Notes on One Publication in the Lord's Recovery.

In June 2005 I received an email from a brother who had some questions about one publication in the Lord's recovery. I won't mention the sender's name, but I would like to provide an edited version of my response here.

[Note: Brackets are used to indicate my edits.]

Dear Brother [So and so],

Thank you for your email. Since you address it directly to me in part, I thought I should reply directly and give you an answer to each of your questions. My answers follow your questions below [...].

Why the insistence on ‘one publication,’ when it is not a basic item of the common faith nor a fundamental item of our oneness?"

The matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith at all but something related to the one ministry in the Lord's recovery. There is no reason to confuse the two, nor to apply the standards of the one to the other. We feel that the ministry is the sounding of the trumpet among us in the Lord's recovery and that there should be no uncertain sounding of this trumpet, as Brother Lee has mentioned on a number of occasions. The one publication is not the basis of our accepting or rejecting any persons in the communion of faith; thus, it should not be insisted on as an item of the faith. However, while the common faith is general and inclusive, there must be more discipline and speciality among the ministers of the Word to maintain the one voice in the ministry of the truth. According to the pattern of Brother Nee and Brother Lee, we should try to have one voice in the ministry, and this through the one publication. If some among us wish to have a different publication, so be it. These ones are still our brothers; they are still in the genuine local churches. But at the same time it should be clear to all the saints everywhere that what comes from these ones is a different publication and that it is not of the same voice as that in the one publication under the co-workers in the Lord's recovery. The saints and the churches everywhere are free to accept or reject these other publications, just as they are equally free to accept or reject the notion itself of one publication. It is all a matter of how much each individual saint and each local church wishes to care for the discipline of being restricted in the one publication, as we have been admonished to do so by Brother Lee.
I think that we all should be careful not to confuse this statement on one publication with a definition of the faith. For some reason, some are already jumping to the conclusion that this statement is a statement of the faith or some addendum thereto. It is not. I am certain that among the co-workers who meet regularly to fellowship concerning the Lord’s recovery on the earth there is no thought that their statement is anything more than a declaration that we desire to be restricted in one publication in the ministry. Their statement relates to the publication of the ministry, not to the items of the faith. It seems that the act of putting down in writing their desire to be restricted in one publication in the ministry (following the admonition of our Brother Lee) is easily mistaken by some as akin to the making of creeds and therefore spells the imminent loss of the Lord’s testimony among us. While I do not take lightly any deviation from the truth among us, I also do not feel that we should lightly make such leaps in cause and effect. Certainly, if any saints or churches among us hold this statement on one publication as a basis of their faith or as a standard for receiving or rejecting the believers, we must be swift to fellowship with them and return them to a proper understanding of what the faith is. But the co-workers are not at all making this the basis of the faith among the believers in the local churches, and the release of this statement hardly means the beginning of our end. On the contrary, it is the strong feeling of the co-workers who have been regularly fellowshipping together that the differing publications among us are sowing confusion among the saints and damaging the one testimony among the churches. While this statement does not in any way anathematize these differing publications, it does make clear for all who desire to know that there are differing publications among us today and that we can and should be restricted in one publication. I certainly understand from your comments that you do not subscribe to this view, and I certainly respect your right to differ. But many of us wish to exercise the equal right, the higher right I would say, to be restricted in one publication in the ministry in the Lord’s recovery.
Further, I do not think that it is accurate to equate the circulation of this statement with an insistence on it. I believe that what the co-workers are doing is akin to what Brother Lee did when he issued the call to the saints everywhere to pick up the God-ordained way. You will recall, I am sure, that he did not insist on this new way, but he certainly promoted it as the best way to bring all the saints into their organic functions as members of the Body of Christ. The new way was to be a matter of choice for the saints and the churches, not something insisted upon. Likewise, being restricted in one publication is a matter of choice for the churches. No one is insisting that the churches everywhere be restricted in one publication. But at the same time, the co-workers can and should help the saints to see the value of one publication in the Lord’s recovery, and they should encourage the saints everywhere to exercise this restriction for the sake of the one testimony among us. I understand that some do not wish to see this matter promoted or even spoken, but as co-workers trained by Brother Lee we do well to follow his example and admonition ourselves and to bring the saints whom we care for into the same practice.

"If a genuine believer from a denomination wishes to fellowship with a local church, are we to ask him (or her) to subscribe to the teaching of ‘one publication’ before receiving them into fellowship?"

