Notes on One Publication in the Lord's Recovery.

Un hermano del Brasil cree que debido a que cierto sitio en la Internet no incluye iglesias en ciertos países de Sudamérica, esto significa que los santos que se reúnen en esos lugares han sido removidos del recobro del Señor debido al asunto de tener una sola obra de publicación. ¿Puéde en realidad estar sucediendo esto?

El hermano a que hacemos referencia escribe en su carta con fecha del 25 de octubre del 2005, y publicada en el sitio de la Internet que pertenece a CBs [Concerned Brothers], lo siguiente:

“En Sudamérica hemos estado siguiendo al Señor y viviendo absolutamente para su propósito eterno y Su recobro por las últimas décadas. Sin embargo, desde que el hermano Lee fue a morar con el Señor el asunto de tener una sola obra de publicación ha sido usado por algunos hermanos para “cortarnos” del Cuerpo. Si, cuando yo entré a ciertas páginas, ( en la Internet) como por ejemplo, www.localchurches.org, eso fue lo que sentí. En mi país hay más de mil iglesias, pero no hay ni una de ellas en el mapa que este sitio proporciona. ¿Está pasando esto solo porque no practicamos el tener una sola obra de publicación? Sinceramente no puedo ver ninguna razón para que tal cosa ocurra, y sinceramente no pienso que este asunto sea suficiente para separar el Cuerpo de Cristo.”

Bueno, sinceramente conozco de otra razón para que eso haya ocurrido, por lo que quisiera poner las cosas en claro. Al mismo tiempo, quisiera dejar ver lo que los CBs expresan de si mismos al reproducir esta carta.

¿Por que algunas de las iglesias en Sudamérica no aparecen en el mapa en: http://southamerica.localchurches.org/contact-us/region.htm? Yo pregunté a los hermanos que están involucrados con este sitio en la Internet y su respuesta fue muy simple: “los hermanos que llevan la delantera en dichos lugares nunca sometieron la información a fin de que pudiera ser publicada en el sitio en la Internet.” Cuando este sitio en la Internet fue propuesto a los hermanos de Ventura, California, en Abril del 2000, los hermanos de todos los lugares fueron invitados (y sin ser obligados, como probablemente pensarían los hermanos de CB) a someter la información acerca de sus localidades. Nadie de esos países sometió información alguna. (Pueden llamar a los hermanos que están a cargo de este sitio en la Internet y preguntar por ustedes mismos.) Esta situación no tiene nada que ver con el asunto de tener una sola obra de publicación. Tengan en cuenta que esto fue en el año 2000, mucho antes de que el asunto de una sola obra de publicación llegara a ser algo de “preocupación”. Los hermanos que están a cargo de este sito en la Internet están muy deseosos de obtener información sobre los lugares de los cuales aun no tienen. Sin embargo, puede ser que los hermanos en dichos lugares tengan sus propias razones para no mandar la información que se pidió y eso debe ser respetado. Cualquiera que sea el caso, simplemente, es algo que carece de sentido, el decir que algunas iglesias no están en la lista del sitio mencionado debido a que no practican el tener una sola obra de publicación. Espero que alguien le escriba a este pobre hermano y le ayude a conocer la verdadera razón del asunto. Si alguien tiene su dirección de correo electrónico, envíemela, y yo mismo le escribiré.

Sin embargo, en un nivel más crítico, lo que se me hace difícil entender es porque los de CB publican tal carta sin primero tratar de indagar cual es la verdadera situación. No fue nada difícil averiguar cual es la verdadera razón. Lo único que tenían que hacer era llamar a los hermanos encargados de este sitio en la Internet. Los hermanos de CB ofrecieron esta carta como evidencia “de las confusiones [sic] y el caos entre las iglesias en el Brasil, causados por el hecho de que algunos colaboradores están promoviendo el tener una sola obra de publicación” (este es el comentario de CB y que precede la carta). Los hermanos de CB intentaban “proveer a los santos con hechos actuales e información relevante a fin de que no sean engañados por causa de no conocer la situación” (lo anterior es tomado de las “Palabras de apertura” que se encuentran en su sitio de la Internet). Pues bien, aquí esta un perfecto ejemplo de su propia ignorancia acerca de la situación y de hacer proliferar una equivocación. Ellos declaran que: “los santos necesitan saber acerca de los problemas que han causado estos asuntos en otros países a fin de que no se repitan las mismas equivocaciones y que se evite una situación similar en sus propias localidades” (otra vez, palabras tomadas de la sección “Palabras de apertura”) Sin embargo, la publicación de esta carta es un perfecto ejemplo de que CB esta repitiendo la misma equivocación llevada a cabo por un hermano mal informado en otro lugar y de adoptar (en lugar de evitar) la misma situación absurda a sus propias localidades. Estos hermanos están simplemente jugando. ¿Será posible dejar estas cosas y seguir adelante con el recobro del Señor?

