Leaders of the Lord's Recovery

[Indiana]

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/Leaders.pdf

"Although there are proper reasons for open, honest, mutual fellowship with church leaders, the opportunity to meet with them is closed to me and to others. The concept in the leadership is that no one in the churches should make an issue of anything or care for right and wrong, which has worked well to keep church members uninformed and the truth suppressed. Thus, discussion of serious concerns keep going to an open forum." -2010

[Ohio]

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/LRLeaders.pdf (http://www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/LRLeaders.pdf)

"Although there are proper reasons for open, honest, mutual fellowship with church leaders, the opportunity to meet with them is closed to me and to others. The concept in the leadership is that no one in the churches should make an issue of anything or care for right and wrong, which has worked well to keep church members uninformed and the truth suppressed. Thus, discussion of serious concerns keep going to an open forum." -2010


This article is a well written challenge to the current leadership of the LSM, and includes recent condemnations issued from on high and directed at Steve Isitt.

Can this article be printed out on the forum? Nigel's are printed out and some of them are 10x longer.

[TLFisher]

Many of the Blended brothers don't need to be told what happened. They know. They were there. Especially ones who resided in Orange County California at the time; Ron, Dan, Minoru, Dick, etc. The problem as Igzy pointed out in another thread is pride. Self-centered pride restricts from a brother 1. being humble and 2. being honest. That's just for starters. Instead an attitude has permeated many decent brothers; "even if I'm wrong, I'm still right".
Reading Steve's article one phrase that caught my attention was:

"Thus, there is no regard for Brother Lee’s word that he himself was wrong in the past and that leaders, including Brother Lee, have made mistakes. The record shows that he did, and they did, make serious mistakes, to the extent that if diligent study was done, outside the facade of innocence in the leadership, the entire history would need to be re-written and earnest repentances made, and a Jubilee granted to the wrongfully cast out, driven out, or left behind saints. "

Key word being Jubilee. Though I had heard the term many years ago, it wasn't until this past year did I learn what the Jubilee truly was.

You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family.
Leviticus 25:10

[Indiana]

www.LeadersoftheLordsRecovery.us/RonKangasEcuador.pdf

Compare the three accounts of dishonored former leaders - John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So to those three books of honored leaders in the Lord’s recovery - Ron Kangas, Andrew Yu, and Witness Lee. I have done this over a span of 12 years and report my findings openly, and in the light. But you seem to be hiding, and afraid of the truth I speak. Moreover, I seem to “have become your enemy by presenting the truth to you.”

1989 Ron Kangas 1989 AndrewYu 1990 Witness Lee www.ourneedtoexamineourselves.com/ThreeBooks.pdf

[TLFisher]

"When doing a Google search on my name in 2010, immediately one very positive document appeared toward the top, My Experience in the Local Churches; and one negative one appeared at the very top, Ron Kangas’ public word declaring at an international leaders conference in South America that I was a “man of death” and “one of the most evil speakers on the internet”. I called his home to discuss this public speaking with him and left a message with his wife for him to call me. There was no response from him. I then wrote him a letter a few months later expressing my desire to fellowship with him over his concerns about me and my writings on the internet. But I did not hear back from him."

Bless brother Ron, but after what he spoke in Ecuador, with his speaking accessible on the internet, and with brother Steve's efforts to reach Ron by phone and in writing; Ron's no response is clearly irresponsible. One should not have to resort to legal means in order to get a response.

[TLFisher]

Brother Ron also had this to say in Ecaudor:

"But suppose a brother just wants to work. He says, “why can’t I be a worker? All these old workers, they are dead. We are young and vital.” That is how the great upheaval began in Taiwan 50 years ago. You plan to repeat that history? The young ones rose up. They said all of you are the older generation, you are old and dead, we have seen the vision.

The Lord’s move is with us. And, to make the story short, they caused a lot of damage. A whole generation in the churches was lost. And, all of these young workers came to nothing."

This is what happened in the late 1980's as well. Elders were told there were old, etc by younger ambitious brothers. Just as brother Ron has mentioned, these younger brothers back in the late 1980's "they caused a lot of damage. A whole generation in the churches was lost."

[Ohio]

Brother Ron also had this to say in Ecaudor:

"But suppose a brother just wants to work. He says, “why can’t I be a worker? All these old workers, they are dead. We are young and vital.” That is how the great upheaval began in Taiwan 50 years ago. You plan to repeat that history? The young ones rose up. They said all of you are the older generation, you are old and dead, we have seen the vision.

The Lord’s move is with us. And, to make the story short, they caused a lot of damage. A whole generation in the churches was lost. And, all of these young workers came to nothing."

This is what happened in the late 1980's as well. Elders were told there were old, etc by younger ambitious brothers. Just as brother Ron has mentioned, these younger brothers back in the late 1980's "they caused a lot of damage. A whole generation in the churches was lost."

This just reeks of historical revisionism. Does not anyone remember that it was LSM operatives who stirred up the young people, and it was LSM operatives who undermined the existing local and regional leadership, and it was these same LSM operatives whose goal was to take over control of the entire Recovery by destroying the reputation of those upright brothers like John Ingalls who stood in their way.

I used to like Ron Kangas as a gifted teacher, but his views of Recovery history and LSM's seamy actions behind closed doors, like those of his mentor Witness Lee, are steeped in hypocrisy, misrepresentations, gross distortions, and twisting of the scripture, all for selfish gain.

[Indiana]

Ron in Ecuador
Before Ron Kangas went to Ecuador in 2008 he knew about independent workers in South America who were no longer under brother Dong, but neither were they in coordination with the LSM churches.

He, therefore, said in Ecuador concerning them that LSM does not consider these brothers to be their co-workers since they do not yet recognize the headship of Christ in the "local churches", and respect the elders of each "local church".

Ron also heard of my writings that were circulating among at least enough people to make him very concerned. Among those writings was Bill Mallon’s letter to Brother Lee, which I had commented on and which Ron alluded to in his 2008 message in Ecuador.

But, he did so in derogatory fashion, not making reference to Bill Mallon’s devastating experience with LSM co-workers in the late 1980s who at that time themselves did not recognize the headship of Christ with the elders among the churches,which was a big problem to Bill and other elders in the Southeast churches. This vital matter was skipped over by Ron in his speaking in Ecuador, as he mentioned Bill's letter only in a negative light. Because Ron Kangas did not want to justify Bill's concerns or my writings, he portrayed Bill Mallon’s letter as bad for his appeal to Brother Lee about LSM’s ignoble behavior in the Southeast, and he portrayed me as bad, as well, for circulating Bill’s letter, and other writings also.

Transcript Part 2: “Brothers, here are the two extremes, one extreme is control. Someone is in charge of the whole country; he is in charge of the work in this country. And, he has people under him and it is a system of hierarchy and control. If we know the Spirit we will not take this. This is not the headship of Christ and the Body of Christ.

Those who have been under this kind of thing may go to the other extreme, so they don’t respect anyone with any kind of leadership. You are in the old regime, we are in the new way. Are we not workers?

I would say, you are workers, deceitful workers, and you yourself are deceived, thinking you are something you are not. You might be an evil worker opposing God’s economy, but that is not likely. Or, as the Lord said, you might be a worker of lawlessness. That means with you there is no authority. You are not a man under authority. You are your own king.”

Comment: Since several brothers in South America knew LSM’s history, they would find “independence” from LSM perhaps best for them under the circumstances. But Ron goes ahead and puts these workers in a bad light, along with Bill Mallon and myself in front of the congregation, deceiving them, and appearing to be a “minister of righteousness” among the leaders in S. America. And one who shows no compassion, understanding, or acknowledgement of the real situation. Ron, though, is good, LSM is good, Local Churches are good, and he keeps everything in a good light, falsely.

This is not a true leader, but one who is deceitful, lawless, and false. He does not know things as he ought to know them, and if what I am saying is not true, will DCP or someone please stand up and support Ron's claims that I am indeed a man of death for choosing to feed people the truth instead of perpetuating the fictional stories devised at LSM and “sold” to the saints as real.


www.twoturmoils.com/MallonLetterLeeResponse.pdf


Steve Isitt
9-8-2013

[Ohio]

Ron Kangas in Ecuador

Transcript Part 2: “Brothers, here are the two extremes, one extreme is control. Someone is in charge of the whole country; he is in charge of the work in this country. And, he has people under him and it is a system of hierarchy and control. If we know the Spirit we will not take this. This is not the headship of Christ and the Body of Christ.

Here is Ron Kangas, chief theologian of LSM, at his best. His comment that, "Someone is in charge of the whole country," is an obvious reference to Dong Yu Lan in Brazil, who was illegitimately quarantined by LSM a few years ago. He condemns Dong for "being in charge of a whole country, in charge of the work, has people under him, and it is a system of hierarchy and control."

Is Kangas being serious? What kind of delusion is he under to condemn Dong for controlling a country when he himself assumes to be deputy authority of the whole earth? Here he is only mimicking Lee's presumptuous ways, i.e. condemn all other Christian leaders of control to convince your following that you alone do not control.

Having watched LSM for years, one could rightly conclude that Kangas and LSM care only about being in charge, not just of the USA, but also the whole world. Why else would Kangas travel to South America? For decades LSM has demanded that they alone be "in charge of the work." "Wars and rumors of wars" often called "storms and rebellions" in the Recovery were fought solely on this fact. Brothers reputations around the globe have been destroyed so that LSM alone would be "in charge of the work."

And Dong has "people under him." Imagine that! Only LSM is allowed such a prerogative. To tell the truth, in the eyes of Kangas, the source of the whole problem in Brazil is that Dong is not under LSM. Didn't Dong get that memo from the throne of God that Ron Kangas and the Blended oligarchy are now His Deputy Authority over all God's work on earth?

Then Kangas falls back on Lee's old denunciation that the real Recovery alone has no "hierarchy and control." That's what Witness Lee taught us, so it must be true! Does Kangas really feel that no control exists because we have no titles in the Recovery, only "brothers." The biggest farce in the Recovery is that churches are "local," when in fact they have become nothing more than franchises legitimized by LSM.

[Ohio]

Steve Isitt writes ...When doing a Google search on my name in 2010, immediately one very positive document appeared toward the top, My Experience in the Local Churches; and one negative one appeared at the very top, Ron Kangas’ public word declaring at an international leaders conference in South America that I was a “man of death” and “one of the most evil speakers on the internet”.

I called his home to discuss this public speaking with him and left a message with his wife for him to call me. There was no response from him. I then wrote him a letter a few months later expressing my desire to fellowship with him over his concerns about me and my writings on the internet. But I did not hear back from him.Here we can see the mindset of Ron Kangas and the Blended Oligarchy at LSM.

They are convinced that, as God's Deputy Authority over the whole earth, they can freely pass judgments on any and all things Christian. These "Spiritual Judges" don't need the typical legal proceedings which regulate our judicial system, and protect the normal rights of individuals. These "Spiritual Judges" are above all that. They can make up their own rules if and when they see fit.

Let's put this another way. If a sitting trial judge sentences a convicted criminal to life imprisonment, would he accept a phone call from that criminal seeking "fellowship?" Would that judge accept a letter from the criminal expressing his concerns? The obvious answer to both questions is "no, of course not!" In fact, the judge would consider this as harassment, and possibly further charges against the criminal would be considered.

This is the exact same mindset at LSM.

Unfortunately, based on the clear teachings of the Bible, Steve Isitt believes that he and Ron Kangas are both brothers, are both children of God, and thus should seriously pray and consider reconciliation. Steve is convinced that this is the proper course of action. I commend him for this, but, sorry to say, brother Ron Kangas is no longer just a brother. He got promoted.

[Indiana]

_______ writes ...Here we can see the mindset of Ron Kangas and the Blended Oligarchy at LSM.

They are convinced that, as God's Deputy Authority over the whole earth, they can freely pass judgments on any and all things Christian. These "Spiritual Judges" don't need the typical legal proceedings which regulate our judicial system, and protect the normal rights of individuals. These "Spiritual Judges" are above all that. They can make up their own rules if and when they see fit.

Let's put this another way. If a sitting trial judge sentences a convicted criminal to life imprisonment, would he accept a phone call from that criminal seeking "fellowship?" Would that judge accept a letter from the criminal expressing his concerns? The obvious answer to both questions is "no, of course not!" In fact, the judge would consider this as harassment, and possibly further charges against the criminal would be considered.

This is the exact same mindset at LSM.

Unfortunately, based on the clear teachings of the Bible, Steve Isitt believes that he and Ron Kangas are both brothers, are both children of God, and thus should seriously pray and consider reconciliation. Steve is convinced that this is the proper course of action. I commend him for this, but, sorry to say, brother Ron Kangas is no longer just a brother. He got promoted.

The following is taken from a post I made a couple years ago, when Ron was getting "help" from the internet. I want to insert this here, then continue with my line of thought from the transcript. (Note: The above quote is not from me; it is from Ohio.)

"Before listening to tapes #3 and #4 of brother Ron Kangas I happened to be at someone’s 50th year birthday party and in comes two local church brothers who happened to be invited also. We engaged in an hour long conversation in which they told me I needed to forget all these things of the past, and that I was bitter, and that I needed to humble myself and take the cross to my opinion, encouraging me to listen to Ron Kangas’ tapes given the previous weekend. So, I did and paid close attention to what he was actually saying and the attitude he was conveying.

In a grand display of rhetoric about the cross he impressed his listeners of the need among so many people in the world who live by the self to have their mouths stopped. Concerning on-line speakers such as myself, he categorically states that none of us knows the cross, the Lord, or the Body, that “what they love is not the saints but the things of the saints and to talk about them; so they go online and expose what they know to the whole world.” We only care for the self and for retaliation against those who have offended us, according to Ron’s limited understanding.

He is obviously shaken a bit by the just truths he's read on the internet and is struggling to keep his unjust world intact instead of humbly subjecting himself to our online concerns and any speaking of the Lord to him. He says, “I don’t fear you going online. It is good for me to be flayed. But it is not good for you. We’ll love you, you are the will of God to us, but you are on a fast track to outer darkness.”

This is his “love to us” to let us know we are on a fast track to outer darkness, and again, as always, offering no support to his statement, or an invitation to come to a table of fellowship, as they had accomplished to their favor with CRI. Indeed, while the leadership has ignored our requests to properly come to a table of mutual fellowship, they make no requests of their own for such a gathering and then wonder why we are now online to speak our concerns.

Ron Kangas, meanwhile, uses an international stage to disparage us, brothers and sisters he doesn’t really know, or care about, dismissing us as ones offended by the church, who make “lawless use of the internet”, little realizing that we are God’s mercy to him.

An encouraging word, at the end of a long message on the cross, was that Ron said he longs for the reality of the church life and, adding a little levity, said he hoped his wife would not report him to the blending brothers.

I think Ron actually needs a very long vacation, to remote resort locations far away from the pulpit, the crowd, the laudits and relax and rejuvenate, and contemplate for himself what he said about others that “they don’t know themselves; they only know the weaknesses of others, that’s what they talk about.” Just leave Jerusalem, go north to Philippi, where the air is fresh and clean, and become clear about yourself, sharing normally with the guy sipping the martini in the lawn chair next to you how much you are enjoying life away from the pulpit and meeting people like him. And, see Who appears to enjoy these people with you and what He will have to share with them in a ministry that is Himself. And, eventually, return home with a ministry that is just Himself with deep interest in “each man” and “every man” for, ultimately, the building up of His Body. How encouraging and inspiring that would be." _END

[alwayslearning]

But, he did so in derogatory fashion, not making reference to Bill Mallon’s devastating experience with LSM co-workers in the late 1980s who at that time themselves did not recognize the headship of Christ with the elders among the churches,which was a big problem to Bill and other elders in the Southeast churches. This vital matter was skipped over by Ron in his speaking in Ecuador, as he mentioned Bill's letter only in a negative light. Because Ron Kangas did not want to justify Bill's concerns or my writings, he portrayed Bill Mallon’s letter as bad for his appeal to Brother Lee about LSM’s ignoble behavior in the Southeast, and he portrayed me as bad, as well, for circulating Bill’s letter, and other writings also.

Ron Kangas was Witness Lee's chief editor for English language materials and an employee of LSM for years. He knew full well what was going on with the GM of LSM i.e. Lee's son in the late 1980s. Of course he didn't do a thing about it and ultimately as an employee of LSM trash talked those who did i.e. he is a company guy.

Prior to his LSM career he was an elder in Detroit. That church imploded and eventually shut down due to leadership issues.

His so called "ministry" today consists of repeating Witness Lee messages - something that takes very little effort or skill. And personally I can think of very few things more boring than listening to him do this. :zzz:

[TLFisher]

Ron Kangas was Witness Lee's chief editor for English language materials and an employee of LSM for years. He knew full well what was going on with the GM of LSM i.e. Lee's son in the late 1980s. Of course he didn't do a thing about it and ultimately as an employee of LSM trash talked those who did i.e. he is a company guy.

Prior to his LSM career he was an elder in Detroit. That church imploded and eventually shut down due to leadership issues.

His so called "ministry" today consists of repeating Witness Lee messages - something that takes very little effort or skill. And personally I can think of very few things more boring than listening to him do this. :zzz:

Of the blendeds, it is Ron who I will devote time to listen to. As a LSM employee, you would expect and be expected to take the approach of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil regarding Phillip Lee. LSM has provided decades of support for Ron and his family.

[TLFisher]

This just reeks of historical revisionism. Does not anyone remember that it was LSM operatives who stirred up the young people, and it was LSM operatives who undermined the existing local and regional leadership, and it was these same LSM operatives whose goal was to take over control of the entire Recovery by destroying the reputation of those upright brothers like John Ingalls who stood in their way.

I used to like Ron Kangas as a gifted teacher, but his views of Recovery history and LSM's seamy actions behind closed doors, like those of his mentor Witness Lee, are steeped in hypocrisy, misrepresentations, gross distortions, and twisting of the scripture, all for selfish gain.

How fitting to bring up something that happened 50 years ago. Has anyone bothered to check out what happened to these brothers? Just because they may not be renown or have had an unfilled ambition that spurred their leaving, they have not been useful?
All the while Ron's speaking passing over 1987-1989 and the role LSM functioned in the late 80's turmoil. Has anyone ever considered if LSM coworkers did not undermine fellowship of local elders, Bill Mallon does not write that letter to Witness Lee?

[Unregistered]

Comment: Since several brothers in South America knew LSM’s history, they would find “independence” from LSM perhaps best for them under the circumstances. But Ron goes ahead and puts these workers in a bad light, along with Bill Mallon and myself in front of the congregation, deceiving them, and appearing to be a “minister of righteousness” among the leaders in S. America. And one who shows no compassion, understanding, or acknowledgement of the real situation. Ron, though, is good, LSM is good, Local Churches are good, and he keeps everything in a good light, falsely.

This is not a true leader, but one who is deceitful, lawless, and false. He does not know things as he ought to know them, and if what I am saying is not true, will DCP or someone please stand up and support Ron's claims that I am indeed a man of death for choosing to feed people the truth instead of perpetuating the fictional stories devised at LSM and “sold” to the saints as real.
Steve Isitt
9-8-2013

The Truth is not a thing, but A wonderful PERSON. Your ideal church causes you to miss the vision. Ron Kangas will expose the situation in the local churches just as he will do so in the divisions because he has a vision of a PERSON. There is no "good light/bad light" as you claim. Light is not a thing, but a PERSON. Your good light bad light theory is a reflection of your obsession which causes you to have no sight and to have a death taste in your words and person. Lord Jesus we love You. Grant us Lord to turn to You. We don't agree with death. Cause it to go away. Strip all that you have to away. Grant us to go on in You until we all arrive at the full knowledge of the Son of God and the unity of the faith. Mature in us Lord. For Your building and Your Body bridify us. We want to match You. How could we feel so terribly toward other believer's Lord? Lord I confess I feel terribly towards the ones saying all this negative stuff. Lord, be our Head. Be our center. Strengthen us ALL with power through Your Spirit into our inner man. Lord make Your home in our hearts. Don't give the enemy an inch in us. Bind him to the uttermost.

