Notes on One Publication in the Lord's Recovery.

A brother writes that I “have gotten out of hand” and bids me “delete some of my fleshly responses.” I have gone through the site and tried to cull out the flesh where I could spot it, but this still does not change my basic response to the CBs.

I received an email from a brother who took me to task on my notes here on one publication in the Lord’s recovery. Of course, each person is entitled to his or her view on any matter, so I do not deny him the right to take issue with me. He has given me permission to reproduce the first paragraph of his email to me. He has not given me express permission to use his name, so I won’t reproduce that. However, let’s all agree that he is not anonymous and that I have simply chosen not to give his name. Fair enough. Here is his first paragraph:

I’ve read all your materials on http://onepub.robichaux.name/ and you really have gotten out of hand. Please look your material over and delete some of your fleshly responses to these brothers who are trying to understand what is going on. I can’t spend a lot of time telling you who I am here at work but you need to know that I have been in the Lord’s recovery under Brother Lee’s ministry since 1979. I’ve gone thru a lot of storms myself, and this one is absolutely the worst. Please don’t sit in CA pretending to understand all that is going on by a few notes from these CBs.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I have gone through my notes here and tried to expunge the flesh. (That will account for any minor changes you may find in the postings since you last read them.) But, to be honest, I am not sure I am qualified to self-expunge. I try my best not to be in the flesh, especially in matters as grave as this, but I cannot say that I am altogether unbiased in self-judgment. Who is? At any rate, I have made an attempt at it, as I told the brother I would.

In his email the brother further mentions some abuses by some who agree with one publication in the Lord’s recovery. It would not be proper for me to reproduce his claims here because they are indirect and should be made by the persons directly involved. But in principle, such abuses, if true, are wrong regardless of the stand one takes on publications among us. As a whole, the local churches do not exclude others from their fellowship based on the matter of publications. If individuals among us, on either side of the controversy, do this, that is lamentable, but we need not latch on to the faults of some in order to impugn the virtues of most.

I close with my reply to my brother critic, which I expect he will not deny me the right to reproduce here. Again, I withhold his name.

Dear [...],

Thanks for you email. I will consider my responses and see where they need toning down.

My firm conviction is that no one should be excluded from fellowship among the churches over the issue of one publication. I feel that that sort of thing is wrong. This is also stated clearly in the co-workers’ statement "Publication Work in the Lord’s Recovery." I expect that you would agree with this:

"The one publication should not become the basis of our accepting or rejecting any persons in the communion of faith or in the fellowship of the churches; it should not be insisted on as an item of the faith. If any are not inclined to be restricted in one publication, these ones are still our brothers; they are still in the genuine local churches."

If anyone is doing that, they need to be helped to see that this is improper and to quit causing problems in the churches this way. I believe there is a clear way for this to be handled according to 1 Timothy 5:19, if this brother is an elder. But this is not something that I have the standing or function to attend to. Of course, if he is not an elder, the matter is completely different, as you will realize.

But I also feel that differing ministry publications are wrong, and there have been similar problems because some would not agree with these differing publications. There seems to be excesses by some on both sides of the matter. But the excesses are not the norm, and they do not characterize the great majority of saints in the Lord’s recovery. Further, the excesses do not annul the general principles that should be respected.

I will gladly take your admonition, [...], and look more closely at my site.

Thanks.

Your brother,

Kerry

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The CBs reproduce a little article by N. Tomes in which he argues against the notion of a singular minister of the age. But has he proved anything at all? If the saints read carefully what he has to say and weigh his arguments soberly, I believe that they will see that he is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Tomes rejects the notion that the vision of the age and the ministry of the age can belong to a singular minister of the age. I believe that he agrees that there is a vision of the age and with it a ministry of the age; hence, Tomes takes exception to a singular minister of the age. He is certainly within his right to believe what he wants to believe, but I take exception to how he tries to persuade us of his personal belief. I am actually quite surprised at how he argues his point.

