address the same issue? Is scope defined? Are there limitations defined?

I’d say the document addresses most of those questions.

To your first point Trapped about the “Lord’s recovery”... the scope... I do not find the scope of this document to encompass the broader definition of “Lord’s recovery” beginning with Luther. Brother Lee and the document repeatedly state that a narrower definition is being used... it says “According to the practice established by Brother Nee...” and again “When we were on mainland China...” . This is one of the vectors in the scope of the document ... that is, the document is addressing something in these current phases of the Lord’s recovery. If we were to try to apply the points of the document to the broader definition of the Lords recovery beginning with Luther is doesn’t apply or make sense. So anything stated in the document only applies to the period in the Lords recovery, approximately the last hundred years, till today from His recovery beginning, or part way into,in China.

Drake

To respond to your first post, I will be fine if some posts in this thread are emotional rather than analytical given the seriousness of repercussions that resulted from the letter, I just don't want the thread to be dominated by it and I don't expect it will.

Regarding your suggestion above, I like that approach better than mine, but it will take some time for me to be able to provide any kind of coherent response. (Of course others can provide their responses in the meantime!)

The very short answer seems to be that the letter is saying "hey look, anyone can publish, but if you do it won't be considered part of the awe-inspiring 'One Publication'". Long-story-short it's basically it's a book publisher saying "we only publish Nee and Lee and if anyone else writes something it won't be endorsed by us and we are heavily insinuating that it will most likely cause damage so run away from it." Sadly they are addressing this letter to a specific collection of churches, which is why we are known as LSM CHURCHES!!!!

I got a little sarcastic there but let me get serious again: one thing that would help me to respond is to know a little bit more about the context of what was going on in the local churches before this letter was put out. It wasn't written in a vacuum, right? It seems obvious it is in response to some turmoil and most likely is attempting to address the "problems" inherent in the situations. Could you (or anyone) give me some background info there?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

4. "safeguard for the unique ministry in the Lord's recovery" - what does this mean exactly? What is the Lord's recovery, defined? Again, if it goes back to Luther, then Lee/Nee cannot claim uniqueness in anything, and the ones upon whose shoulders they stood should be part of this ministry.

Using Martin Luther as the starting point of "Recovery" requires extensive historical revisionism. Without a doubt Luther stood with many Reformers across Europe to work with the Spirit of God. Luther himself, however, declared "I am a Hussite" when he starkly realized that his faith and teachings merely duplicated that of the Bohemian martyr John Huss a century before him. And who was Huss's predecessor? You get the point.

Yes, the dark ages were dark indeed, but there never was a time when the faith or the scriptures were completely "lost" as Lee would want us to believe. In yet another irony, Martin Luther is simultaneously declared the first Minister of the Age (MOTA) and a total failure for the Lutheran state church. Supposedly he began the recovery but ruined the church. Oh well.

The tenets of the "Recovery" are built on the sinking sands of hagiography. It exists merely to serve the legitimacy needs of their MOTA. In principle there is no difference from the RCC's claim that Peter was their first Pope, and the recovery's claim that Luther was their first MOTA. Like the mythological lineage of popes, it really gets crazy when they attempt to establish the lineage of MOTAs after Luther. Anyone ever hear of Madame Guyon? Yep, a bona fide MOTA. Just ask LSM archivists.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I don't even know if I can do this. Others are more than welcome to jump in and make suggestions for this thread. I just wanted to at least give a place for the One Publication letter specifically.

Trapped,

I think the letter speaks for itself, it doesn't even take a critical eye so see its absurdity (I don't intend for this to be inflammatory, but I know of no other way to describe this message). Some passages I found interesting from different paragraphs:

Without one publication, there is no way to preserve the integrity of the Lord’s ministry among us, which is crucial to the practical oneness among the local churches.

Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room publish both the past ministry that was delivered to us by Brother Nee and Brother Lee and the ongoing, up-to-date speaking that comes out of the fellowship of the blended co-workers and is based on 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.

It is important to note that Brother Lee spoke directly about the continuation of the ministry among us. He felt that after his departure the ministry should be carried out by a group of co-workers who are blended, just as his own service in the ministry was under his coordination with the co-workers.

occasionally there may be publications of these other kinds which Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room feel to publish either under their own names or under special imprints that serve particular publication needs.

Thus, those who wish to write in this way should bring their proposals to the blended co-workers as well as to Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room and have their proposals checked to see whether they should be published or not.

We all must realize that the one publication in the Lord’s recovery is quite a serious matter. Anyone who participates in it must genuinely have the portion from the Lord to do so, and this portion should be easily recognizable to the churches and affirmed by those who take the lead in the ministry and those who take the lead in the publication work.... For decades we all have been nurtured and richly supplied by the one publication. The benefits of being restricted in one publication can hardly be denied.

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.

Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith but something related to the one ministry in the Lord’s recovery. The ministry is the sounding of the trumpet among us in the Lord’s recovery, and there should be no uncertain sounding of this trumpet, as Brother Lee has mentioned on a number of occasions. However, the one publication should not become the basis of our accepting or rejecting any persons in the communion of faith or in the fellowship of the churches; it should not be insisted on as an item of the faith. If any are not inclined to be restricted in one publication, these ones are still our brothers; they are still in the genuine local churches. We would like to conclude with these words from our Brother Lee and wish to recommend that the full context of his words be read from Elders’ Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lord’s Move, pp. 74-75:

I have to be faithful to the Lord, faithful to so many of you who have been very much affected by this ministry, and faithful to myself. For this reason, this ministry cannot allow anyone to pretend to be in it and yet still say something different. This does not mean that I ask you to stay away from your local church or that your local church is no longer a local church. What I am fellowshipping about is the impact of the ministry for the fighting of the Lord’s interest in His recovery.