[Indiana]

The Truth is not a thing, but A wonderful PERSON. Your ideal church causes you to miss the vision. Ron Kangas will expose the situation in the local churches just as he will do so in the divisions because he has a vision of a PERSON. There is no "good light/bad light" as you claim. Light is not a thing, but a PERSON. Your good light bad light theory is a reflection of your obsession which causes you to have no sight and to have a death taste in your words and person. Lord Jesus we love You. Grant us Lord to turn to You. We don't agree with death. Cause it to go away. Strip all that you have to away. Grant us to go on in You until we all arrive at the full knowledge of the Son of God and the unity of the faith. Mature in us Lord. For Your building and Your Body bridify us. We want to match You. How could we feel so terribly toward other believer's Lord? Lord I confess I feel terribly towards the ones saying all this negative stuff. Lord, be our Head. Be our center. Strengthen us ALL with power through Your Spirit into our inner man. Lord make Your home in our hearts. Don't give the enemy an inch in us. Bind him to the uttermost.

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry you have to be bothered by all these matters that many feel were never righteously dealt with and that still fester in the Body.

[alwayslearning]

Ron Kangas will expose the situation in the local churches just as he will do so in the divisions because he has a vision of a PERSON.

Ron Kangas is a long-time salaried employee of LSM who's job is to be a Witness Lee Parrot. He has a "vision" of the person and work of Witness Lee. No amount of "spiritual" gibber jabber will make him have a real ministry. He could be working for FORD selling cars instead he happens to be working for LSM selling Witness Lee!

[Cal]

The Truth is not a thing, but A wonderful PERSON. Your ideal church causes you to miss the vision. Ron Kangas will expose the situation in the local churches just as he will do so in the divisions because he has a vision of a PERSON. There is no "good light/bad light" as you claim. Light is not a thing, but a PERSON. Your good light bad light theory is a reflection of your obsession which causes you to have no sight and to have a death taste in your words and person. Lord Jesus we love You. Grant us Lord to turn to You. We don't agree with death. Cause it to go away. Strip all that you have to away. Grant us to go on in You until we all arrive at the full knowledge of the Son of God and the unity of the faith. Mature in us Lord. For Your building and Your Body bridify us. We want to match You. How could we feel so terribly toward other believer's Lord? Lord I confess I feel terribly towards the ones saying all this negative stuff. Lord, be our Head. Be our center. Strengthen us ALL with power through Your Spirit into our inner man. Lord make Your home in our hearts. Don't give the enemy an inch in us. Bind him to the uttermost.

If you want to match the Lord, you might try not dumbing yourself down, because He is highly intelligent and, I believe, expects us to use our intelligence.

Most men aren't attracted to stupid women and I doubt the Lord is going to be attracted by a stupid Bride. So while you are "bridifying" yourself you might consider "intelligencizing" yourself as well. Of course, if you did that you'd start to question most of the stupid assertions of your leaders, such as the idea that questioning or criticizing your movement equals "death." It is painfully obvious you've been taught to turn your brain off, and that you have cheerfully complied.

All that kind of talk is nothing but thought control. These guys want you to remain ignorant so you don't question them and continue to support their agenda. God, on the other hand, has a real plan for you life. I suggest you seek it out. I doubt he will be amused at the judgment seat by a plea of, "See, Lord? I did everything brother Ron said and never questioned him." Dream on if you think that is going to fly.

:rollingeyesfrown:

[countmeworthy]

The Truth is not a thing, but A wonderful PERSON. Your ideal church causes you to miss the vision. Ron Kangas will expose the situation in the local churches just as he will do so in the divisions because he has a vision of a PERSON. There is no "good light/bad light" as you claim. Light is not a thing, but a PERSON. Your good light bad light theory is a reflection of your obsession which causes you to have no sight and to have a death taste in your words and person. Lord Jesus we love You. Grant us Lord to turn to You. We don't agree with death. Cause it to go away. Strip all that you have to away. Grant us to go on in You until we all arrive at the full knowledge of the Son of God and the unity of the faith. Mature in us Lord. For Your building and Your Body bridify us. We want to match You. How could we feel so terribly toward other believer's Lord? Lord I confess I feel terribly towards the ones saying all this negative stuff. Lord, be our Head. Be our center. Strengthen us ALL with power through Your Spirit into our inner man. Lord make Your home in our hearts. Don't give the enemy an inch in us. Bind him to the uttermost.

Dear friend in Christ,
You are correct the Truth is not a thing and Light is not a thing. Jesus Christ our LORD and KING is the Truth and the LIGHT. What I see in your comments and your -prayer- I address respectfully. There is no ideal church except in Spirit and in Truth.

Reading the same recycled messages over and over, year after year, repeating the same prayers over and over have to bore our Great God and Father to tears. The only people who see something different, a type of Light under the ministry of Lee's work are new people who have never been in the LC or know anyone in the LC...or whatever the LSM is now called.

They stay long long enough there...and they are going to get bored reading the same messages, hearing the same messages just in different colors. Kool Aid is Kool Aid no matter what color it comes in. It tastes the same.


By my 5th year after having gotten saved in the LC, the messages, songs, hymns began to be broken records for me. There was nothing new coming from the Throne. That was because man stopped the flow from the Throne.

BTW...there was a time when there was no RcV...no life studies, no HWMRs. The saints took their KJ or NASB bibles to work and school which is what we used back then. They knew were scriptures were. As the opportunity rose to share the Word with someone, they took them to the Word and showed them the 'River of Life'. They would splash them and give them to drink from Fountain of Living Waters. Those days are long gone.

You may disagree and you are entitled to disagree. But I know what I speak of. That prayer you posted is the same prayer I/we prayed back in 1975!!!

I do not know what the Recovery version says about vain repetition but in my bible Matthew 6:7 says this:

And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

The prayers of the LSM have not changed since 1975. Your prayer proved it.

I am not trying to be offensive whatsoever. But the TRUTH sets the captive free. LIGHT dispels darkness.

Religion and vain repetitions are bondage. You may not think you are in a religious church. It is not until you step out and the blinders are removed that we see the LIGHT. It was not easy for me to step out for I feared what would become of me and what would the LORD do to me. Why do people leave any 'church' ? (of course, the LSM is "the Lord's Recovery" -we know that.) Because it is dead. There is no corporate anointing. There might be some individuals here and there truly Anointed with the Spirit of TRUTH and the Spirit of LIGHT as there are everywhere, but by and large, the church is lukewarm or dead.


My prayer for all my brothers and sisters in Christ is for the Living, Kind and Compassionate WORD of God to restore their health, spiritual, emotional and physical and to heal their wounds according to His Promise. Jesus came to heal the brokenhearted, the sick, the lame, to humble the proud.

There are so many wounds. There are so many divisions. It is heart breaking to see. The world is making a laughing stock out of us.

No matter. Jesus Christ alone tears down the walls of partition. I keep running the race with endurance. I pray without ceasing pray. I do my best as most of us on this forum do, with the Help of the Holy Spirit to encourage and uplift Christians and non-Christians alike. (of course, most people here were in the LSM a whole lot longer than I ever was and thus their mission is to help those struggling with questions, doubts and fear of leaving the LSM, not to be afraid.)

For me, my mission is as the Holy Spirit gives me opportunity, I lead people to the Lord Jesus Christ. I teach them the Word of God and the Power of the Precious Blood of the Lamb so they too can share the GOOD NEWS with people without handing them a HWMR or life studies or an RcV with emphasis on Lee's notes.


We must all be careful not to grieve and stifle the Holy Spirit. Don't put Him in a box...be it the LRC (Lord's recovery) or otherwise. Otherwise He is not the LIFE GIVING, LOVE GIVING, LIGHT GIVING Spirit of God.


Behold He TRULY makes all things new. To Almighty God (El-Shaddai) be all Glory, Praise Honor and Blessing. For He alone is Worthy. HE in The Father, The Spirit and the Son, Jesus Christ--3 in One.

Blessings,
Carol G

[Indiana]

Responsible Brothers
Protect the Church from Death

In that gathering of leaders in Ambato, Ecuador, 2008, Ron Kangas said, “This meeting is for responsible brothers, and I assume you understand yourself to be a responsible brother. What are you responsible for? Well one thing is to protect the church from death. The Lord said the gates of Hades will not prevail, but that means they will attack. If you don’t know life and death, how can you protect the church?

Ron, this should be my last year, if not my last week, of striving to bring attention to the truth of our church history and the major sources of the spreading of death among us. You do not recognize my work of 12 years as legitimate and true but state rather that my writings spread death and are therefore of the devil (Heb. 2:14).

It is not that my writings spread death, but they certainly tell the story of the spreading of death and the "agents of Satan" responsible for the spreading. You, in fact, unwittingly, are one of those agents. Andrew Yu is another. And, of course, Philip Lee was one with Satan as the LSM office manager, and LSM itself joined forces with Satan to make havoc in the churches and also make sure Philip and LSM were kept out of local church history books, thus completing their cover-up of Philip Lee and LSM’s major role in causing division.

You remember this, Ron, do you not, the dalliance that elders and co-workers had with the devil and Philip Lee? Both were welcomed into the church with wide open arms in the era when the churches began (1974) to align themselves with “the office”, and become ministry-centered churches under Witness Lee. (Refer to Appendix 1)


Dalliance with the Devil

Besides his usurpations of elders, his violations of principles of oneness in the Body of Christ, and the exercise of his evil temper around the saints, Philip Lee was an immoral, fleshly, and fleshy person acting as manager of LSM, with top elders and co-workers answering to him, and coming under his sway and sphere of influence. His relationship with the elders corrupted them. His relationship with sisters in LSM corrupted them. It was a huge mistake to hire him. It was also a huge mistake not to fire him sooner. His tandem leadership relationship with his father damaged Brother Lee and spread corruption throughout the whole recovery. Benson Phillips and Ray Graver followed this person and strongly and persistently encouraged other leaders to do the same.

Witness Lee’s hiring of his own non-spiritual son and his reluctance to fire him amid growing confirmed reports of his moral violations and his interferences in the churches was both bizarre and inexplicable, bringing immorality into the office, chaos into the church in Anaheim, corruption into the churches, and major division into the recovery.

But you won’t hear about this in official LSM annals. All this is missing from the records, as the cover-ups and disingenuous reporting prevail to this day in the churches.

Yet, voices of truth do speak. John So sums up the difficulties of conscience in dealing with the problem of Brother Lee and his son during their tandem leadership reign in the churches, as John put the concerns of brothers in Europe into print in a letter to Brother Lee, thereby avoiding the dalliance with the devil and Philip Lee that others succumbed to in the Lord’s recovery.

link to copy of original LETTER OF DISASSOCIATION
www.unfaithfulwitness.org/EuropeanChurchesDepart1989.pdf

“Dear brother Witness Lee,

It has come to our attention recently through several witnesses that gross immorality and some other sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 have been committed by your son Philip Lee (who is identified as your Ministry Office) on more than one occasion over a long period of time. This deeply disturbs us. It grieves us even more that you and some of your close co-workers were aware of the situation and yet not only tolerated it but covered it up. What is worse is that, while this was happening, you and your co-workers were promoting and exalting him to the extent that he was able to intervene in the churches’ affairs in recent years. The peak of this promotion was evident at your elders’ training in Taipei in June 1987. Some of your co-workers were not only themselves under the influence and control of Philip Lee, but were also openly bringing elders and young people of many local churches to come under the same influence and control of Philip Lee in your name and for your sake. The five brothers whom you and your Office sent to Europe in your place in May 1986 were trying to do the same here. Our young people who went to your training in Taipei have also testified of the same.

Before God, before the brothers and sisters in the local churches, before the Christian public, and for the sake of the Lord’s testimony, we are compelled by our conscience to fully disassociate ourselves from such sins and behaviour in your work.”
(the signatures of twenty-one brothers from nine churches in Europe who withdrew from the recovery on September 17, 1989 are on the original letter.)

Speaking Up or Covering Up

Responsible Brothers speak up instead of cover-up. They speak up to protect the church; they do not cover up to protect a man and a ministry. John So spoke up to protect the church, as did Bill Mallon in statements in his letter to Brother Lee, saying, “I believe that a kind of blind loyalty has been promoted, which issues into a propensity to obstruct truthfulness and single hearted faithfulness. Blind loyalty is very much of the soulish, natural life. It blinds us to honesty and reality, leads us down a narrow and false pathway, and protects our self serving ambitions from challenge and criticism.”

But Ron Kangas, as a head of a movement for a man and a ministry that began in 1974, deems all such fellowship as death and will not speak up but only cover-up, saying to those men who read such writings,“Why do you need to know so much?"


Appendix 1


Former well-respected elder from Texas speaks out on the critical juncture the churches came to in 1974 that changed the direction and nature of the recovery.

Don Rutledge ~ In January 1974 Witness Lee and Max Rapaport launched the movement. It was boldly declared that the churches would use WL as the exclusive source of teaching and MR would serve as the coordinator to bring the various churches with their elders into a unified movement. Ministry stations began in several key cities where local brothers repeated Brother Lee's message each week that was given in Anaheim. The official list of men who could give conferences was announced. From that time on, the individual churches would be called to account if they were moving “independently.” In addition to coordinating the elders and churches to act in a single direction, MR was charged to assist the various churches to be more effective with gospel preaching and outreach. Thus the Movement was launched.

MR began to travel and meet with the churches and in particular with the elders. He began to sort out the elders. Those who would not be good movement men were pushed aside if possible or moved somewhere where they would be out of the way. On several occasions MR told me how he was working to bring the elders and churches into one coordination for the purpose of carrying out the burden of WL. He told me several times that only he could “put the whole thing together.” After he left, he told the elders in Denver that the elders and WL would ask him to return because only “he could put the whole thing together.”

Of course I can give great detail regarding the above but will save that for another time. I am not attempting to call into question the motives of WL or of MR. WL did some very good teaching during this time. MR did some very good gospel work during this time. But what did happen is the nature of the various “local churches” changed from being local in administration and spontaneous in actions to being directed from a center with clear administrative leaders and directors.

Things were definitely not the same. I have heard some in the Mid-West say “the time of Blessing had passed.” Some have said we changed our vision or words to that effect. Some have said the moving of the Spirit left. Some said teaching and doctrine and methods replaced life.

It was this time, the time of becoming a movement that opened the door to Philip Lee and set the stage for the current BBs. This time ended with a split between WL and MR. It was a power struggle not a matter of Philip Lee’s unrighteousness. MR had his followers and WL had his. WL won out.

After the split with MR, there was a pause in the development of the movement. WL began again to start up the movement consolidation in 1981. He bought property in Irving Texas and began making plans to strengthen the movement.

By 1984 the first round of law suits had been won. WL declared that the boulders were off the road and the “Lord’s Recovery” could proceed. 1986 put the final pieces in place. The movement looked nothing like the early days of Elden Hall, Ohio, the Northwest or Texas or other places.


Appendix 2

Handling Matters In House in the Local Churches 2008

Hello everyone,

I had to “laugh” when an elder told a brother recently that I should have handled matters of our past “in house” and not publicly on the internet. This brother evidently doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as handling matters “in house”. It has been over seven years since I initially presented my burden “in house” about matters of our past and was placed in shackles as a result. The shackles remain to this day.

There was no fellowship then, and there is none now. The brothers were afraid because I put the matters of my concern in print; albeit, I did so seeking first their fellowship over the points made in the book.

I provided six hard copies to elders for their serious contemplation and did the same with six other saints – all for sake of having fellowship “in house”.

My thought was to build a bridge of communication to the many that left the churches. When I found that I was on my own with this idea and the brothers were not going to be supportive, (“jailing” me instead), I sent out copies to others by email. Later, after acquiring much more understanding of the facts of local church history, and asking the brothers for fellowship along the way and being ignored, I placed pertinent information in abundance on the internet that would help leaders and other saints, past and present, understand local church history according to facts, not the myths and fabrications of LSM lore.

(I said earlier I had to “laugh”; more accurately I was mainly incensed about the elder's statement about keeping matters "in house". Leading brothers in the churches don’t get facts straight and never will as long as they remain closed to them and regard their "one accord" even above truth.

The lies and misrepresentations continue in the recovery as blind brothers follow the lead of other blind brothers in avoiding forthright dealings with serious unrighteous matters of our local church history.)

Here is my initial letter to Dan Towle. (I could not have been more naïve, even after being warned about the impenetrable wall I would encounter addressing such brothers. I genuinely thought I could find men with a conscience in the leadership. With regard to my motive, intention, and purity in this cause, I was like a lamb. A very dumb lamb, on his way to the slaughter.)


"Dear Dan, (January 28, 2001)

I have written a little book for the sake of fellowship, mainly with leading ones, concerning our past sixteen-year history of the new way. I think this period of time in the Lord’s recovery warrants our careful study of both the benefits and the costs to the church in what was such a highly controversial move among us in those beginning years.

I wanted to come to you because I feel it is safe to do so. If I am inaccurate or unfair in some way, perhaps you are the most qualified one to catch me that I could either make an adjustment or terminate the proposed fellowship.

I hope we can have a good, thorough, and upright fellowship over this booklet called In the Wake of the New Way, while remembering the Lord’s prayer ‘that they all may be one’ and the repeated petitions from our brother Lee, not only to heed the trumpet call for the Lord’s new move, but also to respond to the call for the rendering of care to every member for the building up of the Body in love….

I would welcome your phone call or e-mail message at ………… and don’t intend for this booklet to be widespread; rather, I hope that ones who do receive it could do so in the Lord, with a holy regard and respect given to those who left the recovery, and a godly consideration rendered to those who remain, but who are in need of more significant care...."

This was only the first of many attempts to handle matters “in house” with several brothers over a seven-year period. At my three-year point, the hidden matters of our history spilled over to the internet, only after the brothers took issue with Harvest House about a book they felt was defamatory. I then presented our history on the internet as a parallel story and as our own far more serious case of defamation. Since there was NO FELLOWSHIP “in house” and since I was continuing to be held in a disciplinary mode, (in shackles provided by leaders in Bellevue and Seattle), I changed my approach.


I have several documents showing these attempts at fellowship. What a misrepresentation for an elder to say that I should have handled things “in house”. It could not be done! Others have also experienced the impossibility of having genuine fellowship with most leaders in the local churches. Eventually, you must just proclaim. And, this is what I have done. And, all the time with the hope for the cooperation, meaningful dialogue, and genuine mutual fellowship of local church leaders.

08-30-2008



Appendix 3

Violating God’s Government

www.hidinghistoryinthelordsrecovery.us/ViolatingGodsGovernment.pdf

[TLFisher]

Ron Kangas is a long-time salaried employee of LSM who's job is to be a Witness Lee Parrot.


Alwayslearning, it's LSM that makes possible to pay his bills so of course there is selective memory when it comes to Local Church history. The damage LSM co-workers partook in is conveniently passed over.
When you as a brother or sister begin equating right/wrong to the Tree of Knowledge, you are supressing the consciences function.

[TLFisher]

This was only the first of many attempts to handle matters “in house” with several brothers over a seven-year period. At my three-year point, the hidden matters of our history spilled over to the internet, only after the brothers took issue with Harvest House about a book they felt was defamatory. I then presented our history on the internet as a parallel story and as our own far more serious case of defamation. Since there was NO FELLOWSHIP “in house” and since I was continuing to be held in a disciplinary mode, (in shackles provided by leaders in Bellevue and Seattle), I changed my approach.


I have several documents showing these attempts at fellowship. What a misrepresentation for an elder to say that I should have handled things “in house”. It could not be done! Others have also experienced the impossibility of having genuine fellowship with most leaders in the local churches.
Yes, I had been told the exact same thing about brother Steve from an elder. The problem about his materials being on the internet is because he did not try to handle them "in-house".

[Indiana]

http://leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/RonKangasSteveisitt.pdf

I have been amazed and appalled at the apathy of Ron Kangas toward former leaders and toward me also who brings his attention to their testimony It is as if Ron lives in a bubble unaware of and not caring for anything outside of it. He is a Company Man and has bought into a Company Movement and cares only for what benefits the Company.

He and other Movement Men can see nothing else. A Responsible company Man in a company Movement cannot see anything else as Ron proves in his references to those working outside the Company’s vision and goals.