Before he wades too deep into the matter, he admits that “we should ask, Is this teaching according to the New Testament?” but he conveniently “defer[s] the question to another occasion.” Deflecting attention from an obvious authoritative source always raises a red flag when I read an argument, so I had to pause and consider why Tomes did not consider the issue from the perspective of the New Testament and be done with it. It seems to me that he could have spared himself a lot of effort if he could have shown that the notion of a singular minister of the age does not accord with the New Testament. Tomes (and the CBs who put him forth as their champion) elsewhere challenged the brothers to support their views by showing that their views are founded on the Scriptures. But here he conveniently lets himself off the same hook. Is there some double standard here? I think so. As his readers, what we should ask is, Why didn’t Tomes appeal to the New Testament on this occasion? Perhaps he realizes that he would have no support there. Or perhaps he remembers that Brother Lee already considered all these matters in light of the Scriptures and offered a Scriptural basis for it. Of course, Brother Lee could be wrong about it all, but Tomes would have to take exception with Brother Lee, and he probably does not want to be so bold.

Freeing himself from the requirement he places on others, Tomes instead appeals to Watchman Nee to buttress his claim: “Did Watchman Nee teach that there is one, unique ‘minister of the age’? Did Brother Nee see himself as the unique ‘minister of the age’?” (Tomes’s emphasis). Of course, we all respect Brother Nee, so I find his appeal to Brother Nee acceptable. I trust Brother Nee’s grasp of the truth and am always interested in hearing what Brother Nee has to say. I do not, however, trust Tomes’s grasp of what Brother Nee has to say, and therein lies the problem.

In response to his first question, Tomes offers two “supports.” In this note I will address only the first support. which is Brother Nee’s general comments on the matter: “In every age there is the ministry of that age,” and later in the same place, “Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age” (Collected Works, vol. 57, p. 260). Then, Tomes argues:

“Note the indefinite article, ‘a minister of his age.’ The Chinese can also be rendered, ‘Luther was one minister of his age, Darby was also one minister of his age’ When directly addressing this issue, Brother Nee does not refer to either Luther or Darby as the unique ‘minister of the age.’ We cannot find a statement by Watchman Nee affirming one, unique ‘Minister of the Age.’” (Tomes’s emphasis)

I think that many of Tomes’s readers will find something creepy about his reasoning, even if they are not able to clearly put their finger on it. The fact is, Tomes is not being completely fair in his interpretation, because he fails to allow that the indefinite article is ambiguous here. If “in every age there is the ministry of that age,” then as we consider the various ministers across the ages (as Brother Nee does in the context), we could naturally refer to each as a minister of his age. If I say, “Luther was the minister of his age,” and “Darby was the minister of his age”; I could easily say in the same breath that each was a minister of his age: “Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age.” The ambiguity of the English indefinite article in this context should prevent Tomes from wresting his particular meaning from Brother Nee’s words, but it doesn’t. Either it eludes him, or he is deluding others. It does not necessarily follow that because Watchman Nee used the indefinite article (or the quantifier in Chinese) here, the notion of the minister of the age “did not match his view of God’s recovery work throughout history and in his own era,” as he finally concludes. Brother Nee’s general comments, taken in isolation as given by Tomes, could go either way. His interpretation is not definitive at all, and even in their massaged form Brother Nee’s words do not make Tomes’s  point. In their full context, Brother Nee’s words seem to have a different sense.

It may be helpful  now to quote the entire portion that Tomes uses for his support. (This may be the best part of my post on the matter.) The quotation is from the online edition at http://www.ministrybooks.org/collected-works.cfm (click on vol. 57: “The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry,” then on link “27” for “Brokenness and Ministry [Chapter Twenty-Five]):

CONCERNING FOLLOWING THE MINISTRY OF THE AGE

Seeing the Ministry of the Age

Question: How should Jonathan in the Old Testament (Saul's son—1 Sam. 14:1-46) have chosen his way?

Watchman Nee: In the Old Testament both Solomon and David represented the Lord. The two persons represented the one ministry in two separate ways. In the Old Testament there were many ministries. After Moses, the judges were raised up. After that, there was Solomon, the kings, and the prophets. After the Israelites were taken into captivity, the vessels for the recovery were raised up. The Old Testament is filled with different kinds of ministries. In every age there is the ministry of that age. These ministries of the ages are different from the local ministers. Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age. In every age the Lord has special things that He wants to accomplish. He has His own recoveries and His own works to do. The particular recovery and work that He does in one age is the ministry of that age.