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 7:00 PM | Permalink

One brother from Brazil believes that because a certain Web site does not list any churches for some countries in South America, the saints there have been cut off from the Lord’s recovery due to the matter of one publication. Can it really be so?

The brother writes in his 25 October 2005 letter, posted by the CBs on their site:

In South America, we’ve been following the Lord and living absolutely for His eternal plan and Recovery for the last decades, but since brother Lee went to be with the Lord, this question of “one publication” has been used by some saints to “cut us off” from the Body. Yes, when I access [Web] pages like www.localchurches.org I feel like that. We are more than a thousand churches in my country, but there is none in the map provided in that site. Is this happening just because we don’t follow the “one publication”? I sincerely can’t see any other reason for that, and I sincerely don’t think that this is enough to cut the Body of Christ.

Well, I sincerely know another reason for that, and I would like to set the record straight. At the same time, I would like to make clear what the CBs are actually saying about themselves in reproducing this letter.

Why are there no churches listed for some of the countries in South America on the map at http://southamerica.localchurches.org/contact-us/region.htm? I asked the brothers involved with this Web site, and their answer was simple: The leading brothers in these places never submitted information to them so that they could post it on their Web site. When this site was first proposed to the leading brothers in Ventura, California, in April 2000, the brothers everywhere were invited (not compelled as the CBs would probably imagine) to submit information on their places. No one from these countries submitted information for these countries. (Call the brothers who take care of this Web site, and ask them yourself.) It has nothing to do with one publication. Bear in mind that this was in 2000, long before the matter of one publication became a “concern.” The brothers who take care of this Web site are very eager to get information on the places for which they lack information. But the brothers in the various places may have their reasons for not sending in that information, and that must be respected. Whatever the case, it is simply nonsensical that some churches are not listed on this site because they don’t follow the one publication. I hope someone would write the poor brother back and help him to know the real reason for this. If anyone has his email address, send it to me, and I will do it.

But on a more critical level, what I have a difficult time understanding is why the CBs would publish such a letter without first trying to ascertain the real situation. It was’t difficult at all to find out the real situation. They only had to pick up the telephone and ask the brothers who take care of this Web site. The CBs offer this letter as evidence “of the confusions [sic] and chaos among the churches in Brazil caused by the promotion of one publication by some coworkers” (CBs’ comment preceding letter). The CBs intend “to provide the saints with current facts and relevant information so that they will not be misled due to ignorance of the situation” (from “Opening Words” on their Web site). But here is a perfect example of their own ignorance of the situation and of their own proliferation of a mistake. They declare that “the saints need to know the problems caused by those issues in other places so that they will not repeat the same mistakes and avoid the same situation in their own localities” (again from “Opening Words”). Yet the publication of this letter is a perfect example of the CBs repeating the same mistake made by an ill-informed brother in another place and of embracing (not avoiding) the same befuddled situation in their own places. These brothers are a simply playing a game. Can we get on with the reality of the Lord’s recovery?

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 7:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

They are ‘officially’ anonymous, but they left a clue about who at least one of them is. If he is who I think he is, I would remain anonymous too...maybe.

The CBs’ Web site is a collection of Adobe PDF files. When you click on a link to any one of these PDFs, the document will open in your Internet browser (that is, if you have the Adobe reader installed on your machine). This lets you see the content of the document, but it doesn’t let you see the internal properties of the document, such as the PDF “Author.” To see these properties, you have to save the PDF to your local machine and open it in the standalone Adobe Reader. A document’s properties are reached in the Reader by pressing Ctrl-D.

At the time of this writing, the CBs’ Web site offers us 19 PDF documents. Some of these PDFs are actually from other Web sites (like LSM’s) and are quite positive (in my view). Each of these PDFs has an “Author.” Now, we shouldn’t confuse the PDF author with the document author. Those who wrote these documents are apparently not the ones who made the PDFs. Let us simply call them accessories to the fact. At any rate, as of today when I last downloaded them, 12 of these PDFs have “smsong” as the PDF “Author.”