[Indiana]

www.BrotherAndrewYu.com

Andrew Yu was so entirely blinded in his concept of deputy authority that he expressed no human feeling in his book regarding the distressing and trying circumstances that existed for many brothers under Witness Lee’s leadership. Andrew dismissed and buried their grave concerns, saying, “There has never been a case, either in the Scriptures or in church history, where a servant of God has been found to be perfect. A perfect person does not exist. None of us can claim to be perfect.” (p. 5)

Blind Loyalty

In his book Andrew Yu calls for blind loyalty, stating that God wants His authority established in the church, and this order is brought in and maintained by divine authority and by submission to it. Then he submits that….“Once a certain member is a spiritual authority to others, the fact can never be overturned. There is no such thing as the revoking, overthrowing, or expiration of authority. In the case where authority is corrupted, God is the One who deals with it, since he alone is the One who establishes it. It is not up to those under authority to scheme against it. Saul was corrupted to the uttermost, but David always and with impeccability recognized Saul as God’s anointed authority. In the same principle the archangel Michael dared not to rebuke Satan, but would only ask the Lord to do it (Jude 9). Satan still had his authority, even though he had already fallen. This case shows us the immutability of the spiritual principle that once a person is a spiritual authority over others and recognized as a spiritual authority, he is always so. To overthrow such a one, for any reason, constitutes rebellion.” (pp. 13, 31)

Andrew’s idea of establishing a king forever to bow to is contrary to what is spoken in the ministry itself, derailing Andrew’s faulty word to the elders and co-workers.

[aron]

….“This case shows us the immutability of the spiritual principle that once a person is a spiritual authority over others and recognized as a spiritual authority, he is always so. To overthrow such a one, for any reason, constitutes rebellion.” (pp. 13, 31).

So why were Watchman Nee & Co free to leave Christianity? Or why did Nee give Luther a free pass when Luther left Roman Catholicism?

And so forth. As always, a case of "do as I say, not as I do."

Or, "This is a firm and immutable rule which applies to everyone at all times." *

* (But not to me)

[aron]

Prayer: Lord Jesus we love You. Grant us Lord to turn to You. We don't agree with death. ... We want to match You. How could we feel so terribly toward other believer's Lord? Lord I confess I feel terribly towards the ones saying all this negative stuff.


So how come Lee got to say "all this negative stuff" about everyone else, including those in his beloved Recovery? How could Lee freely and openly "feel so terribly toward other believers" without it also setting off some internal alarm? Why was there no "feeling of death" registering there?

I believe there must be a throne set up in the local churches. The "apostle of the age", who is "God's deputy authority" and "God's oracle" sits on that throne and can pretty much trash whomever, whenever. But should anyone else think the slightest thing independently of or "gasp!" critically of God's "man of the hour", this is held as rebellion, instigated by the universe's chief rebel, Satan himself.

I guess that is the thought process at work here. I don't know how else to explain the dichotomy between what we continually hear and what we continually see.

[TLFisher]

I guess that is the thought process at work here. I don't know how else to explain the dichotomy between what we continually hear and what we continually see.

My initial thought of explaining it would be a double standard.

As I often explain to a brother it's in military terms. When LSM/DCP goes on the offensive, the brothers have much to say. However when a contrary response is delivered to LSM/DCP, they go into their bunker. Not a whisper is heard. It's okay for LSM/DCP to go an the offesnive, but it's not okay for LSM/DCP to be the recepient of a counter-offensive.

How is it when brother Steve was in Southern California and he offered to come meet with DCP, they suddenly became unavailable?

[Cal]

Then he submits that….“Once a certain member is a spiritual authority to others, the fact can never be overturned. There is no such thing as the revoking, overthrowing, or expiration of authority.

I'm always torn between trying to show that these LSM guys are idiots and just calling them idiots. I mean, their assertions are so stupid that it becomes almost pointless to bother to debate them.

Andrew Yu is basically saying that if someone has spiritual authority and then denies the faith and goes out and starts a porn site that he still has spiritual authority over everyone. Where does he get this stuff? It's nonsense. Worse, it's bullying. It's just a fear-based power play dressed up as some profound truth. It's an insult to the Lord and his Body.

It's long past time to start tuning these guys out. There has to be a better place to realize God's purpose than anything they are a part of.

[alwayslearning]

In the late 1980s Andrew Yu and Ron Kangas were paid employees of Witness Lee's publishing company LSM. Obviously they are going to write advertorials in support of their boss and hope their intended readership are gullible enough to swallow it. In my view they are just hucksters.

But astonishingly per material at Indiana's link on this thread some like Don Rutledge can't seem to grasp that Witness Lee was the common denominator in all the "turmoils". (Even while dead he was the common denominator in the BB v. Titus Chu split.)

There was no power struggle between Witness Lee and Max Rapoport. Rapoport knew that he did not have the same stature as Witness Lee in the LC system. He said and did things under the direction of Witness Lee who was actively and firmly at the helm running "the work". When Witness Lee's ideas and methods didn't work out he used Rapoport as a convenience scapegoat.

Furthermore an underlying issue WAS Philip Lee and his improprieties in the LSM office which Rapoport attempted to address in the late 1970s as did some coworkers and elders in the late 1980s. That is to say AFTER Rapoport was ousted the problem of Witness Lee (and his son) STILL persisted in the LC system for another decade or so until another batch of coworkers and elders were ousted for addressing some of the same issues.

So although what Andrew Yu wrote is nonsense to most people it is true for the LC system: Witness Lee is their MOTA, the authority that cannot be questioned, etc. And their history even up until today proves the point - his writings are more authoritative than the Bible itself and they even have divisions over who's interpretation of his writings are official, authentic etc.

[Ohio]

In his book Andrew Yu calls for blind loyalty, stating that God wants His authority established in the church, and this order is brought in and maintained by divine authority and by submission to it. Then he submits that….“Once a certain member is a spiritual authority to others, the fact can never be overturned. There is no such thing as the revoking, overthrowing, or expiration of authority. In the case where authority is corrupted, God is the One who deals with it, since he alone is the One who establishes it. It is not up to those under authority to scheme against it. Saul was corrupted to the uttermost, but David always and with impeccability recognized Saul as God’s anointed authority.


The irony here is that Witness Lee and Sons lusted after the same kingly authority that Saul once enjoyed. Lee taught all his minions to behave like David, saying absolutely nothing about all the corruptions in his ministry. Francis Ball publicly stated that he would rather be an ostrich with his head in the ground, and he apparently was. Lee taught that King Saul was "corrupted to the uttermost," and that only God could deal with him, but did not Lee demand the same freedom from all culpability?

Lee loved to teach high and spiritual principles to the whole of the Recovery, yet never felt obligated to keep any of his own decrees. Lee taught never to mix business with the church, yet he did so with Daystar. Lee taught never to bring family members into the ministry, yet his son Philip ran LSM molesting sisters and abusing elders. Lee taught that we all should have been like "policemen" confronting Max Rapoport, yet when any stood up to speak their conscience to Lee, their reputations were immediately smeared.

[aron]

...and they even have divisions over who's interpretation of his writings are official, authentic etc.

True: now the local churches, which supposedly exist for the recovery of the one Body of Christ, are having divisions regarding which interpretations and applications of the ministry of Witness Lee are most appropriate to recover the oneness of the Body of Christ.

[aron]

Lee taught that King Saul was "corrupted to the uttermost," and that only God could deal with him, but did not Lee demand the same freedom from all culpability?

Coincidence? I think not.

Equally telling, to me, was that once Watchman Nee decided that the European Protestant churches in China were "corrupted to the uttermost" his ensuing revelation was that he didn't have to submit to their authority, "no, not even for an hour" (Gal 2:5).

[aron]

Brother Ron also had this to say in Ecaudor:

"But suppose a brother just wants to work. He says, “why can’t I be a worker?"

This question contains assumptions about what constitutes a "worker", and shows that the speaker has been distracted from the work of God. Let me give an example why I think thus.

At my job there is a cleaning lady, and I always try to have some encouragement for her. She is middle aged, divorced, with two teen-aged children. She is Hispanic, probably has RCC background. Every time I tell her about her heavenly Father who in love sent His Son Jesus, her face shines and her eyes open wide and hungrily absorb every trace of light I can emit.

Now I ask, "why can't I be a worker?" Answer: anyone can. Anyone can do the work of the Lord. "Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. Shepherd my sheep." Those were the Lord's words to us all, clearly. The Lord said, "Whenever you do this to these the least of my brothers you do it unto Me." This woman qualifies as the least of the Lord's bretheren, and presents an opportunity to work, a chance to feed and shepherd.

Now with the local church clergy-laity system of "workers" and "responsible ones" you have to be assigned by headquarters or you will be on the outside plaintively asking, "why can't I be a worker?"

Matthew 14:19 "Taking the five loaves and the two fish ... he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people."

[TLFisher]

Lee loved to teach high and spiritual principles to the whole of the Recovery, yet never felt obligated to keep any of his own decrees. Lee taught never to mix business with the church, yet he did so with Daystar. Lee taught never to bring family members into the ministry, yet his son Philip ran LSM molesting sisters and abusing elders. Lee taught that we all should have been like "policemen" confronting Max Rapoport, yet when any stood up to speak their conscience to Lee, their reputations were immediately smeared.

Hypocrisy.

[Indiana]

www.BrotherDanTowle.com

Dan Towle – An original Concerned Brother

John Ingalls speaking. About the second week of October we began to fellowship with Dan Towle, an elder in the church in Fullerton and a trainer from the full-time training in Taipei, who was attempting to give direction and help to the fifty or sixty full-timers who had moved from Taipei to Orange County. To his great frustration, the full-timers were taken over by the LSM office and its management, and were charged to do construction and yard work over an extended period of time to the neglect of their gospel preaching. Dan had also heard some things concerning misconduct and irregularities related to the ministry office that greatly upset him, and he had serious concerns as we did for the Lord’s recovery. At one point he told me that he considered to resign from the work and to leave. We confirmed his feeling that the situation was indeed serious. - J. Ingalls, from his book

- Steve Isitt speaking This dear brother, Dan Towle, one of the original Concerned Brothers, had much to be concerned about. He, Minoru, Dick Taylor, Francis all had serious concerns. These were Concerned Brothers till denial set in, and they then marched on.

Francis told Dan Leslie and I at lunch together in 1990 that he almost didn’t make it through the turmoil. Francis' wife’s two sisters did not make it. (I was in the area for a personal matter, and ended up staying with Francis, after attending a church meeting one night. I knew Dan a little from Seattle, brothers' house.)

John Ingalls speaking: The Thanksgiving weekend was coming up, and there was to be a young people’s conference in the mountains. This was brought up for fellowship, and the question arose concerning who should go to lead the young people.

We learned then that one of the trainers from Taiwan had already been encouraged through those [Philip Lee -ed] serving in the LSM office to come, and in fact he was preparing to come. Most all of the brothers felt strongly and expressed clearly their disagreement with that arrangement, based upon the damage wrought by the high school training in Irving, Texas, in which this particular trainer [Philip Lee -ed] had a prominent role. The elders asked two brothers among them to telephone this trainer in Taiwan to inform him of the brothers’ feeling that someone else should lead the young people in the coming conference. They did so immediately. It was indeed a shock to the brother in Taiwan. It also was a blow to Philip Lee, who presumed to be directing these affairs.

The elders also agreed that for the rest of the saints it would be profitable to come together on Thanksgiving weekend to share some things concerning Christ, the Spirit, life, and the church. All the elders would share the same burden. A few days before the conference was to start Philip Lee met with the full-timers and told them they had no business attending that conference; they should take care of their new ones. It was clear that Philip was absolutely unhappy with our conference. We felt rather that it was most appropriate for the full-timers to bring their new ones to the conference if they were so led. This is the kind of situation we faced.

A few days after the conference, Benson Phillips came to Anaheim from Taiwan and met with the full-timers. Philip Lee, Dan Towle, and Dan Leslie were also present (the latter two had been attempting with difficulty to lead the full-timers in service). Through Benson’s fellowship the leadership of Dan Towle and Dan Leslie with the full-timers was officially terminated, and the full-timers were left under the direction of the LSM office. This was a blow to the two Dans. The full-timers were left in confusion and serious questions were raised in some of them.

A few days later Benson desired to meet with some of the elders representing churches in the area. A lunch was arranged in a nearby restaurant to be followed by fellowship. Present at the meeting were Benson, Dan Towle, Dan Leslie, Ken Unger, Ned Nossaman, Dick Taylor, Frank Scavo, Godfred Otuteye, Al Knoch, and John Ingalls. During the fellowship the brothers began to question Benson concerning current events with the full-timers and the Living Stream Office and the prospects for the church’s relationship with the full-timers. The involvement of the LSM office and its management was a real concern. Benson found it very difficult to answer the brothers’ questions and was alarmed at the attitude of the brothers toward the LSM office. He remarked that the atmosphere in Orange County had changed, and he was bothered. We also were greatly bothered.

www.BrotherDanTowle.com

[Ohio]

In his book Andrew Yu calls for blind loyalty, stating that God wants His authority established in the church, and this order is brought in and maintained by divine authority and by submission to it. Then he submits that….“Once a certain member is a spiritual authority to others, the fact can never be overturned. There is no such thing as the revoking, overthrowing, or expiration of authority. In the case where authority is corrupted, God is the One who deals with it, since he alone is the One who establishes it. It is not up to those under authority to scheme against it.
Here is a Recovery construct that is like an impenetrable fortress. Consider these questions which draw from Yu's theories ...


When did God establish that Witness Lee was His personal Deputy Authority over all the Local Churches with all their members?
Where in scripture does it say that God alone will "deal with" a corrupted authority? Numerous examples exist where God sent prophets or other men of God to failing leaders.
Why are genuine moral concerns, spoken from men of God, automatically labeled as "schemes"?

[aron]

Why are genuine moral concerns, spoken from men of God, automatically labeled as "schemes"?

You are right: Lee's characterizations of others does indeed reveal something about his own M.O. (modus operandi, i.e. 'way of doing things'). The real "scheme" here is that of creating a ministry which cannot be questioned or considered critically but must accepted in toto, as if it were straight from the mouth of God Himself.

All of which reminds me to be civil when I disagree with this kind of business going on in the church. If I am continually boiling over with indignation what does that say of me? Where is my own equanimity? Where is the expression of my own inner sense of peace?

[Ohio]

Coincidence? I think not.

Equally telling, to me, was that once Watchman Nee decided that the European Protestant churches in China were "corrupted to the uttermost" his ensuing revelation was that he didn't have to submit to their authority, "no, not even for an hour" (Gal 2:5).

No, aron, not just coincidence.

I think the most effective means to uncover exclusive systems is to expose their hypocrisy. This is exactly what Jesus Himself did when confronting all the Jewish leaders of His day. Legalism, as a rule, always produces a system of man-pleasers who hide their true nature "out in public." They create rules they themselves cannot keep, and so they live a life of pretense.

Witness Lee, with the assistance of a continual cadre of blind sycophants, was able to maintain a mirage of holiness before all the LC's. He could never do it by himself. The inherent problem is that no leader can predict just how loyal his followers will be. Each man has his own "red line" when it comes to corruption.

As I have studied the history of the Recovery, it became obvious that each so-called "storm" or "rebellion" actually was certain leaders reacting to Lee's infringement on their own "red line." This caused some to speak their conscience in protest. Each of them had at one time loved the ministry of Witness Lee, yet his hypocrisy got exposed for them to see, and like a house of cards, it all seemed to suddenly crash.

This explains why so many dear brothers seemed to get "poisoned" and change overnight. The bubble popped, and the lights got turned on. All the hypocrisy was laid bare. Since none of it was ever dealt with properly, one whiff of the heaping pile of stench was all it took.

[TLFisher]

As I have studied the history of the Recovery, it became obvious that each so-called "storm" or "rebellion" actually was certain leaders reacting to Lee's infringement on their own "red line." This caused some to speak their conscience in protest. Each of them had at one time loved the ministry of Witness Lee, yet his hypocrisy got exposed for them to see, and like a house of cards, it all seemed to suddenly crash.

This explains why so many dear brothers seemed to get "poisoned" and change overnight. The bubble popped, and the lights got turned on. All the hypocrisy was laid bare. Since none of it was ever dealt with properly, one whiff of the heaping pile of stench was all it took.

I understand what you're saying Ohio. Based on your post's portion I had quoted I believe this is where the saying was developed, don't make an issue of persons, matters, or things.

[alwayslearning]

Here is a Recovery construct that is like an impenetrable fortress. Consider these questions which draw from Yu's theories ...


When did God establish that Witness Lee was His personal Deputy Authority over all the Local Churches with all their members?
Where in scripture does it say that God alone will "deal with" a corrupted authority? Numerous examples exist where God sent prophets or other men of God to failing leaders.
Why are genuine moral concerns, spoken from men of God, automatically labeled as "schemes"?

I agree this sort of "Recovery" construct is an impenetrable fortress. And it rises and falls on two fundamentals:

1. Witness Lee is the undisputed and unchallengeable authority. Since his death his writing and it's official interpreters/LSM senior management are this authority.

2. They are the only true legitimate church in God's eyes. The only place you can be sanctified, blessed, etc. They are Jerusalem so if you leave you only have one of two places to go: Egypt (the world) or Babylon (Christianity).

#1 allowed Witness Lee to do and teach whatever he wanted without recourse. This included having his abusive son run LSM with authority over elders, coworkers, full timers, etc.

#2 keeps you trapped in the system regardless of what Witness Lee said or did and this now extends to the BB.

Once a person realizes Witness Lee was just another flawed teacher who's writings are nothing but mere commentary and the LC system is just another church among many the mental shackles begin to fall away. The construct cannot remain intact without this foundation.

Some who get free from this bondage may still stay in the LC system for various reasons but they are awake to the realities of the situation. They just laugh or roll their eyes when they hear anything about the MOTA, the LC being the only church, etc.

[Ohio]

I agree this sort of "Recovery" construct is an impenetrable fortress.

A GLA elder moved out west for several years and tried to meet with the LC while he was there. He could not believe how dead and dormant the church and the elders were, so he eventually went to fellowship with the elders. After a short period of consideration, the elders decided to quarantine the dear brother, and warned all the saints about him.

Soon things changed, and the brother moved back to the GLA. Cleveland leaders caught wind of his arrival, and did their best to usher him back into the fold. He happened to mention to the Cleveland elders how the LC out west reacted to his honest endeavor to fellowship there.

The Cleveland elders thought it was the funniest thing they ever heard, "you went to those elders and told them how dead they were." :hysterical:

Then my friend made his simple case to them ...


If I go to the elders to fellowship, then I am labeled as opinionated.
If I fellowship with other brothers, then I am marked out as rebellious.
If I remain quiet and not fellowship, then I am branded as political.

Their laughter subsided.

Thus we have a closed and fortified stronghold in the Recovery, completely insulated from the living God and His word of life, unhelpable and unaccountable. These brothers have no opportunity to get any spiritual help. The irony is that the same impenetrable fortress surrounds Cleveland and their satellite LC's. Just try and fellowship with them. I tried, as did many others.

[Indiana]

Below are two very interesting quotes by Brother Lee.

''I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such thing.''Practical Talks to Elders No. 2 - Feb 14, 1983 - pg 23, Witness Lee - Living Stream Ministry)


"Now we realize that every local church must be a police station and that every saint must be a policeman. Many have been reluctant to act as policemen for fear they might cause trouble. If someone claims to be for the ministry and yet goes about stealing and deceiving, we need to fulfill our function as policemen by checking him out according to the truth... If we see evil deeds but do not function as policemen, then we are not practicing the truth... Someone has even said that we should care only for the Spirit, not for principles. How subtle! ...If we all had practiced the truth, certain sayings and practices would have been questioned a long time ago."
(Witness Lee - Truth Messages - Chapter 1, Section 2 - Living Stream Ministry)


www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us

[OBW]

Below are two very interesting quotes by Brother Lee.