Forsaking the Past Ministries

Jonathan stood between Saul and David. He was one man standing between two ministries. He should have followed the second ministry. However, because Jonathan's relationship with the first ministry was too deep, he could not disentangle himself. In order to catch up with the ministry of the age, there is the need for us to see the vision. Michal was married to David, yet she did not see anything. She only saw David's condition before God, and she could not tolerate it. As a result, she was left behind (2 Sam. 6:16, 20-23).

All Being a Matter of God's Mercy

It is God's mercy that a person can see and come into contact with the ministry of that age. Yet it is altogether a different thing for a man to take up the courage to forsake the past ministry. It is a precious thing to see, and it is a blessed thing to come into contact with something. Yet whether or not one can set aside his past ministry is entirely up to God's mercy.

This is the entire piece on the ministry of the age, taken from a series of apparently unrelated questions and answers posed to Brother Nee during a co-workers’ meeting in April 1948. In reading the entire piece, we are able to make some interesting observations about what Brother Nee taught concerning the ministry of the age and the ministers of the age. First, he indicates that there is one ministry in the Old Testament. Then, he points out that various persons represented the one ministry in different ways. But it is interesting to note that in substantiating this from the biblical record, he gives chronological examples: “After Moses, the judges…”; “after that,...Solomon, the kings, and the prophets”; “after the Israelites were taken into captivity, the vessels for the recovery….” Each example shows that for each age there was a ministry of the age, and for each ministry of the age there was a representative person of that ministry of the age. In answer to the question, “How should Jonathan in the Old Testament have chosen his way?” Brother Nee expresses the ministries of the two ages that Jonathan stood between in terms of the persons who represent each: “Jonathan stood between Saul and David. He was one man standing between two ministries. He should have followed the second ministry.” In Jonathan’s case, the ministry of the age was changing, and each ministry of its respective age was represented by a unique person—Saul, then David. Would we say then that Brother Nee did not believe that there was a unique representative of the ministry of the age in each age? Certainly there were others at the time of Saul and David of whom it could be said that they too represented the ministry of their age. But Brother Nee inserts an important qualifier here: “These ministries of the ages are different from the local ministers.” Tomes conveniently omits this sentence in his quotation of the portion, but Brother Nee mentions this because indeed he wishes to make a distinction between the local ministers and the one representative of the ministry of the age. He then goes on to single out particular individuals in church history as representatives of the ministries of the ages: “Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age.” Why would he single out in this context Luther and Darby as ministers of their ages unless he wanted to show that even in the long history of the church there are certain ministers that singly represent the ministry in their particular ages? We need not be scholars of church history to know that there were others teaching justification by faith in the sixteenth century (e.g., Philip Melancthon, Andreas Osiander, etc.), but as Brother Nee says elsewhere, and as Tomes allows Brother Nee to say in quoting him, “the truth of justification by faith…was Luther’s particular recovery” (Collected Works, vol. 11, p. 845). I think it is absolutely fair to say that Brother Nee believed that Luther was the single and unique representative of the ministry of his age and, in that sense, was the minister of his age.

Tomes titles his argument “One, Unique ‘Minister of the Age’? — What Did Watchman Nee Teach?” But the first part of his argument is only a very narrow presentation of the exact wording of Brother Nee’s comments on the matter, wrenched from their full context and pressed into an interpretation that stands at odds with the whole point that Brother Nee is trying to make. After reading the entire portion, I come away with a view of what Watchman Nee taught on the matter that is quite different from what Tomes wants us to believe. If I read the entire portion, I understand Brother Nee to be saying that if Jonathan had followed the one unique David, he would have been properly aligned with the ministry of the age, because David was uniquely the representative of the ministry of his age. In that sense, he was the minister of his age. I do not believe that the notion of a unique minister of the age is foreign to Brother Nee’s thought and teaching at all, even if in these narrow portions we are not able to find the exact term with the definite article. To build a case upon the lack of a definite article is pedantic in view of the full text of Brother Nee’s comments.