I found this out a few days ago, and with the help of a brother I located a brother among us whose email address begins with “smsong@....” (I won’t reproduce the email address here but will give only the part of it that is available from the PDFs on the CBs’ Web site.) Certainly, this is not completely determinative; there may be someone else out there who has his or her installation of Adobe Acrobat populated with “smsong” in the PDF “Author” field, some S-M Song, or some S M S Ong, or some S M So Ng, or other. I’ll let you be the judge of certainty here. But it did seem uncanny to me that we could find an online posting of one of the local churches in which “smsong@...” was offered as a contact email address.

Ever the curious one, I immediately sent an email to the address we found online, even though I did not expect an answer. (Who would openly admit to having anything to do with these works of darkness?!) Here is my email to him, the first name replaced with what is public knowledge from the PDFs:

Dear Brother [smsong],

I have been reading with interest the material posted on http://concernedbrothers.com. Are you involved in this site at all? I have some interest in the issues addressed there.

Your brother,

Kerry Robichaux

I am not holding my breath for a response. If the CBs will not say who they are on their Web site, I doubt that any one of them would let on to the likes of me who he is. If I were doing this kind of surreptitious online posting, I don’t think I would want to be found out. It would be embarrassing to my peers as well as to me. So, perhaps I understand the anonymity...but not completely.

Well, there is nothing surreptitious in what I have done. Probably anyone can trace my steps and find out all the same information. If you do, perhaps you should email him and ask him what I did--just don't do it anonymously; that’s not good form.

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The CBs present a document, “Concerning the LSM Promulgation...,” which provides a number of quotations from Brother Witness Lee regarding the Living Stream Ministry office. According to the introductory comments in the document, these quotations “should alarm the readers about the accuracy of the quotations of Brother Lee’s writings and the intention of the writing in the LSM’s booklet [Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery].” What should we be alarmed about?

The first quotation the document presents relates to LSM as “only a business office.” The authors who quote Brother Lee apparently feel that the alarm about accuracy and intention here is self-apparent, but I am not sure everyone would agree. The use of boldface type at least helps us narrow down what it is that is so alarming to the authors of the document. (Note: The emphasis is their own, not Brother Lee’s.)

“The Living Stream Ministry office is only a business office to serve my ministry for two things: to publish the messages in book form and to distribute these messages in both video and audio tapes. That is all the ministry office should do and nothing else. I did not have much time to check on everything related to the office in the past, but the ministry office has always had this specific function and no other function. This little office is a Levitical service serving my ministry to put out the word of God in print through video and audio tapes.”
(Witness Lee, A Timely Word, p. 39, 1988; Witness Lee, Elders Training Book 9, p. 61, 1992)

From these emphases we must conclude that we should be alarmed about LSM taking on some new role in the Lord’s recovery. Brother Lee characterizes LSM as two things: a business office and a ministry office. I believe that the authors of this document would like the saints to focus on Brother Lee’s statement that “the Living Stream Ministry office is only a business office,” but they cannot at the same time expect the saints to ignore that he also referred to this business office as “the ministry office.” Indeed, there is an aspect of LSM that makes it a business office. It is incorporated in the State of California; it has US Federal IRS tax-exempt status; it owns real assets; it has employees; it buys and sells goods. But is that all LSM is, a business office? If so, why does Brother Lee also call “this little office” a ministry office? Is it any less a ministry office just because it is also a business office. By analogy, most of the local churches in the United States are incorporated as nonprofit organizations in their respective states, and many of them enjoy tax-exempt status; many have “employees” and own real assets; some buy and sell goods. But who in their right mind would say that the local churches are simply nonprofit organizations? Who among us would deny that they are more intrinsically the churches of God? Somehow almost all the saints everywhere are able to hold in mind a distinction between a church’s spiritual status and its legal one. But the authors of this document are either incredible simpletons or they hope to obfuscate the same distinction that exists with LSM. Certainly LSM is a business office; no one needs specialty in corporation law to understand that. But at the same time, LSM is “the ministry office,” and this is intrinsically what it is in the Lord’s recovery. To ignore LSM’s intrinsic spiritual function as the ministry office is as perverse as claiming that the The Church in Anaheim as a California nonprofit corporation (for example) is all there is to the church in Anaheim.