''I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such thing.''Practical Talks to Elders No. 2 - Feb 14, 1983 - pg 23, Witness Lee - Living Stream Ministry)


"Now we realize that every local church must be a police station and that every saint must be a policeman. Many have been reluctant to act as policemen for fear they might cause trouble. If someone claims to be for the ministry and yet goes about stealing and deceiving, we need to fulfill our function as policemen by checking him out according to the truth... If we see evil deeds but do not function as policemen, then we are not practicing the truth... Someone has even said that we should care only for the Spirit, not for principles. How subtle! ...If we all had practiced the truth, certain sayings and practices would have been questioned a long time ago."
(Witness Lee - Truth Messages - Chapter 1, Section 2 - Living Stream Ministry)


www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us (http://www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us) Interesting in what way?

In how the police were "owned" by the ones who needed policing? ("I own you coppa!")

Someone needs to ask people like John Ingalls, and even the creator of this thread . . . "How's that working for ya?"

The fact that Lee ever said these things looks more and more like a ruse every day. It is the right thing to say. And when you have them under your spell, you can turn it on everyone else and avert the attention from the need to police the speaker.

Yes. Lee said those things. But he also made it clear that it did not apply to him. I know. He did say it applied to him when he had the meetings to "expose" Max R. But it was later denied as being applicable to him.

[OBW]

And this is the person on whose words we hung so lovingly (and many still do). A man who used truth to perpetuate lies.

[TLFisher]

''I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such thing.''Practical Talks to Elders No. 2 - Feb 14, 1983 - pg 23, Witness Lee - Living Stream Ministry)

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us

Apparently, nothing has changed other than brothers who do dare to say something find themselves quarantined as in the GLA or disfellowshipped as in the case of "Indiana". The nature of the LC leadership; locally and extra-locally is to play politics. Their conscience knows better yet their mouths remain silent and the suffering goes on.

[Ohio]

Below are two very interesting quotes by Brother Lee.

''I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such thing. (Practical Talks to Elders No. 2 - Feb 14, 1983 - pg 23, Witness Lee - LSM)

"Now we realize that every local church must be a police station and that every saint must be a policeman. Many have been reluctant to act as policemen for fear they might cause trouble. If someone claims to be for the ministry and yet goes about stealing and deceiving, we need to fulfill our function as policemen by checking him out according to the truth... If we see evil deeds but do not function as policemen, then we are not practicing the truth... Someone has even said that we should care only for the Spirit, not for principles. How subtle! ...If we all had practiced the truth, certain sayings and practices would have been questioned a long time ago." -- (Witness Lee - Truth Messages - Chapter 1, Section 2 - LSM)

Perhaps the stench of his hypocrisy will reach the heavens.

[alwayslearning]

"Now we realize that every local church must be a police station and that every saint must be a policeman. Many have been reluctant to act as policemen for fear they might cause trouble. If someone claims to be for the ministry and yet...

I have highlighted the obvious concern of Witness Lee and the criteria by which he measured what was a "crime" in the LC system. We know by now that "the ministry" means his ministry and it's trappings i.e. LSM. And his ministry is "the truth" he is referring to. So he puts the onus on the churches at the local level to be cops to protect the imagined integrity of his extra-local ministry as if somehow that should be their concern.

In application this simply meant and still means if someone is not gung-ho for his ministry and his LSM and question it in anyway they are committing a "crime". Therefore we should all be alert and rise up to police these criminals on behalf of Witness Lee.

[alwayslearning]

Thus we have a closed and fortified stronghold in the Recovery, completely insulated from the living God and His word of life, unhelpable and unaccountable. These brothers have no opportunity to get any spiritual help. The irony is that the same impenetrable fortress surrounds Cleveland and their satellite LC's. Just try and fellowship with them. I tried, as did many others.

The BB in Anaheim and Titus & Co in Cleveland are merely apples that didn't fall too far from the same tree. Witness Lee was deaf to substantial counsel and so his is fruit! (BTW this is why IMHO they can't get along. It is The Extension of Witness Lee v The Extension of Witness Lee and in the world of Witness Lee there can only be one Witness Lee.)

[Ohio]

"Now we realize that every local church must be a police station and that every saint must be a policeman. Many have been reluctant to act as policemen for fear they might cause trouble. If someone [referring to Max Rapoport] claims to be for the ministry and yet goes about stealing and deceiving, we need to fulfill our function as policemen by checking him out according to the truth... If we see evil deeds but do not function as policemen, then we are not practicing the truth... Someone has even said that we should care only for the Spirit, not for principles. How subtle! ...If we all had practiced the truth, certain sayings and practices would have been questioned a long time ago." (Witness Lee - Truth Messages - Chapter 1, Section 2 - Living Stream Ministry)


This quote is almost mindboggling when one considers the context of actual events which transpired among us ...


In the mid-70's, Witness Lee was unquestionably regarded the most spiritual and most mature brother in all the Recovery.
Witness Lee personally charged Max Rapoport to visit the churches, bringing them into "coordination" with his ministry, under the guise of the "universal coordinator of the one new man."
Local churches invite Max Rapoport to speak and give conferences because they were instructed to do so by Witness Lee.
Max Rapoport faithfully carries out his assignments, bringing Witness Lee's "burdens" for the gospel all around the country, including his fellowship about "young Galileans."
Chaos ensues in multiple regions, prompting Witness Lee to chuck the program and throw Max Rapoport under the bus in order to save his own reputation.
Max Rapoport was accused of "stealing" the young people and "deceiving" the saints, when those who followed him to the campuses thought they were being "one with Witness Lee."
Witness Lee then places further blame and responsibility on all the elders and saints for not being proper "policemen," checking out Max Rapoport according to the truth.
Witness Lee thus absolves himself of all culpability, successfully blaming all others for what he himself solely caused to take place.
All responsible brothers in the Recovery thus need to publicly repent for their horrible failures al the while Witness Lee maintains his own pristine image and rises to new levels of exaltation.
Once again the sins of Lee's sons are hidden from sight, and the stage is set to repeat the cycle again.

I agree with Witness Lee ... "how subtle!"

[TLFisher]

In application this simply meant and still means if someone is not gung-ho for his ministry and his LSM and question it in anyway they are committing a "crime". Therefore we should all be alert and rise up to police these criminals on behalf of Witness Lee.

Those that are not absolute for the ministry are marked out as being "cold", "lukewarm", etc. Usually identifed as a brother or sister "not in good standing".

Yes, as brother Sherman told brother Steve a little more than a decade ago, it takes a special calling to be in the recovery. Meaning you can be a general Christian and if you are not 100% absolute for the ministry, you aren't going to make it. The statement comes across as exclusive. An analogy; many can join the army, but very few can make the cut in Special Forces.

[alwayslearning]

This quote is almost mindboggling when one considers the context of actual events which transpired among us ...


In the mid-70's, Witness Lee was unquestionably regarded the most spiritual and most mature brother in all the Recovery.
Witness Lee personally charged Max Rapoport to visit the churches, bringing them into "coordination" with his ministry, under the guise of the "universal coordinator of the one new man."
Local churches invite Max Rapoport to speak and give conferences because they were instructed to do so by Witness Lee.
Max Rapoport faithfully carries out his assignments, bringing Witness Lee's "burdens" for the gospel all around the country, including his fellowship about "young Galileans."
Chaos ensues in multiple regions, prompting Witness Lee to chuck the program and throw Max Rapoport under the bus in order to save his own reputation.
Max Rapoport was accused of "stealing" the young people and "deceiving" the saints, when those who followed him to the campuses thought they were being "one with Witness Lee."
Witness Lee then places further blame and responsibility on all the elders and saints for not being proper "policemen," checking out Max Rapoport according to the truth.
Witness Lee thus absolves himself of all culpability, successfully blaming all others for what he himself solely caused to take place.
All responsible brothers in the Recovery thus need to publicly repent for their horrible failures al the while Witness Lee maintains his own pristine image and rises to new levels of exaltation.
Once again the sins of Lee's sons are hidden from sight, and the stage is set to repeat the cycle again.

I agree with Witness Lee ... "how subtle!"

An excellent description of Witness Lee's MO! He was subtle enough to have a front man who he could easily scapegoat for any parts of his plans and methods that went awry and still end up with what he wanted in the first place.

In the case of the "young Galileans" flow he wanted a base audience and support for his new "Ministry Station" set up in Anaheim. What better way to start churches throughout Orange County from scratch than to convince young people from all over the country to move there? Voila! Insta-churches in Fullerton, Irvine, Cypress, Costa Mesa, etc. all flocking to Anaheim to hear him speak week after week. And conveniently positioned to provide hospitality for his 10 ten trainings, conferences, etc.

But of course if you do this elders and coworkers will get upset because suddenly the young people leave enmasse for Orange County and your local young people's work is decimated. No problem...let Max Rapoport take the heat!

This alone won't be enough to oust Rapoport but it will definitely get the wheels rolling. Now all that needs to happen is a confrontation with Philip Lee over his immoral behavior in LSM. Throw in an accusation that Sandy Rapoport is part of some so-called "sister's rebellion". Add in some grumbling coworkers who think Rapoport is nothing but a two-bit upstart who isn't "spiritual" enough for their tastes. And there ya go! All the ingredients necessary for kicking Rapoport and his family to the curb - and I mean that in the literal sense of word.

[alwayslearning]

Those that are not absolute for the ministry are marked out as being "cold", "lukewarm", etc. Usually identifed as a brother or sister "not in good standing". Yes, as brother Sherman told brother Steve a little more than a decade ago, it takes a special calling to be in the recovery...

This is why I wish they would stop calling it things like the "Recovery", "Local Church" etc. This is deceitful. Since the criteria for being in good standing is absoluteness for Witness Lee's ministry they should simply be honest and call it what it is: the Lee Church or LSM Church.

[Indiana]

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/RonKangasLeeDisingenuousReporting.pdf

Ron, the brother you refer to lives near you. Why don’t you go to visit him? He would welcome you and genuine mutual fellowship would ensue over serious matters that divide. He and other brothers are open for such mending fellowship. Are you willing?

Here is a problem, the unwillingness to begin meaningful dialogue and pursue oneness in the Body. And, here we see why there is a need for brothers to come together: Ron acts like there was no ground for brothers to be seriously concerned about Brother Lee, as we see Brother Lee in those days deflecting matters of right and wrong. He said, “most people pay attention to the matter of being right or wrong. However, in today’s situation it is not a matter of right or wrong; it is a matter of whether we are divisive or not”.

Brother Lee practiced deflecting matters of right and wrong and Ron Kangas has done the same, while both displaced blame onto others, discrediting them publicly, and waxing disingenuous in their reporting on “whether we are divisive or not”.

[TLFisher]

This is why I wish they would stop calling it things like the "Recovery", "Local Church" etc. This is deceitful. Since the criteria for being in good standing is absoluteness for Witness Lee's ministry they should simply be honest and call it what it is: the Lee Church or LSM Church.

alwayslearning, localities are referred to as the local church or local churches, but in reality because of practice, they are more like a ministry station. If you are a Christian and you don't share the vision of the ministry LSM publishes, you won't fit in. It's not an environment for a Christian seeking general fellowship as you would in a community church.
The result I have and others have seen for years, brothers and sisters in some localities are aging, but with little or no increase. That's because due to coming together for the sake of a ministry, the mode of receiving and accommodating fellow believers has become narrower than God's receiving.
You could try to be received, but if your sharing is strictly from the Bible instead of Holy Word for Morning Revival, you might be quarantined.

[alwayslearning]

Quotes from letter by coworker Bill Mallon to Witness Lee 10+ years after Max Rapoport got the boot:

"For example, Benson and Ray, as well as others, promoted Philip Lee, proclaiming everywhere that Philip is Witness Lee's closest co worker, that Brother Lee has no one with as much wisdom, energy, and insight as Philip Lee, that Philip is Brother Lee's choice regardless of his anger and abuse of the saints, that everyone must submit and contact Philip Lee and/or the office,,,I have suffered a great dilemma over this matter of speaking with you about the affairs surrounding the office [LSM]...What compounded the problem and prevented me from coming to you is that Philip, being your very own son, was positioned into a very prominent place of the work. A message you gave in Anaheim, on April 18, 1983, entitled PRACTICAL TALKS TO THE ELDERS # 6 "Avoiding Family Entanglements": Here you testified that Watchman Nee never brought his relatives into the church leadership or into the work. I can now see the wisdom of this, because in your case, I say this kindly, to have Philip established into such a prominent place of the work has frustrated and hindered transparent fellowship between you and the workers as well as between you and the churches...Since Philip was now so intricately involved with the work..."

Witness Lee's public and published response to Bill Mallon:

”All these are groundless, unprovable, perverted, and slanderous accusations...Bill's letter did not express his concerns in the proper way of fellowship. Rather, it conveyed many items that were based either on rumors, gossip, or misunderstandings, with a tone of accusation”...

Bill Mallon on the result of Witness Lee's response:

"I would like to make one point clear. I had never left the recovery, and had never intended to do so. But in 1990, after receiving notice of the “excommunication”, after receiving the Fermentation book, and after the brothers in Miami served me notice of no longer supporting me and my housing, I was forced to leave."

[aron]

Witness Lee's public and published response to Bill Mallon:

”All these are groundless, unprovable, perverted, and slanderous accusations...Bill's letter did not express his concerns in the proper way of fellowship. Rather, it conveyed many items that were based either on rumors, gossip, or misunderstandings, with a tone of accusation”..."

Who perfected the 'tone of accusation' more than Witness Lee? Combine Lee's double tongue with Kangas' mocking comments - "Why can't I be a worker?" - and you realize that these people have long since forgotten the gospel of Jesus Christ, assuming they ever heard it.

This kind of speaking is so far from both the letter and the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ that it can only emerge from, and reveal, an organizational entity having its own continued survival as its goal. It has nothing to do with the kingdom of God.

I am thankful that I didn't end up in Guyana drinking Kool-Aid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

or hanging out with Marshall Applewhite, waiting for Jesus to surf in on the Halle-Bopp comet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

Clearly I could have fallen for anything if I was one of those sitting there, unquestioning, as this kind of 'ministry' passed in front of my face. I am very glad; it could have been much worse. God is merciful.

[alwayslearning]

This kind of speaking is so far from both the letter and the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ that it can only emerge from, and reveal, an organizational entity having its own continued survival as its goal. It has nothing to do with the kingdom of God.

Or to put it more plainly it's bold-faced lying. What Bill Mallon wrote was not groundless, unproveable etc. And the problem of Philip Lee was nothing new. He was a well known quantity for many years - especially in Anaheim. The only thing new in the late 1980s-early 1990s was Philip Lee being openly and aggressively promoted as Witness Lee's top coworker by the likes of Benson Phillips, Ray Graver, etc. Prior to that he was more behind the scenes.

They knew he didn't have the character to be a coworker but promoted him anyway and expected blind allegiance and submission to him and of course his dad.

And depending how you measure things their brown nosing behavior towards the Lee family paid off. Look who's running the LC/LSM system today!

[alwayslearning]

Ron, the brother you refer to lives near you. Why don’t you go to visit him? He would welcome you and genuine mutual fellowship would ensue over serious matters that divide. He and other brothers are open for such mending fellowship. Are you willing?

IMHO here is why the LSM employees will never reconcile with coworkers like John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, etc. These coworkers have spiritual heft with real ministries and the LSM employees don't. They are spiritual lightweights who go around like tape recorders repeating another man's ministry. So do they want men like Ingalls, Mallon etc. around? Men who will challenge them and not say "amen" after every word they utter or every idea they come up with? Men who will not "submit" to them? Of course they don't! Just like Witness Lee didn't like having TAS, etc. around.

[TLFisher]

Quotes from letter by coworker Bill Mallon to Witness Lee 10+ years after Max Rapoport got the boot:

"For example, Benson and Ray, as well as others, promoted Philip Lee, proclaiming everywhere that Philip is Witness Lee's closest co worker, that Brother Lee has no one with as much wisdom, energy, and insight as Philip Lee, that Philip is Brother Lee's choice regardless of his anger and abuse of the saints, that everyone must submit and contact Philip Lee and/or the office,,,I have suffered a great dilemma over this matter of speaking with you about the affairs surrounding the office [LSM]...What compounded the problem and prevented me from coming to you is that Philip, being your very own son, was positioned into a very prominent place of the work. A message you gave in Anaheim, on April 18, 1983, entitled PRACTICAL TALKS TO THE ELDERS # 6 "Avoiding Family Entanglements": Here you testified that Watchman Nee never brought his relatives into the church leadership or into the work. I can now see the wisdom of this, because in your case, I say this kindly, to have Philip established into such a prominent place of the work has frustrated and hindered transparent fellowship between you and the workers as well as between you and the churches...Since Philip was now so intricately involved with the work..."

Witness Lee's public and published response to Bill Mallon:

”All these are groundless, unprovable, perverted, and slanderous accusations...Bill's letter did not express his concerns in the proper way of fellowship. Rather, it conveyed many items that were based either on rumors, gossip, or misunderstandings, with a tone of accusation”...

Witness Lee's word regarding Bill Mallon was a work intended to discredit and defame a brother who had given 25+ years as a co-worker. If elders, co-workers, and deacons had read the letter in full, they would realize the tone of humility and sincerity Bill wrote to Witness Lee with.

[TLFisher]

"I would just add this: In 1988 certain co-workers
severely criticized Brother Lee, and then they separated themselves, they went their own way. One of these brothers, in particular, his whole situation is tragic. I would like to ask him (Bill Mallon), after you wrote that letter to Brother Lee, and after you began to speak a certain way, what is your spiritual situation? How would you compare it with your situation when you were in Elden Hall? "

There are many like Bill that fits this mold. However many of the co-workers, elders, and deacons may say "I wonder how _____ is doing". Not a finger is lifted to go visit, to pick up the telephone etc. There is a permeating attitude that you as the one formerly meeting with us have to come to us. "We are right here."

I am not making these words up. These are phrases and paraphrases I have heard with my ears.

If the brothers had the heart of a shepherd and not the heart of a hireling, they would go to these former leading brothers with a spiritual mind towards reconciliation.

[Ohio]

Quotes from letter by coworker Bill Mallon to Witness Lee 10+ years after Max Rapoport got the boot:

"For example, Benson and Ray, as well as others, promoted Philip Lee, proclaiming everywhere that Philip is Witness Lee's closest co worker, that Brother Lee has no one with as much wisdom, energy, and insight as Philip Lee, that Philip is Brother Lee's choice regardless of his anger and abuse of the saints, that everyone must submit and contact Philip Lee and/or the office,,,I have suffered a great dilemma over this matter of speaking with you about the affairs surrounding the office [LSM]...What compounded the problem and prevented me from coming to you is that Philip, being your very own son, was positioned into a very prominent place of the work. A message you gave in Anaheim, on April 18, 1983, entitled PRACTICAL TALKS TO THE ELDERS # 6 "Avoiding Family Entanglements": Here you testified that Watchman Nee never brought his relatives into the church leadership or into the work. I can now see the wisdom of this, because in your case, I say this kindly, to have Philip established into such a prominent place of the work has frustrated and hindered transparent fellowship between you and the workers as well as between you and the churches...Since Philip was now so intricately involved with the work..."

Witness Lee's public and published response to Bill Mallon:

”All these are groundless, unprovable, perverted, and slanderous accusations...Bill's letter did not express his concerns in the proper way of fellowship. Rather, it conveyed many items that were based either on rumors, gossip, or misunderstandings, with a tone of accusation”...

Bill Mallon on the result of Witness Lee's response:

"I would like to make one point clear. I had never left the recovery, and had never intended to do so. But in 1990, after receiving notice of the “excommunication”, after receiving the Fermentation book, and after the brothers in Miami served me notice of no longer supporting me and my housing, I was forced to leave."

Comparing the actual letter written by Bill Mallon, itemizing some of the damages inflicted upon the Southeast USA churches by Philip Lee, with Witness Lee's version of events, caused me to lose my respect for Lee and LSM. I carefully compared the two accounts to determine which was credible.

Back in the 1970's - 1980's, through conferences and trainings, I had been introduced to John Ingalls, John So, and Bill Mallon and their ministry to the churches. None of these three brothers lived in my region of LC's, so admittedly my contact with them was minimal. Each of these ministers for many years had spoken highly of Witness Lee.