After considering Tomes’s argument and the CBs reliance thereon, one has to ask: Why are these brothers arguing against a singular minister of the age? What is driving them? Well, think about it. If there is no singular minister of the age, then there must be other ministers of the age, in their mind. And who might those be? Where are these other ministers of the age? To be the—or assuming arguendo, a—minister of the age, one must be speaking the vision of the age. It is a simple matter: If you are speaking the vision of the age, if you are in the ministry of the age, then, yes, you are a minister of the age, even if you are not the minister of the age. That is so obvious that you really don’t need to post it on a Web site. But I believe that at the base of their argument is the intention to promote one or more of their local ministers as ministers of the age and to find for them some larger audience than they now have. The problem is, their local ministers are not being accepted as ministers of the age (except among small pockets of saints here and there), because they do not minister according to the vision of the age. This necessarily disqualifies them from being ministers of the age. Even if Tomes et al. could establish that Brother Nee did not teach that in each age there is the minister of the age, there is still the simple fact that it is the vision of the age that makes ministers of the age what they are. Proving the possibility of more than one minister of the age doesn’t prove that any particular teacher is a minister of the age, which, I believe, is the actual implication to be drawn from Tomes’s argument.

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux at 8:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The CBs wish to imply that the co-workers caused unrest among the churches by taking a stand on one publication. But in supporting their claim, are the CBs relaying the whole truth, or are they conveniently ignoring some important facts?

In their “Opening Words” the CBs refer to two publications that were released in the 2004 Winter Training and the 2005 Summer Training, respectively, and then they say:

Both booklets have caused many issues and problems in many local churches. Many saints have become confused, discouraged or hurt and several churches have suffered because of disagreements on these issues. Some churches have even been divided.

Elsewhere on their site, the CBs reproduce a letter (in Spanish and in translation) from some unknown brother in South America, offering it as evidence “how some churches in South America (not in Brazil) were damaged by the promotions of ‘Minister of Age’ [sic] and one publication by some co-workers.”

If we are to believe the CBs, the real source of these “many issues and problems” is the release of these two booklets and the co-workers’ admonition to the churches and the saints to be restricted in one publication. But I believe that many, many saints in the Lord’s recovery know that long before the co-workers issued these two booklets there were already many issues and problems related to differing publications. The CBs, of course, are not willing to refer to these issues and problems, for if they did so, they would undermine their major “concern.”

The real situation that existed prior to the release of these two booklets is something that many saints and many churches throughout the earth can personally attest to. Thus, the CBs really expose themselves as deceivers before they have much chance of deceiving others who may not be aware of that real situation. But when you are anonymous in your allegations, who cares if you expose yourself? You can be wild and reckless, you can be unfounded in your charges, and you can hope that some poor souls will swallow your unsubstantiated accusations.

I won’t ask for testimony from the many saints who know this (though that is welcome if you wish to comment below), but long before the co-workers issued the first booklet at the 2004 Winter Training, there were “many issues and problems” because of different publications in the Lord’s recovery. The publications of at least two brothers among us were being disseminated beyond the domains measured out to them by the Lord, and not disseminated benignly but in competition with what the saints have been enjoying in the Lord’s recovery for decades. Partisans of their publications were going about, encouraging the saints to take up the publications of these brothers and claiming that these too were part of the one ministry among us. (I know the CBs bristle at this term one ministry, but even that bristling is evidence of their true stand on how oneness among us should be expressed and maintained.) Unfortunately, not all the saints were willing to accept the claim, and there soon began to be many issues and problems among the dear brothers and sisters in many local churches throughout the earth. The co-workers began to get many questions from genuinely concerned brothers and sisters: “Are these brothers OK to read?” “Do you know the situation of this brother who publishes these books? What is his relationship to the Lord’s recovery?" “I am confused. How come this brother publishes so many books? Are there two ministries?” The co-workers in the Lord’s recovery had, of course, been aware of these other publications, and for years they tried their best to avoid the fissures among us that these other publications were leading to. For years the matter was only addressed among the co-workers, and all of them, I believe, tried their best to keep the discussion among themselves. But the cries of the saints were becoming more and more audible. And the cries were not in favor of differing publications; the cries were in complaint of the confusion that these other publications were bringing in.