Brother Lee does indeed says that LSM “is only a business office,” and if he had stopped there and moved on to some other point, we could limit his meaning to what the authors are probably hoping to emphasize. But again the authors are hoping that their readers will ignore what they have not emphasized with bold type. It is worthwhile to quote the sentence unadorned with the authors’ distracters. “The Living Stream Ministry office is only a business office to serve my ministry for two things: to publish the messages in book form and to distribute these messages in both video and audio tapes.” Forgive me all for speaking as a linguist, but the word only is a limiting adverb that necessarily has a scope to its limitation. The authors hope to make the saints understand that the scope of the word only limits just the phrase that follows it, a business office. But we understand the scope of the word only as limiting the entire noun phrase with its following purpose infinitive modifier, a business office to serve my ministry for two things.... This, to me, seems to be the more natural reading. But the deeper question is, would Witness Lee care for only a business office? That doesn’t sound like him at all. What does sound like him is his having a ministry office that is at the same time a business office for extrinsic, legal reasons. Perhaps the authors would not agree, but I believe that Brother Lee was both a very spiritual person and a very righteous and conscientious person. Thus, while he would entrust the work of publishing the ministry to a proper service office (“the ministry office” that he later characterizes as “a Levitical service”), he would at the same time insure that this office had a proper legal standing and a proper business practice (“a business office”). I do not think that Brother Lee is saying what the authors are hoping to make him say, that is, that LSM is only a business office. Such would not be in keeping with how we know Brother Lee was. Rather, it seems that he is saying that LSM is only a business office that serves to publish and distribute these messages; it is not an office that does anything else. However--and this is the point to be emphasized--it is an office for the publication of the ministry, even if on an extrinsic level it is a business office.

The authors of this document and the CBs who promote it wish to suggest that LSM is taking on some larger role in the Lord’s recovery. They wish to suggest that because of the co-workers’ statement on publication work in the Lord’s recovery, LSM is now in a position to control the local churches. Their logic is mystifying. As I understand it, they claim that if the churches were to be restricted in one publication (as Brother Lee ministered), and if LSM were to serve with the co-workers to determine what is of the one publication (as the co-workers’ statement describes), then LSM would be in a position to control the local churches. Of course, if LSM can control the local churches, then it has gone far beyond its station as “only a business office.” But I fail to make the leap that these brothers can. How would LSM’s involvement with the co-workers in the publication work put it in a position to control the local churches? I can see that LSM could be accused of being able to control the publications among us. But hasn’t LSM always been the sole publisher of the ministry among us? (I know that the CBs will take exception to this, since for them “the ministry” is conveniently amorphous and includes, I suspect, much more than what most saints would be comfortable with.) How then do we get from what has long been the situation among us regarding the ministry publications to pervasive and pernicious control of the local churches? We don’t. Not much has changed among us through issuing of the co-workers’ statement on publication work: LSM still publishes the ministry materials for the local churches, and what it publishes is generally recognized by the churches as the ministry. If anyone wants to write something as part of those ministry materials, the co-workers, who take the lead in the ministry, and LSM, who has the years of experience in publishing the ministry, fellowship over the proposal and decide if such writing is worthy to be released as part of the one publication.

Does this mean that no one can write anything unless the co-workers and LSM approve it? You wouldn’t be reading this note right now if that were the case. But I am quite clear that this note is not part of the one publication. Certainly, I hope that many saints will read this, but I do not at all feel that what I am writing here is the ministry. Of course, I have not taken up the task of writing here without first fellowshiping with brothers who bear responsibility in the Lord’s recovery. But my fellowship with them was not to ascertain whether or not what I am writing is part of the one publication; my fellowship with them was to determine if my writing would help neutralize some of the poison that the CBs are fomenting. Thus, even as what the CBs promote is certainly not part of the one publication (only they would suspect that it is ministry at all), so also my response to them is certainly not part of the one publication. But that does not deter me from writing, Further, I am not worried that some arm of the co-workers and LSM will wrench around my neck and stifle what I have to say. That is not the situation among us, no matter how the CBs try to portray it in their insidious ways. Dear brothers and sisters, there are no machinations by the co-workers or by LSM to dominate the local churches. These are the delusions of a few disaffected among us.

The CBs, through a promulgation of their own, hope to plant the evil thought in the minds of the saints that LSM has gone far beyond its proper function. But its proper function has always been to publish the ministry materials as the one publication among us for the churches everywhere. Further, these brothers hope to twist Brother Lee’s reference to LSM as “a business office” in order to deny his more intrinsic characterization of LSM as “the ministry office.” But they do so against the very character of Brother Lee and according to their own character of sowing suspicion and discord among the saints. This is the “alarm” they send up among the saints. Shame on them!

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