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

ZNPaaneah · 02-21-2019, 01:19 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 02:01 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 02:47 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 03:17 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 05:02 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 05:33 PM

Quote:

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

Cal · 02-21-2019, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Ha! That is the most obtuse piece of reasoning I've ever heard.

It assumes that there is something called "the Lord's Recovery" for which God has commissioned caretakers. Those are two assumptions which are not supportable in reality. First, "the Lord's Recovery" is not biblical, so whether it exists is pure conjecture. Second, since it is not biblical, is it absurd to talk about who God has commissioned to care for it. That's like talking about who God has commissioned to care for Neverland.

So what you are saying is there is this fanciful thing called "the Lord's Recovery" for which we cannot say who has been commissioned caretakers? So, I'll bite, how do we know who the caretakers are? Let me guess, they will tell us.

Hooboy!

I may not a caretaker of the "Lord's Recovery," but I wouldn't want to be because the thing does not exist. I am, however, humbly, a caretaker of the Church. We all are supposed to be. And I for one plan to do my job. In the meantime, "the Lord's Recovery" can go to hell.

ZNPaaneah · 02-21-2019, 03:17 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 03:37 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 03:50 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 04:11 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 02-21-2019, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

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 occurred, then that is their decision and prerogative... they answer to the Lord directly.

Have not the Blendeds "imposed their brands on the rest of the local churches?" LSM has done exactly what they accuse Titus Chu of. And worse.

Once again, Apostle Paul's words to the self-righteous is fulfilled. (Romans 2.1)

TC, however, gave elders the choice of what to use in their meetings. LSM has taken away this liberty.

Cal · 02-21-2019, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

R 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.

Wait, wait, wait.

How do you know the Holy Spirit is leading the "responsible brothers" to restrict people from influencing the local churches? What if God sends a minister to the local churches and the "responsible brothers" object. Who are they to object? What is their purview? Where does such authority come from? What if the minister is being led by the Holy Spirit and the "responsible brothers" are not? Whether you like it or not, that is entirely possible.

And who gave the "responsible brothers" the authority to keep ministers from the local churches in the first place? Do they have "first dibs" on them? Do they own them? What gives them the right to decide who can minister where? Why can they impose their brand on local churches but no one else can?

You'd better be careful before speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit. He may be doing something he hasn't clued you in on. Did you ever think of that?

My goodness. The presumptiveness never ceases to amaze me.

ZNPaaneah · 02-21-2019, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

they answer to the Lord directly.

So they are not bound by the "One Publication"?

It is the claim of this thread that we all answer to the Lord directly and are not desirous to be under the law.

Ohio · 02-21-2019, 04:36 PM

Quote:

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 · 03-13-2019, 07:02 AM

Quote:

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 · 03-14-2019, 02:46 PM

Quote:

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 · 03-14-2019, 06:27 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-19-2019, 12:54 PM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.