I am not talking about the places where these brothers are from. I do not think that the co-workers would ever deny that these brothers had the “right” to minster where the Lord had set them to work. By concession and in the way of liberty, the co-workers everywhere tolerated these different publications where they originated for years. But the far dissemination of these publications beyond where they originated was indeed causing unrest among the churches and the saints. The letter from South America that the CBs reproduce touts the value of these other publications alongside those that the saints elsewhere have enjoyed solely for decades. I do not doubt the brother’s genuineness at all. But the brother is apparently ignorant of the many issues and problems that these other publications brought in among the saints outside of South America. However, I am not so certain that it is ignorance that motivates the CBs who use this brother’s letter as their “evidence.”

If these ones were indeed set as ministers in the Body, are they not ministers to all the Body? In theory, perhaps so. But in application, it certainly did not seem that all the Body accepted them as ministers. They may have been accepted in their own “homes,” but they were not so readily accepted in the whole “neighborhood.” I may be a teacher in a vital group, but that doesn’t mean that I should try to get every other vital group to accept me as their teacher as well. When their publications began to be promoted widely, that is when the “many issues and problems” actually began. The co-workers, when they began to write and publish, were dealing with a situation that was already in open existence; they were not creating a new situation, as the CBs would like us to believe. From my observation, it was not the differing ministry* of these brothers that caused the most concern to the co-workers; it was the evangelizing of it, with the attendant factions that were springing up, that required a response.

When the two booklets were released at the two trainings, the genuinely concerned brothers and sisters in the churches were made clear about these differing publications. The questions that they had been asking for years were clearly answered at that point, and armed with a clear answer, the saints in many churches had the boldness to turn away from these differing publications. The CBs either do not know or do not want anyone else to know that many churches and many brothers and sisters were honestly relieved that the co-workers had made a plain statement about one publication. The confusion was cleared up, and the saints knew what stance they wanted to take with regard to these differing publications. The CBs seethe that so many saints wish to turn away from these other publications. While the CBs couch the issue as some defense of human right or as healthy dissension, many saints have exercised their own right to be freed from a state of confusion and to dissent from differing voices in the ministry. They simply do not want the confusion and the differences. Who can blame them?

Of course, those who treasure these other publications will immediately feel that issues and problems are being caused by the two booklets that the co-workers released. In trying to clear up the confusion from differing publications among the churches, the co-workers certainly must call these publications what they are; and in calling these publications what they are, there will certainly be issues and problems among those who promote these differing publications. This is what the letter from South America is actually evidence of. But I do not honestly see how it could be otherwise. Once these publications are identified in the larger context of the whole recovery as being different, what else could regional adherents and general promoters of these publications expect? What is interesting to me is that these adherents and the CBs themselves did not seem to care about the “many issues and problems” that existed before the co-workers released these two booklets. Where were their letters of concern and protestation then? Where was their Web sites of concern and determination to find the truth? They seemed to be content with many issues and problems elsewhere, but now that their comfort in multiple ministries is being disturbed, it is time for them to write letters and publish Web sites. Again, they expose their real tastes in the Lord’s recovery.

The CBs are true to form in hiding an important part of the story about publications among us. They conveniently pick up their narrative with what the co-workers have done and conveniently ignore what was going on before the co-workers acted. If you believe them, all was peaceful in the Lord’s recovery until the co-workers did something. But how trustworthy are the CBs if they exclude from their account the obvious confusion and pain which existed among the saints before the co-workers acted and which existed because of differing publications?

* I will not here go into how theirs is a different ministry, but this is something that should be developed thoroughly and openly. Part of the claim of these brothers who author these differing publications is that they are speaking the same things that have been spoken among us for decades. But I see substantial differences, differences of omission, emphasis, basis, and goal. And although the dear brothers and sisters who have suspected these publications may not be able to enunciate their sense about them, they have nevertheless "smelled" them out, and they wish to reject them.

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