But something had changed. A storm had battered the Recovery. It was called the most serious of all rebellions. These actors were all accused of leprosy. Our region was minimally affected, kind of like a hurricane which batters the southern coast, but merely leaves our area all wet.

Witness Lee, with the endorsements of Titus Chu, had convinced us in the Great Lakes area LC's that his version of events back in the early 1990's was the accurate one. When these accounts were printed, I carefully read Lee's Fermentation... , Yu's Affirmation... , and Kangas' Response.... With the absence of any contradictory accounts, I accepted them as the truthful account of events.

Unfortunately for LSM, the internet was now making available, in the privacy of one's home computer, the original accounts of these same brothers quarantined by LSM. Not only theirs, but numerous other accounts were being posted on forums, like Jane Anderson's account of abuse at the hands of LSM president Benson Philips.

I challenge all readers to compare LSM's version of events with that of other eye-witnesses. Our legal system requires all jurors to likewise ascertain the facts. In his letters, especially 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul asks the same of the saints, challenging them to examine the facts, and to "test all things." We as believers are never commanded to follow a man blindly, which is what the LSM has basically always demandad.

[alwayslearning]

"I would just add this: In 1988 certain co-workers
severely criticized Brother Lee, and then they separated themselves, they went their own way. One of these brothers, in particular, his whole situation is tragic. I would like to ask him (Bill Mallon), after you wrote that letter to Brother Lee, and after you began to speak a certain way, what is your spiritual situation? How would you compare it with your situation when you were in Elden Hall? "

More deceptive words courtesy of an LSM employee!

Bill Mallon did not separate himself - he was kicked to the curb. And who said his situation was tragic? He had the same personal challenges while inside and outside the LC system (like everyone else does). But for Kangas to ask him to compare his spiritual situation post LC system with Elden Hall is really beyond the pale in terms of deceit! How about asking a more honest and relevant question: "What is your spiritual situation? How would you compare it with your situation from 1988-1990 in the LC?"

[alwayslearning]

Witness Lee's word regarding Bill Mallon was a work intended to discredit and defame a brother who had given 25+ years as a co-worker. If elders, co-workers, and deacons had read the letter in full, they would realize the tone of humility and sincerity Bill wrote to Witness Lee with.

Of course this was exactly what Witness Lee was doing which was just his standard MO. No surprises there. But how many coworkers and elders made the effort to go to Bill Mallon and ask him directly what his side of the story was? Few if any. They just blindly joined the Witness Lee, Philip Lee, LSM bandwagon. What does that say about the leadership of the LC system?

[TLFisher]

More deceptive words courtesy of an LSM employee!

Bill Mallon did not separate himself - he was kicked to the curb. And who said his situation was tragic? He had the same personal challenges while inside and outside the LC system (like everyone else does). But for Kangas to ask him to compare his spiritual situation post LC system with Elden Hall is really beyond the pale in terms of deceit! How about asking a more honest and relevant question: "What is your spiritual situation? How would you compare it with your situation from 1988-1990 in the LC?"

Agreed. What if Ron was just as challenged as Dan Towle, Francis Ball, etc were during this period of 1988-1990? I think where Ron was trying to lead the listener is the brothers who supposedly separated themselves became "bankrupt and unsanctified" because in his mind "the ministry" is the pinnacle of anyone's Christian experience. What you receive through "the ministry" cannot be found anywhere else and you will suffer spiritual loss to meet anywhere else.

[TLFisher]

But how many coworkers and elders made the effort to go to Bill Mallon and ask him directly what his side of the story was? Few if any. They just blindly joined the Witness Lee, Philip Lee, LSM bandwagon. What does that say about the leadership of the LC system?

All of us are familiar with a coin having two sides. In the LSM/LC to learn the other side of the story as the experiences of Bill Mallon, John So, John Ingalls, etc, the leadership discourage examining the facts. To learn the other side of the story is equal to touching death, poison, etc. That is a false teaching as the brothers are encouraging brothers and sisters to be partial for their benefit.

[Ohio]

Of course this was exactly what Witness Lee was doing which was just his standard MO. No surprises there. But how many coworkers and elders made the effort to go to Bill Mallon and ask him directly what his side of the story was? Few if any. They just blindly joined the Witness Lee, Philip Lee, LSM bandwagon. What does that say about the leadership of the LC system?

Recently I was deceptively taken for a good chunk of change by my neighbor. Whereas I thought I was helping an old friend in need, it turns out I merely enabled him to finance his next fix on his ever worsening downward spiral. Of course, I had my reservations, but his numerous promises and assurances caused a lapse in my better judgment. The other day his wife said to me, "I doubt if this is any consolation, but you were not alone ..." She was right. I later learned that even the Pharmacist at church, the one with a weekly radio program, endured a far greater loss than I did, not to mention all the missing pills.

My sad plight caused me to rehearse the deception I have endured in the Recovery. For many years I believed so many promises and assurances from LC ministers. Some of it went contrary to all my best judgment. With today's 20-20 hindsight it all looks so obvious, but not then. I trusted all the ones I was with, and believed what they told me. Thus I was convinced, that though I was not the brightest light on the tree, all the others around me could not also be deceived. I was also banking on their better judgment.

I suppose that being deceived by a friend is not the worst experience in life. Wasn't our Lord deceived by an old friend with a kiss? I know He is a better judge of character than I am. Perhaps the best consolation is knowing that we are in the Father's hands, and that nothing happens to us without His consent. That truth was good enough for the Lord, and so it's good enough for me too.

[countmeworthy]

Recently I was deceptively taken for a good chunk of change by my neighbor. Whereas I thought I was helping an old friend in need, it turns out I merely enabled him to finance his next fix on his ever worsening downward spiral. Of course, I had my reservations, but his numerous promises and assurances caused a lapse in my better judgment. The other day his wife said to me, "I doubt if this is any consolation, but you were not alone ..." She was right. I later learned that even the Pharmacist at church, the one with a weekly radio program, endured a far greater loss than I did, not to mention all the missing pills.

My sad plight caused me to rehearse the deception I have endured in the Recovery. For many years I believed so many promises and assurances from LC ministers. Some of it went contrary to all my best judgment. With today's 20-20 hindsight it all looks so obvious, but not then. I trusted all the ones I was with, and believed what they told me. Thus I was convinced, that though I was not the brightest light on the tree, all the others around me could not also be deceived. I was also banking on their better judgment.

I suppose that being deceived by a friend is not the worst experience in life. Wasn't our Lord deceived by an old friend with a kiss? I know He is a better judge of character than I am. Perhaps the best consolation is knowing that we are in the Father's hands, and that nothing happens to us without His consent. That truth was good enough for the Lord, and so it's good enough for me too.

Hi Ohio and all,
You are not alone in having been taken or deceived. I too have been deceived by people who I trusted or fell for their sad but hopeful stories. So have a lot of people here and even people in the secular world. Think of all the people who have been scammed by the Ponzie schemes of the Bernie Madoffs !!

The difference between us and "them" is too many times we trust our spiritual leaders more than the Holy Spirit and the Word of God in us. When we are let down by our spiritual leaders, it creates conflict in our faith.

When I got saved I learned but did not understand what it was to walk in Spirit, to live by the Spirit. Heck I did not know I had a spirit in my being until I got saved in the LC. I wonder if those of you who were saved prior to coming under Lee's ministry knew you had a spirit? It is scriptural and the more we read and study our bibles, the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of our understanding to the Spirit realm.

What I don't get :scratchhead: is how in the world did our spiritual leaders stop walking and stop abiding in the Spirit? Why did the teachings of a man become more important to them than the teachings of CHRIST Himself?

I am sorry you were scammed. I am sorry I too have been scammed against my better judgment. I am sorry so many of us have been scammed. Nevertheless we can rest assured our GOD, our LOVING GOD will never scam us !!

Blessings,
Carol

[Ohio]

Hi Ohio and all,
You are not alone in having been taken or deceived. I too have been deceived by people who I trusted or fell for their sad but hopeful stories. So have a lot of people here and even people in the secular world. Think of all the people who have been scammed by the Ponzie schemes of the Bernie Madoffs !!


Reminiscing on our LC experiences in the context of this thread, I had a couple thoughts ...

It's naive to think that we alone in the Recovery were deceived. Who on earth has never been duped? Why should we think any less of ourselves, when Jesus our Lord Himself was deceived and betrayed by a kiss. He once spent the whole night praying, and then He still chose Judas! Since the time the Serpent questioned Eve in the garden, deception has been the lot of all mankind. Being deceived should never cause us to lose heart or question our faith in God. It is a natural occurrence of man, allowed by God, that we might trust in our Heavenly Father more closely, since He alone is true and faithful. (Romans 3.4)

It is absolutely arrogant for LC leaders to think they have never hurt or damaged their people. Only the same spirit of pride that occupied the Pharisees of old would cause them to think thus. Look at the long trail of former members crying out for reconciliation and justice. Voices are coming from every direction to the leaders of LSM, yet they would not even provide the courtesy of answering the phone. They will spend hours and days and weeks writing tracts, smearing reputations, and threatening lawsuits, yet would not spend five minutes to hear what former members have to say.

[Indiana]

TEMPLATE FOR RECEIVING OTHERS
www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/LoveandOneAccordintheScriptures.pdf

In Aug 2001 I was reading in the New Testament and comparing the apostles' care for the churches to the commotion and atmosphere created in the Local Churches by the new way movement. Then I began to write, not knowing where that would lead, and In the Wake of the New Way came out. A template for receiving others is found in part 2, Love and One Accord...

Paper in the Wind - 1988

A current elder in Redding, Dick Ingram, formerly an elder in Tempe, told me by phone that once he was helping a 24-year old brother in Tempe who was troubled by matters in the late eighties turmoil and that he was doing everything he could to help this young brother, even to the extent that Dick called Brother Lee for fellowship. Brother Lee’s fellowship was for him to let this troubled one go as “a paper in the wind” and “let the wind take care of him”!



What Christ Has Received

Rom 15:7 -- “Wherefore, receive one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”

“This verse, when taken along with 14:3, proves that Christ’s receiving is God’s receiving. What Christ has received, God has received. Christ has received us to the glory of God. Our receiving of the believers must be according to God’s and Christ’s receiving, not according to anything else. Whomever God and Christ has received we have to receive, regardless of how much they differ from us in doctrinal concepts or religious practices. This is for the glory of God.” W. Lee

[alwayslearning]

...I think where Ron was trying to lead the listener is the brothers who supposedly separated themselves became "bankrupt and unsanctified" because in his mind "the ministry" is the pinnacle of anyone's Christian experience. What you receive through "the ministry" cannot be found anywhere else and you will suffer spiritual loss to meet anywhere else.

This is classic Witness Lee and his BB tape recorders. What else can they teach to justify their arrogance and pride and to trap people in their system? Of course only in their church could anyone be sanctified, etc.

But as Bill Mallon indicated he never wanted to leave the LC system. He naively thought he could fellowship his very legit concerns and Witness Lee would take him seriously. After all they had worked together for 25+ years. Instead, true to form, Lee threw him under the bus.

And this is also a constructive example of how Witness Lee controlled the churches contrary to his false statements that he never did. Why would Bill Mallon fellowshipping with Witness Lee about some issues in "the work" cause The Church in Miami to kick him to the curb? What does his relationship with Witness Lee, his son Philip and their publishing company have to do with his relationship with the church locally?

[aron]

What I don't get is how in the world did our spiritual leaders stop walking and stop abiding in the Spirit?

To me it is the transition from a Christ-centered ministry to a church-centered ministry. Now, the church-centered folks will quickly argue that 1) the church is the Body of Christ and 2) they are doing everything by the book.

But you look at statements like RK mocking people who "want to be workers" and it flies in the face of everything Jesus taught and stood for. It is fully in accord with building up RK's organization: i.e. getting "workers" who are "fully in one accord" [with Headquarters]. But it is completely against the dictum of Jesus to be nothing in this age if you want to be something in His kingdom, and that of the Father. And it (deliberately, I argue) ignores the idea that to do "these things to the least of these My brothers" is to serve Jesus himself. Instead they fixate on "good building material" for the organization's progress.

I missed the Elden Hall days but they were a mainstay of every meeting, even if you didn't overtly mention them. Because we were hollering and yelling and waving our arms to recreate the "Spirit of Elden Hall", when that Spirit had long since passed. Witness Lee's many "flows" - door knocking, vital groups, and so forth, were all vain exercises to create replicas of something - the Spirit of God - which had long since moved on.

It's like a bunch of aging hippies reminiscing about Woodstock. Instead of living in the now, they all tell each other what "peace, love, and happiness" used to be like.

The Christ-centered life is always new. The church-centered life quickly becomes a museum to whatever "glory days" you once experienced. Meanwhile the glory is abiding somewhere else.

[Ohio]

I missed the Elden Hall days but they were a mainstay of every meeting, even if you didn't overtly mention them. Because we were hollering and yelling and waving our arms to recreate the "Spirit of Elden Hall", when that Spirit had long since passed. Witness Lee's many "flows" - door knocking, vital groups, and so forth, were all vain exercises to create replicas of something - the Spirit of God - which had long since moved on.

It's like a bunch of aging hippies reminiscing about Woodstock. Instead of living in the now, they all tell each other what "peace, love, and happiness" used to be like.

The Christ-centered life is always new. The church-centered life quickly becomes a museum to whatever "glory days" you once experienced. Meanwhile the glory is abiding somewhere else.

Great points.

One of the biggest con jobs in the Recovery concerned Elden Hall. WL continually reported that the entire blessing was due to one reason -- the saints were "absolutely one" with him and his ministry. Ones who were there always disputed that report -- firstly that whatever blessing was there was of the Lord during the Jesus people movement, and secondly that as Witness Lee slowly took over the ministry, the life and anointing in the meetings slowly vanished.

That distorted account of history was ever used to manipulate LC membership into absolute loyalty to a man. Most of those in the Recovery today were never at Elden Hall, but they still are praying for the time when all the saints would be "absolutely one" with the ministry of Witness Lee, and then all the blessings of God would return to them. How else can they explain the continued loss of membership and staleness of the meetings?

[Indiana]

Bill’s experience in the church paralleled John So’s in Europe and John Ingalls’ in Southern California, as these brothers also got nowhere in fellowship with Brother Lee about their desperate concerns. All three brothers were subsequently condemned in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by Witness Lee and their former fellow co-workers in a one-sided account of what had occurred in the previous four years; and, they were “quarantined” in the recovery with no accounts given of their sufferings with Witness Lee and his Living Stream representatives. Their reaction to the interferences, manipulations, and usurpations of LSM became known as “the rebellion”. They themselves became known as “the rebellious ones” and “ring leaders of a conspiracy”. The truthfulness of the “rebellion”, however, cannot be found in official LSM publications on local church history, for it is not in the interests of LSM or according to their agenda to print the truth.
Yet, it has been adequately and faithfully recorded by others. Praise the Lord for this!
(from Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery)

“most people pay attention to the matter of being right or wrong. However, in today’s situation it is not a matter of right or wrong; it is a matter of whether we are divisive or not”. W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 10,1989-1991 material)

[Indiana]

One of the signs of lawlessness with LSM and the LC saints is their strong propensity to speak things they know little about. The “Fermentation” book comes out; people receive the “official” teaching about “rebellious ones” and get frequent-enough reminders from the “pulpit” about “those rebellious ones” and for the last 20 years word just keeps going out, unchecked, from so many mouths. Such lawless speaking is epidemic in the local Churches, and it’s called bearing false witness.

I was at a brother’s home recently (2010) for his 50th birthday and two long-time LC brothers came in, fresh from Ron Kangas’ meetings on the cross from the previous weekend. It is interesting that these two brothers, an elder at that time, now retired, were on the “scene” with me through home meeting involvement when I was cut loose from that home meeting and went into discipline mode in the church. Now after ten years of initiating no contact with me, they appear in a home with me, the same two brothers who “saw me leave”, and within minutes I am charged with being bitter and being proud and that my opinion needs to be dealt with, that I need to get rid of my “slanderous websites”; and references were made to “those rebellious ones”. Goodness, these brothers, loving as they were, they just hear the things and then pass them on. This is how it goes, from one person to another for ten years concerning my case, no one knowing what they are talking about. At least one of the brothers at the party, after I was able to share with him a bit, sat back and stopped his mouth from any more flurry of charges against me, and said, “I don’t know; I just don’t know.” The other brother, the former elder, also was more subdued and both admitted after our hour-long talk and much positive fellowship, that I certainly was not bitter. I was even invited by them to meet in a nearby Local Church outside Bellevue. I have had several encounters similar to this with well-intentioned brothers, who lacked knowledge and understanding.

These brothers had encouraged me to listen to Ron’s tapes and I did over the next couple of days. I heard his strong word on the need for everyone to take the cross to their self and have their mouths stopped, except for him: He had spoken lawlessly in Ecuador, announcing that “Steve Isitt is one of the most evil speakers on the internet. He is a man of death.” He has not retracted this false and defamatory statement. Sherman Robertson, Bellevue elder, passes on to others that I have “slanderous websites”, among other things. Both of these men need to have their mouths stopped. They are quite foolish and in great error to talk about me in this way and never back up what they say with sound documentation to show that I am an “evil speaker, a slanderous speaker, and a lawless speaker on the internet.

By contrast, I have gone through three books by prominent Local Church leaders point by point to show their own evil, slander, and lawless speaking in their reckless abandon to an agenda and movement away from the truth.

I hope that Ron, as the chief editor at LSM, will seriously consider these three evil, slanderous, and lawless books at LSM and tend to their destruction.

Found in www.HidingHistoryintheLordsRecovery.us under Books.

[aron]

WL continually reported that the entire blessing was due to one reason -- the saints were "absolutely one" with him and his ministry... Most of those in the Recovery today were never at Elden Hall, but they still are praying for the time when all the saints would be "absolutely one" with the ministry of Witness Lee, and then all the blessings of God would return to them. How else can they explain the continued loss of membership and staleness of the meetings?

Supposedly the blessing was due to participation in the recovered normal church life by the Lee/Nee ministry. We all were on the proper ground, arranged and behaving as God revealed in the NT, and thus the life, light, joy, truth, etc poured out from above.

This ignores that around WL's Recovery were similar instances in the Jesus Movement, too numerous to count here. Simply look at Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa as an example. Explosive growth, continuous "manifestations of blessing" and so forth.

So when the "blessing left" us we were repeatedly exhorted to follow even more closely the supposed minister of the age WL. Only he could restore the glory days, and lead us to the last revival which would end human history. I remember a meeting where WL castigated us for our "deadness" and threatened to quit speaking. We all cried out with pain and fear.

This shows what happens when the focus turns from Jesus to the church, and from the church to a ministry. And we subsequently can see the trampling of "co-workers" like T.A. Sparks, B. Mallon, J. Ingalls, J. So, J.C. Anderson, M. Rappoport and any others who couldn't themselves up adequately with "the apostle".

And I didn't cite Jim Jones' church earlier as a wild and irrelevant notion. Jones began as a Midwest Methodist preacher who began deriding Christianity, and moved to California. Lot's of young, "open" people there, looking for something new. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"Within five years of the Temple's move to California, it went through a period of exponential growth and opened branches in cities including San Fernando, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. By the early 1970s, Jones began shifting his focus to major cities... He eventually moved the headquarters for the Temple to San Francisco... The move led to Jones and the Temple becoming politically influential in San Francisco politics, culminating in the Temple's instrumental role in the mayoral election victory of George Moscone in 1975. Moscone subsequently appointed Jones as the chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission."

A lot of people have claimed "blessing" over the years. But if your focus turns from Jesus to the church, you are in the wrong place. The guy standing up front may not be named Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite, but you are still in the wrong place. Those anti-cult books of the late '70s don't look so paranoid to me any more.

[aron]

A lot of people have claimed "blessing" over the years. But if your focus turns from Jesus to the church, you are in the wrong place.