Absolutely not. But it would be counter to our confidence in the truth as we see it in the Lord's recovery not to shepherd every believer among us into the healthy teaching that is embodied in the one publication in the Lord's recovery. Otherwise, Brother, why are we standing in the truth of the Lord's recovery in the first place?

“If a saint within a local church feels strongly before the Lord that he (or she) is being led to serve that local church in a full-time capacity, yet he (or she) does not accept as Scriptural the matter of ‘one publication,’ should the local church reject their offer of full-time service on this basis?”

I think this question ignores a more basic consideration. For example, the very same issue exists if the question were posed in this way: "If a saint within a local church feels strongly before the Lord that he or she is being led to serve that local church in a full-time capacity, yet he or she feels strongly that the matter of one publication is scriptural while the church there does not, should the local church reject his or her offer of full-time service on this basis?” In either hypotheticality the real issue to me is whether or not this saint and this church can serve in one accord there, given a difference in opinion on this matter; thus, the matter of the one publication per se is not at issue here. What is at issue is the viability of practical oneness in the church service when a serving saint and the church he or she serves are of different minds on a matter. Often a matter such as this can be set aside, and there can be the practical oneness for proper service. But many times two minds in the service are not beneficial to the church. The church in that locality must decide this viability, and I feel that all the churches should respect how a church decides on such a local matter.

“Suppose there is a local church raised up among us in the Lord’s recovery, standing on the ground of oneness. Yet, both the elders and the saints in that local church do not feel before the Lord that they should be 'restricted in one publication.' Under these circumstances, how do you, the blended coworkers,' view that church? Are they still a genuine local church?"

I expect that [the blended co-workers] would view this church as a genuine local church in the Lord's recovery that is not restricted in one publication. Restriction in one publication is the voluntary exercise of caring for the proper order in the ministry in the Lord's recovery. If a church does not wish to exercise this care, that does not make it any less a church. It does mean, however, that this church is open to a multitude of matters that other churches may not find healthy, and the churches everywhere are certainly free not to import what may not be healthy from such a church. I think it is important for everyone to be honest and open about this matter. If a church does not want to be restricted in one publication, it should not hold that against those churches that do. Likewise, the churches that wish to be restricted in one publication and especially the co-workers, who serve the churches everywhere, should not reject or treat less faithfully the churches that do not wish to be restricted in one publication. But neither should the churches that feel to be restricted in one publication be expected to accept the differing publications of the churches that do not wish to be restricted.

"Do you still view them and treat them the same as those local churches which adhere to the ‘one publication policy’?"

Yes.

"Is that local church still in the Lord’s recovery?"

Yes.

"On what grounds should we contradict (or at least appear to contradict) the express wish of brother Lee, by discouraging such "newsletters of fellowship" among the churches of the type described above and exemplified by the Church in Chicago’s newsletter publication of that era?"

I find this point puzzling. In your previous comments you entertained the possibility of saints and churches contradicting the express wish of Brother Lee that we be "restricted in one publication." Contradicting him did not seem to be a factor in your consideration of those hypotheticalities, but here you make it the sole factor in defending the minor matter of "newsletters of fellowship" among the churches. Doesn't contradicting the express wish of Brother Lee seem more like a convenience for the sake of your point than an actual reason to take issue? With some stretching, I will assume that it is not and try to answer the substance of your question by saying that being restricted in one publication does not at all preclude and should not discourage these "newsletters of fellowship" among the churches.

["Further, what] is your position on ‘newsletters of fellowship’ among the churches?"

I expect that all the co-workers would hope that such newsletters will continue to abound. I agree with Brother Lee that the testimonies of the Lord's move in the respective places are important to our fellowship in the local churches.

["Moreover, if] a worker feels strongly before the Lord to produce, publish and disseminate such a publication among the saints and the local churches, do you still recognize him (or her) as your coworker?"

It all depends on whether or not the worker publishes and disseminates such a publication in fellowship with the co-workers in the Lord's recovery (not just in his locality or even area). If he does not fellowship with the other co-workers, he is not co-working. He is simply, as you say, a "worker," not a co-worker. One cannot have it both ways, Brother. If one does not wish to fellowship actively with the co-workers, he may be a worker, but he can hardly be a co-worker. It is not simply a matter of how the co-workers view him; it is more fundamentally a matter of how he views himself and, more importantly, whether or not he serves in a true co-working way.

I hope my answers will offer some acceptable response to your queries. Of course, I realize that I am just one brother answering, but I did not want your questions to go unnoticed and, even worse, unanswered. I hope that the other brothers will also offer their responses to you.

