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

[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.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Blendeds accused Titus first, he was simply defending himself,...

That is your version Igzy... your narrative... but nevertheless, it is not your ministry and you have no part in it. That is fine.

You also have an opinion about it, as do I, and that is fine too.

thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

That is your version Igzy... your narrative... but nevertheless, it is not your ministry and you have no part in it. That is fine.

You also have an opinion about it, as do I, and that is fine too.

thanks
Drake

You've produced zero evidence that this version is false. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of seeing reality for what it is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

In the minds of the Blendeds, "how dare Titus Chu minister in China when Brother Lee told him not to." Take a minute to think about this statement. The Pharisees also commanded Peter and John not to preach in Jerusalem that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Peter said it is "better to obey God than man." That's all TC needed to know!

I'm not sure if TC honored Lee's request while he still was alive, but there was not a chance in hell that TC would obey some flunky in Anaheim over whether he could visit China or not. There are over a Billion souls in China. How many ministers do they need? Who do those Blendeds think they are? Seriously? They are more arrogant than the Pharisees ever were.

[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?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

ZNP,

Glad you asked.

Their authority has been challenged.... Titus challenged it, Dong challenged it, Nigel Tomes challenged it... you challenged it.. and the list goes on.

Taken at face value, the design center of the One Publication document was to encourage local or regional serving ones to not distribute their teachings into every or most every local churches across the globe.

Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

Rather, it is better to be in fellowship with the responsible brothers in a coordinated fashion. And yes, that requires a willingness and practice of being in a governing vision of the cross. Its not easy.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Think about that scenario.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

False. The moderator here doesn't say if you don't follow his rules you are out of the "central land of God's economy." He says just don't do it here. That fact that he provides an alternate forum shows how accommodating he is willing to be. If the Blendeds simply said, This is our vision, but we realize we don't know everything and will not state or imply that our way is the best or only way, they would be fine. That's humility. That's reality. But no, they have to say that those who don't agree with them are "out of the central lane." History has proven Lee didn't have everything figured out, to say the very least. Why must they continue to pretend he did? What arrogance that is! What damage it has done!

Like I said, this isn't rocket science, Drake.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Glad you asked.

Their authority has been challenged.... Titus challenged it, Dong challenged it, Nigel Tomes challenged it... you challenged it.. and the list goes on.

Taken at face value, the design center of the One Publication document was to encourage local or regional serving ones to not distribute their teachings into every or most every local churches across the globe.

Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

Rather, it is better to be in fellowship with the responsible brothers in a coordinated fashion. And yes, that requires a willingness and practice of being in a governing vision of the cross. Its not easy.

Drake

I agree that LSM can say "this is not published here" and I agree that the elders in a local church can say "this is not spoken here". I also agree that UntoHim can tell people what they can and cannot say on his forum.

The issue with one publication is that they are telling every local church what they can and cannot say. True, they agree that they can publish a local song book and gospel tract as long as it doesn't go regional. Now if I started another forum and UntoHim excommunicated me from this one because I also have a forum, then that would be comparable to Dong and Chu.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

I heard far more politics in the meetings of the LC, than I have heard on this forum.

They would do well to be under UntoHim's "governing vision of the cross."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Glad you asked.

Their authority has been challenged.... Titus challenged it, Dong challenged it, Nigel Tomes challenged it... you challenged it.. and the list goes on.

Taken at face value, the design center of the One Publication document was to encourage local or regional serving ones to not distribute their teachings into every or most every local churches across the globe.

Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

Rather, it is better to be in fellowship with the responsible brothers in a coordinated fashion. And yes, that requires a willingness and practice of being in a governing vision of the cross. Its not easy.

Drake

Yes, I agree, it is better. So what would be some fair guidelines. If you tried to fellowship and they refuse to hear you, at what point do you decide that they are the ones who are not willing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion?

One brother made phone calls, sent letters, sent them registered mail, etc. Nothing. So who is the one that is not willing to practice being governed by the cross?

We are not talking about petty grievances. We are talking about slandering brothers from the pulpit, libel, excommunicating saints, putting lascivious men in positions of authority in the ministry, etc.

When a leading elder, Ed Marks, refuses to "deal with" questions about his signature on a letter of apology to Phillip Lee 20 years later, who is the one who is refusing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion in submission to the cross of Christ?