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

[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.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

In fact Igzy, by sending certain threads to Alternative Views he is saying that thread or topic is out of the central lane of this forum.... and occasionally he might have to ban someone from the forum for violating the rules....

...and there is nothing wrong with that. It is in principle the same kind of oversight that without it would be abdicating responsibility... be it for the sake of the forum with its mission... or for the sake of the Lord's recovery and its mission.... responsible ones in both are acting according to the same principle.

Therefore, it is not a question about control. It's about responsibility. However, acknowledging that does not mean that you also agree with the mission. That is a separate matter.

So, right... it is not rocket science... why.... its not even Sid the Science Kid!

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

In fact Igzy, by sending certain threads to Alternative Views he is saying that thread or topic is out of the central lane of this forum.... and occasionally he might have to ban someone from the forum for violating the rules....


Drake

Comparing UntoHim moderating this forum to the Blendeds moderating (or so they think) "God's move" is an invalid comparison, and completely misses the point that they have no ground to assume the moderation they assume.

UntoHim is manifestly the authority of this forum. That's reasonable. The Blendeds are NOT the authority of God's move, God's recovery (whatever that is) or anything other than their little club which is made up of them and no one else. Yes, they can moderate their club. No, they cannot moderate Christians, churches or, least of all, God's move.

As I said, a difference in degree constitutes a difference in kind. Apparently this little bit of rocket boys junior science is nuclear science to you.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Comparing UntoHim moderating this forum to the Blendeds moderating (or so they think) "God's move" is an invalid comparison, and completely misses the point that they have no ground to assume the moderation they assume.

Igzy,

Whether the Blended brothers have been commissioned to care for the Lord’s recovery and the ministry of that commission is not our decision.

Yet, one thing I’m sure of.. you are not.

Thanks,
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.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

On the first point, the one publication does not dictate what a local church can and cannot say. That is flat out wrong. Brother Lee makes is crystal clear that whether or not a local church receives his ministry is entirely up to them. Therefore, they can say whatever they want about his ministry and that does not change their standing as a local church.

Now if they want to make sure all the local churches across the globe start receiving their teachings without fellowship... then that is where responsible action should be taken as needed... and it did.

To your second point, your analogy is not accurate. The like for like analogy would be that you, a long time member of this forum, start introducing topics that you know are not within the rules of this forum and after repeated exhortations you refuse to comply and therefore he blocked you and warned others not to do the same or they would reap the same action.... and THEN you went and started your own forum and sympathizers from here joined you. You could do as you pleased from then on without interference from the moderator of this forum. But if your disgruntled followers defamed, slandered, and falsely accused the moderator of this forum of trying to tell others what they can read or what they can publish then he might defend his actions... or he might just ignore them.

Under such an unfortunate circumstance, I am sure the moderator would regret your departure and hope that you would return someday as a member willing to play by the rules of THIS forum.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

On the first point, the one publication does not dictate what a local church can and cannot say. That is flat out wrong. Brother Lee makes is crystal clear that whether or not a local church receives his ministry is entirely up to them. Therefore, they can say whatever they want about his ministry and that does not change their standing as a local church.

On that point it is flat out wrong. The application of this doctrine is in the excommunication of Titus Chu. Read the letter from the Blending brothers disciplining Titus Chu, he was disciplined for not being absolute to the ministry of WL and WN and because he published his own materials. They also reference the "one trumpet", etc. Although they made some unsubstantiated allegations about the flesh, the only charges that were backed up with evidence (not hearsay) was the fact that he published outside of LSM, that he was critical of the Blended brothers, and that he was not absolute for the ministry of WL and WN.

Originally Posted by Drake

Now if they want to make sure all the local churches across the globe start receiving their teachings without fellowship... then that is where responsible action should be taken as needed.

To your second point, your analogy is not accurate. The like for like analogy would be that you, a long time member of this forum, start introducing topics that you know are not within the rules of this forum and after repeated exhortations you refuse to comply and therefore you were blocked.... and THEN went and started your own forum and others from here joined you because they sympathized with you. You could do as you pleased from then on without interference from the moderator of this forum.

Under such an unfortunate circumstance, I am sure the moderator would regret your departure and hope that you would return someday as a member willing to play by the rules.

Drake

The point is simple -- UntoHim owns this forum, it is his. He has the right to set the rules. You don't like it, leave. What UntoHim doesn't have the right to do is to tell me I can't start my own forum.

Likewise the church belongs to the Lord ("church of Christ"), it belongs to God ("church of God") and it belongs to the saints ("church of the saints"). It does not belong to a ministry. Paul rebuked the Galatians for allowing someone else to come in and put them into bondage. That is what LSM is doing with this edict and with the application in their excommunication of Titus.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The point is simple -- UntoHim owns this forum, it is his. He has the right to set the rules. You don't like it, leave. What UntoHim doesn't have the right to do is to tell me I can't start my own forum.

Right. And Titus has is own "forum" as did Dong... no one told them they couldn't. But, the responsible brothers did not allow them to impose their brands on the rest of the local churches. They can't stop them from doing their own thing and they can't stop them from publishing their own books.... but the responsible brothers have to follow the leading of the Spirit and that includes not allowing anyone to impose their brand/ministry on the local churches across the planet. If local churches choose to follow them, as occured, then that is their decision and prerogative... they answer to the Lord directly.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Likewise the church belongs to the Lord ("church of Christ"), it belongs to God ("church of God") and it belongs to the saints ("church of the saints"). It does not belong to a ministry. Paul rebuked the Galatians for allowing someone else to come in and put them into bondage. That is what LSM is doing with this edict and with the application in their excommunication of Titus.

Yes, the church belongs to the Lord..... and by the Spirit He directs men to carry out its practical affairs on earth. That we cannot deny.

Drake

[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?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

Thanks for your question ZNP. I'll give this some prayerful consideration before responding. Thanks for your patience.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks for your question ZNP. I'll give this some prayerful consideration before responding. Thanks for your patience.

Drake

I have also given it prayerful consideration and think the word that if you know that anyone has anything against you then you need to be reconciled to them before you take the Lord's table. That seems like a good rule of thumb. Some take the Lord's table each week, others each month, but it seems to me that would be a reasonable time frame.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks for your question ZNP. I'll give this some prayerful consideration before responding. Thanks for your patience.

Drake

Bringing this forward for Drake to reply to ZNP, as he promised.