Much grace to you,

Kerry

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

They don't give their names, and I think I know why.

When you first visit concernedbrothers.com, you could easily get the impression that it is a site that belongs to Nigel Tomes: "Nigel Tomes' Response...," "Nigel Tomes' Letter...," "Nigel Tomes, 'Minister of the Age.'" (The last of these has some interesting ironic ambiguity.) I've heard the site even called "Nigel Tomes' site." This would not be far off from the truth as to content, even though as to actual ownership the matter is far less clear. Perhaps the site owners would like everyone to think that the site indeed belongs to Nigel Tomes; perhaps Nigel Tomes himself would like everyone to think the same.

But the fact is, the owners of the site are unknown and have chosen to shroud themselves in anonymity and subterfuge. I tried to find out who owns the site by looking up the Internet records for the domain concernedbrothers.com. Interestingly enough, the site is registered to Domains by Proxy, Inc. This fact in itself makes a statement about the real site owners. Domains by Proxy exists to hide the identities of its clients. Sometimes there may be good reason to do that, and the start page of domainsbyproxy.com offers some reasonable uses for proxied domain registration:

"The law requires that the personal information you provide with every domain you register be made public in the 'WHOIS' database. Your identity becomes instantly available - and vulnerable - to spammers,
scammers, prying eyes, and worse." (http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/)

Domains by Proxy registers domains "in the name of Domains by Proxy," so the contact information of the party paying for the domain is not made public. But one has to ask: why do the "concernedbrothers" (CBs) want to keep their identity hidden from the public? Are they worried about "spammers, scammers, prying eyes"? I suspect that they are worried about "worse" - us common brothers and sisters who happen to visit their site and read their "concerns." Their deliberate action to hide behind a shroud of secrecy and to do so through such sophisticated means tell us much about how they themselves view what they are doing. If what they are doing is "for the truth," as their banner verse states, why would they want to hide who they are? I submit that they are not willing to stick their necks out for their "truth" because if in the end they are found to be deceived, they do not want everyone everywhere to turn away from them. There are no "authorities" among us, whom they might fear would come and chasten them, but there are thousands of little brothers and sisters (you and I included) whom they fear will not easily receive them if they are exposed as those who cause turmoil among us. Of course, the saints always forgive, as Christ the Head always forgives, but the CBs will not easily forgive themselves if they are openly and publicly shown to be deceived and deceiving. What else can they do but hide who they are? When you are uncertain of the truth, you certainly do not want to bang your drum too loudly.

Of course, the CBs may say that they remain anonymous because they do not seek glory from men. That could simply be an excuse for being chicken, but we needn't try to discern that. Not seeking glory from men is certainly noble in some endeavors, but not in the matter of defending the truth or combating error. The apostles defended the truth openly, commending even their own persons to the saints: "Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; yet I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences" (2 Cor. 5:11). Brother Lee comments: "The apostles, conscious of fearing the Lord, persuaded men concerning their integrity, concerning what kind of persons they were, toward both God and men. They did not need to persuade God, for what they were had already been made manifest to God; yet, the apostles hoped that they had been made manifest also in the believers’ consciences" (note 3 on 2 Cor. 5:11). Those who desire to help the saints in the matters of truth or error must themselves be manifest in the conscience of the saints as ones who have integrity. It is not a matter of glory before men; it is a matter of integrity in the conscience of the saints. That being the case, how can brothers who hide behind devices like Domains by Proxy, Inc., be trusted to lead us in any worthwhile discussion of the weighty matters that they so cavalierly hope to define? We should not entrust our consciences to ones who dare not give us their names.

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 12:48 PM | Permalink

They call themselves Concerned Brothers (CB), and they have a
web site. What are they trying to do?

This site appeared online sometime in November 2005. The site sputtered at first, offering "Opening Words" that seemed quite brash and presumptuous. For several weeks these "Opening Words" were taken offline, and the link content was under construction. The new "Opening Words" came online in December 2005. Though modified some, the edited version is still quite presumptuous.

These CBs are concerned about certain things that they feel have been troubling the saints recently, things like the ministry and ministers among us and the publication(s) thereof, as well as the "proper" relationship of the ministry, the work, and the churches. They have also decided to re-examine a number of things that I thought have been fairly settled among us for decades, things like the Body of Christ and the oneness of the Body of Christ, the local churches, and the New Testament ministry.