Let me ask one simple question: How many local church meetings did you go to where the focus was not Jesus Christ, but rather the church, the ministry, or some latest "move of the Lord"? The revelation we were receiving was not of Jesus Christ, but rather of some supposed "speaking" or "move" of Jesus Christ, which supposedly arriving through God's oracle, said speaking directing "the Body of Christ" to "build up the New Jerusalem" and "consummate the age" and so forth.

In all of this frantic activity Jesus recedes until He is frozen in the background like one of those carved images in the Roman Catholic cathedrals.

[Cal]

LSM's doctrine of "taking the cross" is unscriptural. The Bible teaches us to be obedient to God's commandments and to live according to the Holy Spirit. It doesn't emphasize "taking the cross" in the way LSM means it. In one place Jesus did tell us to "take up our cross and follow him." But this was his telling us that true obedience would sometimes lead us to discomfort and even pain and death.

LSM's version of "taking the cross" is simply one more tool they use to keep people's mouths shut and maintain order. The fact is true obedience and walking in the Spirit sometimes demand that we speak and not be silent. But in LSM's twisted, tightly-spinning world, "taking the cross" always means shutting up.

Jesus was silent going to the cross because the time had come for him to suffer for redemption. At that point there was nothing for him to say, the cup had being given to him, and the Jews and Romans couldn't do anything for him, and wouldn't listen anyway. But before that, Jesus often rebuked the halls of power with fervor, as did many prophets before him, as Steve is doing now.

Kangas is trying to shut people up with his "taking the cross" teaching. One might think he would apply the teaching to himself and shut himself up occasionally. But, alas, apparently he and his cohorts get to speak out when they see what they consider "unrighteousness" or "death," but no one else does. Neat trick.

These guys have gotten so far out in the weeds it has become silly.

[Cal]

In all of this frantic activity Jesus recedes until He is frozen in the background like one of those carved images in the Roman Catholic cathedrals.

Nicely put. :)

[Ohio]

So when the "blessing left" us we were repeatedly exhorted to follow even more closely the supposed minister of the age WL. Only he could restore the glory days, and lead us to the last revival which would end human history. I remember a meeting where WL castigated us for our "deadness" and threatened to quit speaking. We all cried out with pain and fear.


One of Lee's greatest "gifts" was to convince us all that we could not survive without him. The continued elimination of so many other gifted brothers made this "addiction" all the more apparent. Like a smoker who feels "so much better" with a cigarette in his hand, most of us could not imagine a church life without Lee.

None of us was thoughtful or courageous enough to inquire whether our "deadness" had anything to do with Witness Lee in the first place. We were doing everything he commanded, clinging to his every word, and he then had the audacity to blame us, calling us Laodicea, and then threaten not to speak any more? Someone should have immediately stood up to whistle his approval! What a scene that would have been.

[aron]

One of Lee's greatest "gifts" was to convince us all that we could not survive without him. The continued elimination of so many other gifted brothers made this "addiction" all the more apparent. Like a smoker who feels "so much better" with a cigarette in his hand, most of us could not imagine a church life without Lee.

None of us was thoughtful or courageous enough to inquire whether our "deadness" had anything to do with Witness Lee in the first place. We were doing everything he commanded, clinging to his every word, and he then had the audacity to blame us, calling us Laodicea, and then threaten not to speak any more? Someone should have immediately stood up to whistle his approval! What a scene that would have been.

Two scenes stand out in my mind from the "vital group" days. One was when two of WL's henchmen - sorry, co-workers -- arrived to our burg. They assembled all the troops and willy-nilly clumped us together in groups of six to ten. Then they declared that we were all "vital". To demonstrate our vitality they had us come up front and sing songs. "PSRP/BNPB makes the eagle fly" we sang, while waving our arms like birds.

The second scene was some time later, when we had not sufficiently endured in the Anaheim-mandated vitality, and a very cross WL gave a message in which he said that we all were dead, dormant, stagnant, etc, and threatened to "cut us off". What a cry we raised when the elder shut off the video -- Ohio's "addiction" metaphor is apt -- we were like druggies at the methadone clinic whose future supply was in doubt. "Whatever will we do? No fresh speaking from Witness Lee?" Oh, the declarations of repentance and fealty that loudly filled that meeting hall! Not to God in heaven, or to the sent Spirit of His resurrected Christ, but rather to the latest speaking from Anaheim. We would do anything, anything, if only WL's ministry would remain open and available to us.

[awareness]

LSM's doctrine of "taking the cross" is unscriptural. ...
"All in all you're just another brick in the wall."

[aron]

"All in all you're just another brick in the wall."

I was going to correct you and say, "No; we are living stones", but then I remembered WL saying that we all had to be "absolutely identical, with no differences whatsoever", and so I decided that maybe your comment is pretty accurate.

[aron]

None of us was thoughtful or courageous enough to inquire whether our "deadness" had anything to do with Witness Lee in the first place. We were doing everything he commanded, clinging to his every word, and he then had the audacity to blame us, calling us Laodicea, and then threaten not to speak any more?

Another thing Lee did was publicly read a letter from some "positive locality", where they said they were out door knocking and gaining "new ones" for the recovery. We were all astonished that someone out there was able to follow the "new way". But he didn't tell us where the letter was from, so we were left to stay in our dead Laodicea local church; if we had known where the Spirit was so prevailing, many of us would have packed up and moved immediately. Because surely we all wanted the blessing!

[Ohio]

I was going to correct you and say, "No; we are living stones", but then I remembered WL saying that we all had to be "absolutely identical, with no differences whatsoever", and so I decided that maybe your comment is pretty accurate.

awareness was reminiscing his early days in the churchlife, about the time when PF came out with The Wall.

[TLFisher]

These brothers had encouraged me to listen to Ron’s tapes and I did over the next couple of days. I heard his strong word on the need for everyone to take the cross to their self and have their mouths stopped, except for him: He had spoken lawlessly in Ecuador, announcing that “Steve Isitt is one of the most evil speakers on the internet. He is a man of death.” He has not retracted this false and defamatory statement.

Why is it brother Ron was so free to announce Steve Isitt as a man of death at an International conference in Ecuador, but every year when Ron comes to Seattle/Bellevue, not a word is spoken regarding Steve Isitt?

[Indiana]

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/GeneGruhlersTestimony.pdf

Gene Gruhler made several mistakes in his testimony in Fermentation. His disadvantage in seeing and knowing matters clearly was that he was not in the church in Anaheim; he was far away in Denver, Colorado. He supposed he knew what he was talking about even though he was not standing where John Ingalls, Al Knoch, and Godfred Otuteye were standing, and was not in their shoes. Therefore, his paradigm was off when he spoke. The whole book, in fact, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, is based on a wrong paradigm and superficial observation, which is why it careens off course early and follows an imaginary track of building a case about a conspiracy.

[Indiana]

Ron Kangas in Ecuador

"Well, we don’t have to go in the direction of chaos. We can move in the direction of economy. Regarding discernment, now that we have the internet as everybody knows, emails go out day and night. And, usually the negative persons and the evil persons are more active than the positive ones. One of the most evil of these persons, his name is Steve Isitt. He is a man of death. And, he is very active in a negative way. And there are many others".


Ron Kangas regarding brother Dong "control", and now the "chaos" created by independent workers and on-line posters

"...What is going to be the future in this part of S. America. Will we go from control to chaos? Or from control to normality?" R. K.

What is Normality, Ron? Has LSM ever behaved in a normal way?



PROOF OF DIVISION?
www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/ProofofDivision.pdf

Steve Isitt speaking: "Leaders who remained in the recovery thought the leaders who “left the recovery” caused division by forsaking the proper ground of meeting and establishing their own meetings apart from the fellowship of the local churches. (FPR, p. 72-73)

"The former leading ones, however, thought that the Scriptural ground of meeting had been usurped and replaced by Witness Lee, his ministry, and his ministry office, and that since this was the case, the local churches were no longer on the proper ground of oneness and were responsible for causing division themselves.

[aron]

awareness was reminiscing his early days in the churchlife, about the time when PF came out with The Wall.

I remember GG telling us about "building", how he had a concept of being in the transparent jasper wall, a la John's vision in Revelation. GG said he had a vision of being connected to those around him, who were also connected to those around them, and so forth.

Gene shared this in a meeting, and WL said, "That's not building". Then WL went on to share "his" vision.

My question is this: why was only WL's version of events the official version? Why was GG not allowed to think, or be inspired by the Holy Spirit? Why only one man can think and speak in the church? GG shared this story as a preface to how "low" his (and everyone else's) ideas were, and how "high" WL's ideas were.

I say nonsense. WL's ideas were like yours and mine. Some of them had merit, some less so. But the notion (which GG was advancing) that only WL's ideas were worth holding onto and holding forth in the assembly of the faithful, was completely against the grain of the whole scriptural lesson we see in the Bible.

"He who elevates himself in the assembly above his/her peers will be pushed back down by God." This theme is constant, it is consistent throughout the scriptures, it was stressed by Jesus as a cornerstone of His teaching, and WL thought that it applied to everyone but himself. And it created a back door for those who wanted to elevate themselves: by abnegating themselves to and by elevating "the rich ministry of WL" they also rose in the assembly. The higher and louder you cheered the minsitry of WL, the higher you got in "the church".

Awareness' quote is quite suggestive, actually.

[aron]

Gene Gruhler made several mistakes in his testimony in Fermentation. ... He supposed he knew what he was talking about even though he was not standing where John Ingalls, Al Knoch, and Godfred Otuteye were standing, and was not in their shoes. Therefore, his paradigm was off when he spoke.

I suppose the same criticism could be made of "anonymous internet posters". I don't know GG nor what he has passed through. Therefore my ground to judge is minimal if at all. And my "paradigm" might be off as well.

I do know that i was in the same system for some time, and I here have tried to assess my time in that system. I got saved in church, I met constantly in church, I began meeting with GG's local churches because I liked how active they were. And when I left the local church of Lee I began meeting again with "christianity". So I know a little about church.

In the beginning, when I arrived in the local churches, everyone could stand up and minister whatever the Lord had spoken to them that week. We talked about our failures with our families, our children, at work, in our attitudes. We talked about the Lord's inspiration and move through us in the world. We talked about those who were around us, crying for help and guidance. We talked about God's mercy rescuing us again and again; His comfort, love, and His revelation of His glory as seen in His Holy Word. In it all, Jesus Christ our Lord, the Lord of all, was the constant beacon of light shining forth.

Over time we began to become "ministry stations". The focus shifted. On the Lord's Day morning we would have some prayers and songs to the Lord Jesus, then we would eat the bread and drink the wine, sing a song to the Father, then we would get on to the real business. The ministry meeting. We all had to be one with the latest speaking out of Anaheim.

So the Lord Jesus got maybe 40 minutes out of our busy week, then it was on to the ministry. How to get "material" (college students) for the "building of the Body" (to join the organization)?

I think GG and many others were trying to function as best they could in a trying and less than optimal situation. Perhaps his conscience is less bothered by his experiences than yours and mine; who knows? I hope that I have not unjustly judged him nor any others. I don't know any of them personally, and even if I did I suppose I wouldn't know them well. But the system of which they and I were a part I consider myself qualified to write at least a few words. And so I have tried.

But if GG "didn't know what was really going on", then I would have to say Amen; me too. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

"Blessed is he who shows mercy; on him the Father also will show mercy"

[Cal]

I think it's interesting that Kangas chose to call Steve Isitt a "man of death." Why didn't he call him a "man of sin?" Because if he did that he'd have to specify his sin, and he can't do it because there is none.

What, exactly, is Steve doing wrong? As aron said, who said WL, or RK, or anyone else are the only ones authorized to speak? Steve is speaking as a prophet according to his conscience. He claims seem reasonable and well-thought-out. Kangas is obligated to take them seriously and address another Body member's concerns with respect. He has no right to act as if he is above reproof. What is so troubling about Kangas and other Recovery officials is how they are seemingly devoid of genuine Christian humility.

But by categorizing Steve (and those here for that matter) as sources of "death," the accusation becomes nebulous, feel-oriented and arbitrary. It's simply mud-slinging.

Drop the vague "death" language, Ron Kangas, and specify Steve's sin. Then we can discuss it as the Body. My money is on the fact that you can't specify a sin, and would lose any discussion about one if you did. That is why you are resorting to feeble "death" claims.

[Ohio]

I remember GG telling us about "building", how he had a concept of being in the transparent jasper wall, a la John's vision in Revelation. GG said he had a vision of being connected to those around him, who were also connected to those around them, and so forth.

Gene shared this in a meeting, and WL said, "That's not building". Then WL went on to share "his" vision.

Awareness' quote is quite suggestive, actually.

Back in my earliest days, there was this concept, based on Lee's previous teachings about building up, that we were like "bricks in a wall," and that the fellowship we had was the "mortar" that held us together. Gene Gruhler did not just dream up that metaphor about the building of God, he got it from Lee, but alas ... poor Gene was not up-to-date, and thus needed correction by our abusive "headmaster."

Video: Another Brick in the Wall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpxd3pZAVHI)

The classroom scene in the video between 1:00 minute and 1:30 minute, with the harsh discipline "absolute rubbish laddie," is quite suggestive, as you said. awareness has mentioned on occasion the treatment he received from "headmaster" Mel Porter in Florida.

As one who was educated by old-school convent nuns at my local parish, I could always relate with this video. One time in 7th grade, for whatever reason, I was covering my text book in class with a brown paper bag. As a young student I was easily bored, but at that time, I never thought I was doing anything wrong, especially since I wasn't talking to others, and disrupting the class. That old nun, who looked just like the wicked witch of the west, just exploded all over me. My right arm had welts up and down from her tirade. Thankfully I remained silent and motionless during the beating, probably thinking that it will only get worse if my dad got wind of it.

[Ohio]

In the beginning, when I arrived in the local churches, everyone could stand up and minister whatever the Lord had spoken to them that week. We talked about our failures with our families, our children, at work, in our attitudes. We talked about the Lord's inspiration and move through us in the world. We talked about those who were around us, crying for help and guidance. We talked about God's mercy rescuing us again and again; His comfort, love, and His revelation of His glory as seen in His Holy Word. In it all, Jesus Christ our Lord, the Lord of all, was the constant beacon of light shining forth.

I definitely treasured those days when so many testimonies were among us. The meetings in those early days were so filled with the freshness of the Spirit from all the saints.

Then changes were orchestrated by headquarters. We were regularly informed about how so many of these personal testimonies were simply "sea stories." None of us felt that way. I thought they were all great. Oh sure, some members had limited speaking skills, but with such a eager audience, everyone felt cherished. On my own, being so self-conscious, I would never have stood to give a testimony, but the Spirit within me could not be restrained! We were receiving encouragement and practical learning from one another, which I suppose was the problem. Brothers and sisters helping one another in the faith -- pretty dangerous stuff. To the bureaucrats, that is.

During conferences and trainings, both Witness Lee and Titus Chu henceforth demanded that we rehearse their messages during the testimony time. Personal testimonies, for the most part, were done away with, except, of course, those who got to give the messages. Thus we slowly settled into the drone of rehashing and regurgitating the messages of others. Lee moved on from the Life-Study period to the Crystalization-Study which I never felt had much anointing at all. Head knowledge, yes, anointing Spirit, no. Then PSRP was introduced from Taiwan to prop up those dead doctrines, but the excitement of every new program was quickly fleeting.

[Ohio]

The whole book, in fact, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, is based on a wrong paradigm and superficial observation, which is why it careens off course early and follows an imaginary track of building a case about a conspiracy.

An exceedingly polite way of saying that the book was full of lies, fibs, deceptions, fabrications, slanders, distortions, and equivocations.

Did I miss anything?

[TLFisher]

I think it's interesting that Kangas chose to call Steve Isitt a "man of death." Why didn't he call him a "man of sin?" Because if he did that he'd have to specify his sin, and he can't do it because there is none.

What, exactly, is Steve doing wrong? As aron said, who said WL, or RK, or anyone else are the only ones authorized to speak? Steve is speaking as a prophet according to his conscience. He claims seem reasonable and well-thought-out. Kangas is obligated to take them seriously and address another Body member's concerns with respect. He has no right to act as if he is above reproof. What is so troubling about Kangas and other Recovery officials is how they are seemingly devoid of genuine Christian humility.

But by categorizing Steve (and those here for that matter) as sources of "death," the accusation becomes nebulous, feel-oriented and arbitrary. It's simply mud-slinging.

Drop the vague "death" language, Ron Kangas, and specify Steve's sin. Then we can discuss it as the Body. My money is on the fact that you can't specify a sin, and would lose any discussion about one if you did. That is why you are resorting to feeble "death" claims.

Interesting for all I have heard from the audio on Ron's disparaging words towards Steve and words spoken locally by appointed elders regarding Steve, for all Steve has wrote, NOT ONE has called Steve a liar.

Which is why Ron cannot specify Steve's sin only to call Steve a man of death. Physiologically we are all men of death including brother Ron. It's a statement of our own mortality. However the tone Ron is speaking with is meant to disparage, to slander, and to defame.

How many brothers from North America attended that conference in Ambato, Ecuador? The brothers in attendance bear repsonsibility to for allowing the lawless speaking to go unhindered.

[TLFisher]

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/GeneGruhlersTestimony.pdf

Gene Gruhler made several mistakes in his testimony in Fermentation. His disadvantage in seeing and knowing matters clearly was that he was not in the church in Anaheim; he was far away in Denver, Colorado. He supposed he knew what he was talking about even though he was not standing where John Ingalls, Al Knoch, and Godfred Otuteye were standing, and was not in their shoes. Therefore, his paradigm was off when he spoke. The whole book, in fact, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, is based on a wrong paradigm and superficial observation, which is why it careens off course early and follows an imaginary track of building a case about a conspiracy.

I am not so sure about the accuracy when Gene was in Denver and when he came back to Anaheim. My understanding is Gene was sent to Denver around 1978 after Max became personna non grata.
I was in another SoCal locality, but Gene was always the brother leading the Southern California young people's conferences I had attended in the early-mid 1980's. If Gene was in Anaheim throughout the 80's, it does not appear he was an appointed elder. Thus possibly not privy to the fellowship Dick Taylor, Dan Towle and other Orange County elders were included in on.

[Ohio]

I think it's interesting that Kangas chose to call Steve Isitt a "man of death." Why didn't he call him a "man of sin?" Because if he did that he'd have to specify his sin, and he can't do it because there is none.

Interesting for all I have heard from the audio on Ron's disparaging words towards Steve and words spoken locally by appointed elders regarding Steve, for all Steve has wrote, NOT ONE has called Steve a liar.

Great observations brothers.

Witness Lee made a big deal about "death" by spiritualizing certain Levitical ordinances about touching dead bodies. None of the apostles had done such a thing, but that is besides the point. Like his use of "leprosy" and the "replastering of houses" in Leviticus for all those branded rebels, Lee was able to contrive teachings whenever needed to protect himself from being accountable. It was like Lee was telling us, "you may think I have sinned, but if you say a thing, then you will be dead, and that's far worse."

The result is to hold the saints in fear and to negate the feelings of their conscience. How powerful and controlling is that? Our conscience is trained by God's word to be sensitive to sin, the violation of God's commands. Lee successfully established an alternate standard which bypassed the consciousness of identifiable sin, and introduced the new standard of "death" which only he could identify and use, when necessary, to divert attention from sin within his ministry to death within his accusers.

Thus, until this date, no one at LSM has ever negated a single statement made by Steve Isitt. If they did, calling it a lie and him a liar, then they would have to address the facts of the case, something they dare not do. The actual facts of history are what LSM fears the most. Thus, by categorizing all that Isitt has written as "death," and labeling him a "man of death," they strike fear in all their members without following any of the New Testament prescriptions for addressing sin, or a sinful brother.

[alwayslearning]

Thus, until this date, no one at LSM has ever negated a single statement made by Steve Isitt. If they did, calling it a lie and him a liar, then they would have to address the facts of the case, something they dare not do. The actual facts of history are what LSM fears the most. Thus, by categorizing all that Isitt has written as "death," and labeling him a "man of death," they strike fear in all their members without following any of the New Testament prescriptions for addressing sin, or a sinful brother.

Exactly!

