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

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.

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.

“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?

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?

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.

“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!

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

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.

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.

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.