In my heart I feel that everyone has the right to fellowship about the truth, and I genuinely believe that "the Lord hath yet more light and truth / To break forth from His Word" (Hymns, #817). May we all progress in the full-knowledge of the truth! But, honestly, what will their ruminations contribute? Will they define these great realities of the divine revelation by consensus among web readers (if they really even open to their own readers)? Brothers Watchman Nee and Witness Lee led the study of these great matters among us for decades, and now these CBs have decided to lead us all again. Was our previous understanding of these realities wrong or misguided? Apparently, these CBs think so. Personally, I find it hard to believe that they will invent a better wheel. But they will lead whoever is foolish enough to follow; some people are ready to follow just about any parade.

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 4:13 PM | Permalink

This site represents my thoughts on the matter of one publication in the Lord's recovery. It is not really a forum or discussion board.

However, there is a way to leave comments, which are very welcome. But there is no room for folly or irascibility. Comments are moderated and will appear only if they seem to facilitate the discussion. No one should feel that they have the inherent right to see their comments published here. Obviously, I represent myself in any comments that I author, but I will try to post in Spirit. Amen.

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Many of you know that I serve full-time at Living Stream Ministry and that I attend the meetings of the co-workers. But I am not speaking for either here.

Of course, I am what I am by the grace of God, and by the grace of God I serve full-time in the publication service in the Lord's recovery. Further, I count it a great privilege and honor to be able to meet with the blended co-workers and fellowship with them concerning the Lord's move in His recovery over the whole earth. Be that as it may, I hope that everyone who reads what I have to say here will be able to tell that I am not speaking for LSM or the blended co-workers. While it is impossible for me to speak apart from what I am, I think it is possible for me to speak simply as a brother who loves the Lord and His recovery and who feels that something should be said to dispel the untruths that are being circulated among us. I feel that what I know from being at LSM over 20 years and from being among the co-workers 15 years may help clear up some of the poisons of suspicion that are being used against the saints Thus, when it is helpful to bring to bear on a matter what I know, I will do so--if it does not violate what should be held only by LSM or the co-workers. (I trust that all of us understand and accept that there are proprieties in every area of the Lord's service, as there are even in common human enterprises.) I believe firmly that the more the saints everywhere know how the service is conducted at LSM and among the co-workers, the more they will be convinced that there is no evil conspiracy afoot, no plans for world domination by LSM or the blended co-workers, as some hope to suggest (and suggest is about as far as they can go), but instead that there is a remarkable blending that manifests the Lord's own movements in His glorious economy.

But in the final analysis let everyone be certain of this: these are my own words and my own thoughts on one publication among us in the Lord's recovery. Before the Lord I testify that I am speaking for no one other than myself, and before the Lord I respectfully request that no one make of my words anything more than that. Count me as I am, a serving one only: blended with the co-workers I hope, and faithful in the publication work I pray, but nevertheless not representing either I say.

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 6:00 PM | Permalink

My name is Kerry S. Robichaux, and I am quite disturbed about certain things that are being circulating among us related to the matter of publication work in the Lord's recovery. I feel that some of us should stand up and be heard on some of these matters.

I should say from the start, if it is not obvious already, that I strongly support the notion of one publication among us in the Lord's recovery. I will not defend my support for it here (see a future entry under "Does it matter"), but I feel that one publication is a practical "must" among us (though not an item of the faith! Me genoito!). There are, however, some brothers among us who wish to challenge the matter of one publication, and they have taken to the Internet to defend their views. They have made their views (though often not their names) public to the whole world. To my mind they have relied, for the most part, on untruths, misconceptions, suspicions, and innuendo to make their point. I feel that enough is enough, and someone needs to call their bluff. I don't know much, but I know enough to know that these brothers are sadly deceived and more sadly deceiving. Since they have taken to the Internet, I felt that I too should take to the same medium to let everyone know what I know and how I personally feel about this issue (for what it is worth).
I hope that in offering these notes on one publication in the Lord's recovery, many of the saints who stand unprotected from the winds that are blowing will find a reasonable defense here for their own consciences. I often find that the brothers and sisters tacitly perceive what is true and of the Lord, but sometimes they need to hear explicit words that defend what is true and of the Lord. My trust is not in the words that I write but in what the saints already sense in their consciences, and I count myself blessed to have the opportunity to utter what matches their spirits. I am certain that most of the brothers and sisters feel sick when they encounter the winds blowing among us; I can only hope that they feel comforted when they read words that confirm their good heart toward the Lord, toward His recovery, and toward the brothers and sisters.

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 12:00 PM | Permalink