The whole death v. life thing is another handy tool of deception used by Witness Lee and now LSM employees to divert attention away from their own behavior and history. "Pay attention to life not right and wrong" etc are catch-all phrases designed to stop those with legit concerns in their tracks. It gives those doing wrong or covering up wrong a license to do whatever they want without recourse.

Discussing "the facts of the case" requires a certain amount of objectivity. The subtlety of the death v. life tool of deception is switching everything into the realm of subjectivity with a nary a concern for the facts.

"How do you feel when you read or talk about what took place in the LC system back in the late 1980s-early 1990s? "

"I feel sick to my stomach."

"Ah ah! That is because you are eating of the wrong tree. You are touching death brother. You should pay attention to life. Get out of your mind and turn to your spirit where life is..."

Very subtle! But the truth is:

1. I legitimately feel sick to my stomach based on the facts regarding corruption, lying, deception, mistreatment of others, machinations, hypocrisy, politics, manipulation, immaturity, etc. in the upper echelons of the LC system.

2. This is the way I should feel.

3. What I feel really is life.

[alwayslearning]

I am not so sure about the accuracy when Gene was in Denver and when he came back to Anaheim.

In the turmoil of the late 1980s Gene Gruhler was initially not in Anaheim or Orange County. He was in Denver. Once John Ingalls, Al Knoch and Godfred Otuteye were out of the eldership Witness Lee made Gene Gruhler and Frances Ball (fresh from his failed antics in Rosemead) elders along with some of his loyalists already in Anaheim.

To my knowledge (disclaimer: not first hand) Gruhler soon thereafter went back to Denver because he ultimately couldn't take the whole LSM scene either.

[TLFisher]

In the turmoil of the late 1980s Gene Gruhler was initially not in Anaheim or Orange County. He was in Denver. Once John Ingalls, Al Knoch and Godfred Otuteye were out of the eldership Witness Lee made Gene Gruhler and Frances Ball (fresh from his failed antics in Rosemead) elders along with some of his loyalists already in Anaheim.

To my knowledge (disclaimer: not first hand) Gruhler soon thereafter went back to Denver because he ultimately couldn't take the whole LSM scene either.

Thanks Alwayslearning for your post. We were discussing last night at dinner about brother Gene. He had been an elder in Anaheim in the late seventies, but was not metioned as one of the Anaheim elders in brother John's book Speaking the Truth in Love. During my high school years I had always seen brother Gene as the brother assisting brother Lee to the front at conferences.

[Indiana]

Exactly!

The whole death v. life thing is another handy tool of deception used by Witness Lee and now LSM employees to divert attention away from their own behavior and history. "Pay attention to life not right and wrong" etc are catch-all phrases designed to stop those with legit concerns in their tracks. It gives those doing wrong or covering up wrong a license to do whatever they want without recourse.

Discussing "the facts of the case" requires a certain amount of objectivity. The subtlety of the death v. life tool of deception is switching everything into the realm of subjectivity with a nary a concern for the facts.

"How do you feel when you read or talk about what took place in the LC system back in the late 1980s-early 1990s? "

"I feel sick to my stomach."

"Ah ah! That is because you are eating of the wrong tree. You are touching death brother. You should pay attention to life. Get out of your mind and turn to your spirit where life is..."

Very subtle! But the truth is:

1. I legitimately feel sick to my stomach based on the facts regarding corruption, lying, deception, mistreatment of others, machinations, hypocrisy, politics, manipulation, immaturity, etc. in the upper echelons of the LC system.

2. This is the way I should feel.

3. What I feel really is life.

THESE HERALDS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS CLOSE IN ON THE HEART OF THE MATTER

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=27548&postcount=38

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=27556&postcount=40

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=27558&postcount=41

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=27565&postcount=42


"Why do you have to know so much?" - Ron Kangas

[alwayslearning]

Thanks Alwayslearning for your post. We were discussing last night at dinner about brother Gene. He had been an elder in Anaheim in the late seventies, but was not metioned as one of the Anaheim elders in brother John's book Speaking the Truth in Love. During my high school years I had always seen brother Gene as the brother assisting brother Lee to the front at conferences.

This reminds me about a funny thing that happened and demonstrates how Witness Lee orchestrated things. The last training John Ingalls ever attended was in Anaheim but by now he had given the "Sixteen Points", etc. The controversy was in full swing and unbeknownst to most Lee was already planning for Gruhler to step in.

Prior to every training meeting Witness Lee, the Anaheim elders and some local coworkers would pray downstairs and then come up and some would walk to the front row and sit with Witness Lee. When the trainings were in Anaheim John Ingalls always sat next to Lee. This was just the known and accepted way of things. But this time Gruhler from Denver was in the downstairs meeting and walked up front and took John Ingalls seat next to Lee. So Ingalls had no seat and was left looking around for a place to sit while all the trainees looked on and saw this whole childish game of Witness Lee's unfold. And of course everybody got the intended message.

[alwayslearning]

We were discussing last night at dinner about brother Gene. He had been an elder in Anaheim in the late seventies, but was not metioned as one of the Anaheim elders in brother John's book Speaking the Truth in Love.

The elders in Anaheim for English during the period of time John Ingalls refers to in his book were: Ingalls, Knoch and Otuteye. Otuteye was also in senior management at LSM. He got disgusted with LSM and resigned. Shortly thereafter he also resigned as an elder.

The elders for the Chinese side of things were Philip Lim and Minoru Chen.

Basically two different churches which became obvious when Philip Lee was excommunicated. The English elders did it and next door the Chinese elders were publicly announcing their disagreement with the excommunication. What a mess!

Anyway soon Witness Lee & Son had the two Chinese elders plus the new elders Lee set up writing a groveling public letter of apology to Philip Lee. I don't know how these men could look at themselves in the mirror every morning!

[Ohio]

Exactly!

The whole death v. life thing is another handy tool of deception used by Witness Lee and now LSM employees to divert attention away from their own behavior and history. "Pay attention to life not right and wrong" etc are catch-all phrases designed to stop those with legit concerns in their tracks. It gives those doing wrong or covering up wrong a license to do whatever they want without recourse.


The whole farce got exposed when I learned that Phillip Lee's favorite saying was this, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life."

As alwayslearning so aptly concluded: Life is feeling sick to my stomach upon learning what Phillip Lee did as manager of LSM to damage so many saints.

[TLFisher]

Anyway soon Witness Lee & Son had the two Chinese elders plus the new elders Lee set up writing a groveling public letter of apology to Philip Lee. I don't know how these men could look at themselves in the mirror every morning!

They were showing partiality.

2 Chronicles 19:7
"Now then let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe.”

[TLFisher]

The whole farce got exposed when I learned that Phillip Lee's favorite saying was this, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life."

That quote sounds spiritual. Yet has nothing to do with being spiritual, but in choosing amorality over morality.

Amoral is: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

When co-workers have in the past spoke "we don't care for right or wrong......", I now believe they were on the fast track to a calcified conscience.

While writing as "Mr Smith" on thebereans.net I often used the phrase "the end justifies the means". That is why Philip Lee and LSM were and are "unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something". It's amoral.

The end result in the late 80's was getting the localities lined up with LSM. If it meant circumventing fellowship with local elders, that was the means.

[TLFisher]

I think it's interesting that Kangas chose to call Steve Isitt a "man of death." Why didn't he call him a "man of sin?" Because if he did that he'd have to specify his sin, and he can't do it because there is none.

What, exactly, is Steve doing wrong? As aron said, who said WL, or RK, or anyone else are the only ones authorized to speak? Steve is speaking as a prophet according to his conscience. He claims seem reasonable and well-thought-out. Kangas is obligated to take them seriously and address another Body member's concerns with respect.

If brother Ron truly feels he is a representative of God's government on earth, he should have a response for Steve Isitt. As brothers in Christ, they should be able to enter into fellowship voluntarily without using legal means to involuntarily force a response.

[aron]

"How do you feel when you read or talk about what took place in the LC system back in the late 1980s-early 1990s? "

"I feel sick to my stomach."

"Ah ah! That is because you are eating of the wrong tree. You are touching death brother. You should pay attention to life. Get out of your mind and turn to your spirit where life is..."

Very subtle! But the truth is:

1. I legitimately feel sick to my stomach based on the facts regarding corruption, lying, deception, mistreatment of others, machinations, hypocrisy, politics, manipulation, immaturity, etc. in the upper echelons of the LC system.

2. This is the way I should feel.

3. What I feel really is life.

I "felt death" a bunch of times when hearing RK talk about "Authority and Submission". Likewise a bunch of times when reading WL's "Answers to the Bible Answer Man", "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion", and so forth.

But I suppressed/ignored my "feeling of death" because, hey, it's the church. Right?

[Indiana]

:

Ron Kangas in Ecuador 2008:

In 1988 certain co-workers severely criticized Brother Lee, and then they separated themselves, they went their own way. One of these brothers, in particular, his whole situation is tragic.

I would like to ask him, after you wrote that letter to Brother Lee, and after you began to speak a certain way, what is your spiritual situation?


Ron tries to prove that, although the Lee and son tandem leadership was turning the churches upside down, Bill Mallon and others should not have spoken out. Then Ron gives the oft-used Watchman Nee story of what happens to elders who criticized him in China. This word was supposed to convince S. American brothers that material such as we use on this forum concerning Witness Lee should not be spoken, written, or read.


How would you compare it with your situation when you were in Elden Hall? [Los Angeles].

Aren’t you more experienced now than then? Would you say you are more living now?

When many rebelled against brother Watchman Nee, and some of them wanted to be recovered, Brother Lee asked them, how is your situation? You say you are right, you say Brother Nee was wrong. They all confessed they were dead. If we would practice this one way of discernment, we would avoid most problems.


I am not afraid to be simple in this way; you say this, and you say this, I don’t know the facts, I don’t know who is right or wrong. But I know when I listen to you, I get death. And, when I listen to Brother Lee’s ministry, I get life. So it is so simple, I stand with life.


The brothers were doing quite fine 11 years after their quarantine. Plus, their heart was for fellowship with all the brothers, even those who misrepresented them and cast them out.


John Ingalls shared in 2001:

Dear brother Steve,

Thank you for sending all the correspondence you have had with other brothers. Though I have not replied for some time, I want you to know that I am still very interested in your burden. There are many dear brothers in the LSM that I would love to have restored fellowship. Certainly two of them are Sherman and Dave Higgins. I met a brother the other day coming out of a store into which I was entering. I recognized him as one I had seen at times in the past, and then suddenly I knew his name, Rick Scatterday, We greeted one another and had most cordial and happy fellowship for a few minutes, with no mention whatever of any problems in the past or any special relationships to cloud us. It was most encouraging. Rick is traveling and ministering in various places.

May the Lord continue to bring His people together with Himself as the Head and center and the only focus. That is His house.

In His name, John


2001 Bill Mallon email

www.twoturmoils.com/Mallon1.pdf

[Indiana]

:

Ron Kangas in Ecuador 2008:

In 1988 certain co-workers severely criticized Brother Lee, and then they separated themselves, they went their own way. One of these brothers, in particular, his whole situation is tragic.

I would like to ask him, after you wrote that letter to Brother Lee, and after you began to speak a certain way, what is your spiritual situation?

Ron tries to prove that, although the Lee and son tandem leadership was turning the churches upside down, Bill Mallon and others should not have spoken out. Then Ron gives the oft-used Watchman Nee story of what happens to elders who criticized W Nee in China. This word was supposed to convince S. American brothers that material such as we use on this forum concerning Witness Lee should not be spoken, written, or read.

How would you compare it with your situation when you were in Elden Hall? [Los Angeles].

Aren’t you more experienced now than then? Would you say you are more living now?

When many rebelled against brother Watchman Nee, and some of them wanted to be recovered, Brother Lee asked them, how is your situation? You say you are right, you say Brother Nee was wrong. They all confessed they were dead. If we would practice this one way of discernment, we would avoid most problems.

I am not afraid to be simple in this way; you say this, and you say this, I don’t know the facts, I don’t know who is right or wrong. But I know when I listen to you, I get death. And, when I listen to Brother Lee’s ministry, I get life. So it is so simple, I stand with life.

The brothers were doing quite fine 11 years after their quarantine. Plus, their heart was for fellowship with all the brothers, even those who misrepresented them and cast them out.

Well, let’s also take a look at how Ron was doing at the end of that same time period, 11 years. We know that he was still defaming from the pulpit the brothers and not seeking reconciliation with them. And, another 11 years later he was defaming me. The BBs, including Ron, were a continual subject of dismay for Brother Lee, as seen in A Word of Love where WL describes their condition,

"As I have said before, the spirit of not shepherding and seeking others and being without love and forgiveness is spreading in the recovery everywhere. I believe that not having the Father’s loving and forgiving heart and not having the Savior’s shepherding and seeking spirit is the reason for our barrenness."

"I realize that you all work hard, but there is almost no fruit. The Lord says, “By the fruit the tree is known”, but we are a tree without any fruit. Everywhere among us barrenness is very prevailing. A good, gentle pastor may not have a particular gift, such as the gift of speaking; he may simply visit people and welcome them when they come to his meeting, but according to statistics, he will have a ten percent yearly increase. We, however, do not have a ten percent increase. Can you see how barren we are? Many of you are good speakers, knowing the higher truths. The truths we hold are much higher than those in Christianity. However, we do not have fruit because we are lacking in the Father’s loving and forgiving heart and the Son’s shepherding and seeking spirit. We condemn and regulate others rather than shepherd and seek them. We are short of love and shepherding. These are the vital factors for us to bear fruit, that is, to gain people. I am very concerned for our full-time training. Do we train the young ones to gain people or to regulate people? We have to reconsider our ways, as Haggai said, Our way is not right; something is wrong.

"We often condemn others, exposing their failures and defects. We must admit that to speak well of ourselves and to expose others’ defects is our natural disposition. Our disposition is like this by birth. There is no need to speak about others’ defects. In the world the legal term for this is defamation. Why do we need to speak in a defaming way? However, nearly all of us do this. Because by the Lord’s mercy and grace I have learned the lesson, it is hard for you to hear me speak of anyone’s defects. Whenever I speak of others’ shortages, I am condemned, saying to myself, “Do you not have shortages?”…Who is without sin? Do you not have shortages? Yet according to our disposition by birth, to speak about others’ defects is our “hobby.” Do you like to expose your own shortages? You do not; you like to cover them."

11 Years after the Pledge Letter
www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/ElevenYearsafterPledge.pdf

11 years later than that Ron Speaks again
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=4517




.

[aron]

The BBs, including Ron, were a continual subject of dismay for Brother Lee, as seen in A Word of Love where WL describes their condition,

Everyone and everything was a continual subject of dismay for Brother Lee. "Deformed" and "satanic" Christianity, the local churches, the BBs, the "Lord's recovery", and all the local church attendees; who could match his high expectations? Only the dear departed WN and a few sainted forebears like Miss Margaret E. Barber who could do no wrong.

http://mebarber.ccws.org/

The rest of us were continally reminded that our "condition" was not up to par. Thank God that Brother Lee was trying to help us by weighing us in the balance and finding us wanting. Thank God that he was willing to give everybody such honest and frank words because (apparently) he alone was able to do so from his exalted position as apostle of the age. Thank God that Witness Lee was raised up as our deputy Judge!

[aron]

The brothers were doing quite fine 11 years after their quarantine.

I myself am not sure who is doing "quite fine" and who is not. Perhaps the BBs think they can make such assessments. If so, they learned that from their mentor WL who as unquestioned leader of the sole legitimate move of God on the earth, the Lord's recovery, could speak 'ex cathedra' and judge everyone and everything else.

Simply put, if you were abjectly subservient to WL's latest ideas you were 'positive' and doing quite fine; if not then you were 'dark', and 'twisted' and 'negative' and so forth (but even your best attempts would leave WL 'disappointed' at some point!). The BBs as curators of the Museum of Lee Theology have continued to make such assessments. Apparently it is part of their job description as co-workers in service of the memory of WL.

The rest of us, I don't think we should be fooled into deciding who is quite fine and who is not. I myself am doing the best I can, and hoping on God's mercy. Jesus clearly and repeatedly told us that God will have mercy on those who show mercy. Therefore it seems prudent to try to be humble and not claim some status, nor to place such qualitative labels on others.

WL and the BBs have acted as if they were immune to such restrictions. I am not sure that it would be wise to copy them.

[Ohio]

Everyone and everything was a continual subject of dismay for Brother Lee. "Deformed" and "satanic" Christianity, the local churches, the BBs, the "Lord's recovery", and all the local church attendees; who could match his high expectations? Only the dear departed WN and a few sainted forebears like Miss Margaret E. Barber who could do no wrong.

http://mebarber.ccws.org/
Local Church legends surround the likes of Miss Barber. She could quickly identify all Christian speakers as being without life and without Spirit. Apparently, after all her censures were dispensed upon the church of God, she alone was perceived as having any life and Spirit.

Through Miss Barber, Watchman Nee obtained a foundation for his spiritual life. When the young Brother Nee would admire the eloquence, knowledge, ability, zeal, or natural power of persuasion shown by a Christian speaker, Miss Barber would point out that these things were neither of life nor of the Spirit. They could stir people up but could never minister life to people. She paid more attention to life than to work. She also warned the young brothers against doing a popular work, which would bring shipwreck to their spiritual life. By deliberately putting himself before Miss Barber’s instruction and strict rebukes, Brother Nee received much help.It is just incredulous to note that, though the Recovery leaders had ancient attitudes towards the role of women in Christian service, they have exalted Miss Barber as the mother of all Recoveries. She alone is credited with raising up Watchman Nee, the Seer of the Age. Though the scripture is silent on her methods, her practice of castigating the brothers ought to catch someone's attention. Legend has it that only Nee could survive her brutal treatments, while all others backslid in defeat, stumbled by her dress downs.

Where is the scriptural justification for using strict rebukes on all the saints? Where is the scriptural support for sisters to do this? Is not this practice of rebuking in the Recovery contrary to the pattern presented by the Apostle Paul as he cared for the churches? Is it not the least bit ironic that Philip Lee, the profligate son elevated to Witness Lee's most trusted co-worker status during the New Way era, would become infamous for berating all the elders in the churches?

When it comes to abuse and harsh rebukes of others, it's so easy even a caveman could do it. Are not these the weapons of the Gentiles? The Lord Jesus continually instructed the apostles about not using these techniques, so how could these become the long lost recovered practice enabling the Minister of the Age to get perfected, and subsequently develop a "perfecting plan" missed out on by two millennia of church history?

[Cal]

When it comes to abuse and harsh rebukes of others, it's so easy even a caveman could do it. Are not these the weapons of the Gentiles? The Lord Jesus continually instructed the apostles about not using these techniques, so how could these become the long lost recovered practice enabling the Minister of the Age to get perfected, and subsequently develop a "perfecting plan" missed out on by two millennia of church history?

The easiest thing to do as a leader is to chew a subordinate out. While it's sometimes true that challenging people with strong words is effective, that truth is all too often an excuse for venting frustration and shifting blame. Being harsh with others is often the most gutless thing one can do. Much harder as a leader is to show genuine love, concern and long-suffering, while accepting responsibility for failure. This is "taking the cross" at its best.

I coach youth football and through my time of observing coaches, both at this level and above, I would say the worst coaches are the most abusive ones. They yell at players to shift the blame of their own failings as coaches. While this method can produce short-term results, the ultimate result is burn-out. If the players do not truly believe the coach loves them, they will not give their all in the crunch. Fear of reprisal only takes a team so far. Fear alone always leads to despondency.

There is a reason Paul wrote to fathers, "Fathers, do not embitter your children to anger, or they will become discouraged." (Col. 3:21 cf. Eph. 6:4).

Eph 6:4 says "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather, bring them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from the Lord." This verse contrasts provoking children to anger with the genuine discipline and instruction that is of the Lord. This is a strong indication that majoring in harsh rebuking is not the Lord's method.

[Ohio]

The easiest thing to do as a leader is to chew a subordinate out. While it's sometimes true that challenging people with strong words is effective, that truth is all too often an excuse for venting frustration and shifting blame. Being harsh with others is often the most gutless thing one can do. Much harder as a leader is to show genuine love, concern and long-suffering, while accepting responsibility for failure. This is "taking the cross" at its best.

Whenever we have discipline, whether private or public, we must always ascertain whether the correction matches the behavior. Of course, this is the last thing a hot-tempered coach, parent, or church official wants to have happen. Abusive people always thrive in an environment void of accountability. Healthy leaders will always measure their correction to the crime, so to speak. What a shame that leaders like Lee and Chu could publicly shame so many brothers, yet never answer to any oversight.

Paul instructed Timothy (I Tim 5.17-21) to never receive a complaint without proper witnesses. This was to prevent any church leader from acting impulsively or with bias. If an accusation was warranted, then a sinning public elder needed open reproof so that all the congregation could properly learn and be admonished. Then he warned Timothy never to serve the saints with favoritism and partiality. Paul's wise instructions precluded so many works of the flesh which only serve to damage God's children. It's too bad the LC leaders never followed Paul's wisdom.

I personally have been publicly reproved by Titus Chu, who never even asked me for my side of the story. I have witnessed others who likewise were rebuked without a proper examination. One can only conclude, after years in the local churches, that nearly none of the public shaming was deserved, rather it only served to reinforce their false sense of authority. For LC leaders like Witness Lee and Titus Chu to convince themselves that this abuse is "spiritual perfecting" is little different than applauding those inquisition torturers for using justifiable means to "perfect" God's children.

This is why brothers like Ron Kangas can travel to South America and defame Steve Isitt as a "man of death." These patterns of abuse have been learned first hand from watching Witness Lee. Kangas is treating Isitt no different than Lee treated Ingalls, Mallon, or so many other brothers over the years. Whenever brothers in the Recovery speak their conscience and address serious concerns in an upright manner, their very act of speaking up makes them deserving of the harshest censures.

Years ago Isitt was branded a rebel and quarantined for writing an honest evaluation of Recovery history called "In the Wake of the New Way." I found that paper extremely helpful, not just for its content, but for the courageous spirit necessary to break party policy and report fairly and honestly. Obviously honest reporting has never been in LSM's best interests. They prefer to spread the fairy tale about the infallibility of their MOTA.

[aron]

One can only conclude, after years in the local churches, that nearly none of the public shaming was deserved, rather it only served to reinforce their false sense of authority. For LC leaders like Witness Lee and Titus Chu to convince themselves that this abuse is "spiritual perfecting" is little different than applauding those inquisition torturers for using justifiable means to "perfect" God's children.

I once personally witnessed WL "shaming" TC. In fact TC used those exact words: "I am ashamed to admit...", after WL queried him about events in the Midwest. And TC really acted out the part of "losing face" before WL, as if it were his job to take one for the team. Like there was some kind of social ritual involved, in order to keep the machine running smoothly.

Anyway, I had not meant to drag the conversation too far afield. I just felt that "the BBs were a continual source of dismay for WL" perhaps signalled a social and organizational context worth noting.

[alwayslearning]

Local Church legends surround the likes of Miss Barber. She could quickly identify all Christian speakers as being without life and without Spirit. Apparently, after all her censures were dispensed upon the church of God, she alone was perceived as having any life and Spirit...She alone is credited with raising up Watchman Nee, the Seer of the Age. Though the scripture is silent on her methods, her practice of castigating the brothers ought to catch someone's attention. Legend has it that only Nee could survive her brutal treatments, while all others backslid in defeat, stumbled by her dress downs.

Anything about M.E. Barber or LC system history that has it's source in Witness Lee/LSM I take with a grain of salt. Who said she behaved this way? Witness Lee. What did Lee have to gain by using this legend - a license to be abusive toward others. If it was good enough for Watchman Nee it's good enough for you too brother so just learn to "take the cross".

Maybe through circumstances, training and/or personality she did develop certain mannerisms that came across as being stern. But she was a British lady in the early part of the 20th century - when ladies starting when they were young girls were conscientiously taught to be "lady-like" i.e. polite and proper in the company of others. So I find the idea of her berating brothers to be quite a stretch - yet a useful fiction for the likes of Witness Lee, Titus Chu, etc.

[Ohio]

I once personally witnessed WL "shaming" TC. In fact TC used those exact words: "I am ashamed to admit...", after WL queried him about events in the Midwest. And TC really acted out the part of "losing face" before WL, as if it were his job to take one for the team. Like there was some kind of social ritual involved, in order to keep the machine running smoothly.

Exactly.

TC was only displaying the response he himself expected to receive when shaming those brothers "under" him. There was a hierarchy of authority which was top-down, and a proper flow of praise which was bottom-up. Any violation was deemed to be insubordination, especially by those like TC who were in the know.

I heard about another training or conference in Anaheim where the Cleveland attendees gave a glorious test when called upon to review the message. It totally upstaged all the SoCal churches which were, of course, directly under WL's ministry and supervision. Obviously WL was slighted by the performance of the Ohio saints. What TC did next was initially startling, but entirely predictable once one understands the rules of engagement. TC went to his lieutenant, Louis Cheng, who had been placed in charge of testing preparation, and reemed him up one side and down the other. Thus the rule of order was established. Rebuking must flow downhill, and glory must go uphill.

Once this principle is understood, and regularly practiced, life in the Recovery was very peaceful. Obviously, all the storms and rebellions in the Recovery resulted from brothers refusing to follow these simple rules.

[alwayslearning]

This is why brothers like Ron Kangas can travel to South America and defame Steve Isitt as a "man of death." These patterns of abuse have been learned first hand from watching Witness Lee. Kangas is treating Isitt no different than Lee treated Ingalls, Mallon, or so many other brothers over the years. Whenever brothers in the Recovery speak their conscience and address serious concerns in an upright manner, their very act of speaking up makes them deserving of the harshest censures.

This kind of behavior really displays the corruption of the upper echelon in the LC system. Brothers like Mallon and Ingalls are virulently besmirched and yet Philip Lee continues on as Witness Lee's top coworker and is ultimately apologized to by the new elders in Anaheim for his excommunication.

Why was this allowed to go on? Because it was Witness Lee's son. If it was my son or your son he would have been fired from LSM and removed from the fellowship of the church until repentant. But Witness Lee's son gets an exemption.

Approximately 10 years prior to these events of the late 1980s his son was involved in similar immoral behavior. The eyewitness who reported it was excommunicated from the church and Philip Lee continued on as the LSM GM. Why? Because he's Witness Lee's son.

[aron]

Anything about M.E. Barber or LC system history that has it's source in Witness Lee/LSM I take with a grain of salt. Who said she behaved this way? Witness Lee. What did Lee have to gain by using this legend - a license to be abusive toward others. If it was good enough for Watchman Nee it's good enough for you too brother so just learn to "take the cross".

I wanted to comment because alwayslearning has highlighted the problem of "legend" and "myth" in the histories of the Lord's recovery. We heard lots of self-serving, abbreviated versions. WL would tell them over and over in meetings and trainings. Indeed there was probably some truth.

But as we have seen in WL's book "The fermentation of the present rebellion", and other attempts to convey what really happened, we cannot simply say that something occurred as WL stated. If we could not trust his accounts of events in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s, how much less the events in China in the 1920s?

Christianity is in one aspect an emergence of thinking from the "myths" of Gods and primordial mists. What we believe, largely, is based on observable fact, not legend. There was a city named Jerusalem, with a race called the Jews. They had been at one time a great kingdom (David, Solomon, etc) with a great temple and "palaces of ivory" (Psa 45:8). The kingdom had fallen and became under the control of the Roman empire. Even atheists will admit that these are facts.

Etc. We know the story about Jesus. My point is that Christians believe this as independently observable fact, not myth. There really was a Jerusalem, there was the promise of a coming king, the "Son of Man" and the "Son of David" who would restore the former glory, and we Christians believe that there was a man named Jesus. We believe that He conquered sin, death, the devil and Hades. He is the true king.

Our history as Christians has thousands of years of observable and verifiable facts. Even the raising from the dead of Jesus Christ -- it is a fact that the disciples claimed to have seen Him and it is a fact that we the Christian polity believe their claims.

Now, enter WL. He arrived in the U.S. with many stories, many of which are now at least suspect as self-serving fictions. Given his account with the facts of local church history in the last few decades, we would do well to suspect anything he said unless it is independently verified by untampered witnesses.

Maybe through circumstances, training and/or personality she did develop certain mannerisms that came across as being stern. But she was a British lady in the early part of the 20th century - when ladies starting when they were young girls were conscientiously taught to be "lady-like" i.e. polite and proper in the company of others. So I find the idea of her berating brothers to be quite a stretch - yet a useful fiction for the likes of Witness Lee, Titus Chu, etc.

Notice how alwayslearning prefaces his comments with "maybe"; that is what we should do when we don't have the facts. We can speculate, ponder, and examine, as long as we don't pretend, a la WL, that what we are saying/writing is "the truth". Because we don't know the truth, often. And we should not just think that because WL said or wrote something that it was so.

The apostle Peter clearly told us in his epistle "not to lord it over each other." Now, one can be strict and disciplined with oneself, and be an example in this way to others. Perhaps MEB was very "polite and proper" in the 19th century British way, and the young foppish Chinese lads wandered off in search of something more relaxing, except the young WN who realized that discipline was necessary. Wesley had learned this hundreds of years before, and anyone who tries to follow Christ should at some point learn that being a "disciple" involves self-control, or "discipline", and might do well to imitate, or follow, someone who displays self-control. But that is entirely different from public shaming and lording it over one another, and the fiction of "strict" MEB may have been created as a cover for the latter behavior.

I don't know. I am just thinking aloud here. What I do remember is that WL was "continually disappointed" in pretty much everyone and everything, up to and even including his cheerleaders the BBs, but MEB and WN could do no wrong. That looks like legend to me.

[aron]

We know the story about Jesus. My point is that Christians believe this as independently observable fact, not myth. There really was a Jerusalem, there was the promise of a coming king, the "Son of Man" and the "Son of David" who would restore the former glory, and we Christians believe that there was a man named Jesus. We believe that He conquered sin, death, the devil and Hades. He is the true king.

Our history as Christians has thousands of years of observable and verifiable facts. Even the raising from the dead of Jesus Christ -- it is a fact that the disciples claimed to have seen Him and it is a fact that we the Christian polity believe their claims.

One further point. It is noteworthy, I think, that there are 4 different and largely independent "gospel" accounts: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is important that there are multiple witnesses. This was according to God's plan. It is important for us that there are the historical accounts in Acts, that Paul references them in his epistles, that Peter's epistle notes Paul's ministry and Paul's writings acknowledge his interactions with James, Peter, and so forth. We have not myth but separate accounts of history.

And this continued after the canon of the Bible was finished. There are voluminous writings from the first centuries, not only Christian but also Jewish and Roman historians and so forth. All of these textual witnesses independently corroborate and strengthen the gospel story.

As I have mentioned, it seems that a lot was ignored and even actively suppressed in the 4th through 10th centuries by "church authorities" who had their own agenda. When the RCC split from the Greek Orthodox Church, Luther & Calvin's "recovery" of truth in the 16th century didn't have access to a lot of post-canonical commentaries. They were left to their own logic and the text at hand; they'd look at scripture and say, "What does this mean to me, a reasonable believing person?", and the group consensus became "Calvinistic doctrine" and "Puritanism" and so forth.

Luther's "justification by faith" is arguably an improvement on the traditions and authorities of the RCC, but we should not say, "Okay, now we have fully recovered the truth". That is the WL fiction we were sold: WN supposedly had read all the old books and recovered their truths; now just read (LSM edition) WN and WL books and get the "completed NT revelation", the "high peak truths" etc.

Nonsense. That is like saying that since "Read with Dick and Jane" contains all the letters of the English alphabet and has been used for decades in the U.S. primary school system that now we have everything an have no need for any further reading materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dick_and_Jane.jpg

Fun with Dick and Jane may be fun in first grade, but don't kid yourself and pretend it is post-graduate study. Shouting it repeatedly may be even more fun than reading it, but it still doesn't "constitute" anything but a loud first grader. And actively discouraging and suppressing people who want to go beyond that makes you a stumbling to others. Jesus said, "Woe to you; you neither enter in nor do you permit others to enter."

[TLFisher]

Approximately 10 years prior to these events of the late 1980s his son was involved in similar immoral behavior. The eyewitness who reported it was excommunicated from the church and Philip Lee continued on as the LSM GM. Why? Because he's Witness Lee's son.

I think there's a post somewhere more detailed about this event, but I am under the opinion was the so-called sister's rebellion and Max becoming personna non grata was directly related to Max confronting Phillip (1977?). The eyewitness I understand took the steps and brought it to the elder's attention. How was he excommunicated? And by whom?

[aron]

... and Max becoming personna non grata was directly related to Max confronting Phillip (1977?). The eyewitness I understand took the steps and brought it to the elder's attention. How was he excommunicated? And by whom?

I thought the eyewitnesses were relocated (witness protection program?) and the elder was effectively told to leave. When the elder came to the church meeting, the elder's seat next to WL had been filled by someone else.

[aron]

And this continued after the canon of the Bible was finished. There are voluminous writings from the first centuries, not only Christian but also Jewish and Roman historians and so forth. All of these textual witnesses independently corroborate and strengthen the gospel story.

After the canon of the Bible was completed the discussion continued. This non-canonical and extra-canonical discussion didn't supplement the scripture, so much as further illuminate it.

It is important to say here what we are doing, and what we are not doing. We are not adding to the scripture. Scripture is scripture and commentary is commentary. But to tackle the scripture on your own without the guidance of those who were there before you is to assume that they were wasting their time and have nothing to add to the discussion. Smacks of arrogance to me. As RK might say, "What have they accomplished? Absolutely nothing".

Also, we are not taking anything away from God's word. WL's dismissal of large sections of scripture as "natural" and "fallen" is arguably the equivalent of taking away the words of God. If you don't get something in the Bible, fine. If it doesn't speak much to you, fine. But does that mean it is not the inspired word of God but rather the natural word of fallen man? I really don't think I want to go there either.

WL seemed to circumvent his lack of scholarship by stressing "life". Like if he wrote it it was life, but if someone else said it then it was maybe just "dead knowledge". So for scriptural understanding you basically ended up with "WL said it; therefore it's true." And if WL didn't say it, then nobody said it. Why? Because that's what WL said: WN had read everything, and had told WL everything useful, so why bother read anything else?

[alwayslearning]

I think there's a post somewhere more detailed about this event, but I am under the opinion was the so-called sister's rebellion and Max becoming personna non grata was directly related to Max confronting Phillip (1977?). The eyewitness I understand took the steps and brought it to the elder's attention. How was he excommunicated? And by whom?

He was excommunicated by the church per Witness Lee's heavy-handed influence to protect the imagine of the/his ministry.

There were several contributing factors to Max Rapoport getting the ax:

1. The young Galileans "flow" created a lot of havoc as churches throughout the country were gutted of their young people who moved to OC. This was a plan devised by Witness Lee and implemented by Rapoport as his front man. Thus Rapoport was a convenient scapegoat offered up by Lee to appease elders and coworkers who were upset by this "flow".

2. Sandy Rapoport was publicly accused of being in a "sister's rebellion" while her husband was out of town.

3. Prior to and regardless of the young Galilean thing some coworkers and elders were unhappy with Rapoport suddenly becoming Lee's "right hand man" so to speak. They considered him nothing but an uncouth upstart who did not deserve such a position.

4. The final straw was Rapoport confronting Philip Lee about his immoral behavior. That was an absolute no-no!

[alwayslearning]

I thought the eyewitnesses were relocated (witness protection program?) and the elder was effectively told to leave. When the elder came to the church meeting, the elder's seat next to WL had been filled by someone else.

Perhaps you are thinking about another event. In the instance I am referring to the eyewitness was excommunicated and the other party involved in the immoral behavior was relocated.

[alwayslearning]

They were showing partiality.

2 Chronicles 19:7
"Now then let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe.”

Indeed! And here is the thing about having a MOTA in a system with no accountability. He can do and say whatever he wants and everyone better fall in line or else.

BTW, when coworkers and elders went to him about their legit concerns regarding what was going on in the late 1980s he basically told them it was none of their business. "My way or the highway" was the motto of Witness Lee regardless of all the "spiritual" language and pretense at humility he used to hide this reality.

[Indiana]

The whole death v. life thing is another handy tool of deception used by Witness Lee and now LSM employees to divert attention away from their own behavior and history. "Pay attention to life not right and wrong" etc are catch-all phrases designed to stop those with legit concerns in their tracks. It gives those doing wrong or covering up wrong a license to do whatever they want without recourse.

Discussing "the facts of the case" requires a certain amount of objectivity. The subtlety of the death v. life tool of deception is switching everything into the realm of subjectivity with a nary a concern for the facts.

"How do you feel when you read or talk about what took place in the LC system back in the late 1980s-early 1990s? "

"I feel sick to my stomach."

"Ah ah! That is because you are eating of the wrong tree. You are touching death brother. You should pay attention to life. Get out of your mind and turn to your spirit where life is..."

Very subtle! But the truth is:

1. I legitimately feel sick to my stomach based on the facts regarding corruption, lying, deception, mistreatment of others, machinations, hypocrisy, politics, manipulation, immaturity, etc. in the upper echelons of the LC system.

2. This is the way I should feel.

3. What I feel really is life.

The Audio and a word from Ron
www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=50798

RON KANGAS: "The temptation is to ask, who is right and who is wrong. Or you may try to find out for yourself what is right and what is wrong. “Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things. Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that?”

"As soon as you think this way, you yourself are finished. Okay? Because you are on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You apply that tree to the situation. So some may decide that this person is right. Others will say that person is wrong. That will lead to argument, dissension, division, and confusion. Who has all the information?

"There is a statement made about Brother Lee; you can’t ask Brother Lee about it. If you try to discern this way, you will be brought into death. This is serious. You read through this thing, you listen to this thing, you exercise your mind, you try to discern what is right, what is wrong, and all the while you are eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and you will be the first one to be killed. And, then if you speak about this, you will spread death.

"But there is another way to discern. This is the way of God." RK


The Audio and a word from Ron
www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=50798

[Indiana]

Indeed! And here is the thing about having a MOTA in a system with no accountability. He can do and say whatever he wants and everyone better fall in line or else.

BTW, when coworkers and elders went to him about their legit concerns regarding what was going on in the late 1980s he basically told them it was none of their business. "My way or the highway" was the motto of Witness Lee regardless of all the "spiritual" language and pretense at humility he used to hide this reality.

Appendix 1

Brother Lee Not Open to Opinion or Fellowship from the Brothers
One Accord for the Lord’s New Move
Elders Training, Book 7


In the beginning of the era of the new way, Brother Lee made it clear who was the leader among the churches in the recovery. There was to be "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet" for an army of followers to follow him as its unique leader.

He gave the following analogy: "The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose the right to say anything."

He continued, "you may be a member of a local church and yet have nothing to do with the ministry to fight the battle for the Lord's interest on the earth. All of you are the elders, the co-workers, and the apprentice elders, the leading ones, in the recovery. I am speaking to you all as the soldiers in the recovery, not to the citizens. I am speaking to the soldiers of the army. Are you going to remain in the army? You have to realize what the army is and what the army would do. The army has no capacity to take your opinion…” (pp. 80-81, ET 7)

1. Atlanta Elders Conference
John Ingalls relates an elders’ meeting in which Brother Lee told the brothers how he felt about them and their ability to fellowship with him. He essentially informed them that they were not qualified to raise questions with him or to criticize anything he did.

John Ingalls

"In September Brother Lee had a conference in Atlanta with two elders’ meetings, one on Friday, September 16th, (1988) and the other on the Lord’s Day, September 18th. The second meeting was exceptional with brothers from all over the country attending. I would like to briefly describe it, noting a few significant things that were said, (I myself was not present but I received reports from a number of brothers concerning it.)

"Brother Lee strongly vindicated the way he had taken against all criticisms. He drew a line; any who would not take this way, he said, are “dropouts”, and the Lord will have no mercy. Addressing the brothers, he said that none of them understood what he was doing. None knew what he was doing in Taipei; hence there was no one that he could fellowship with. When I went to Taipei, he said, “I did not fellowship with one person concerning what I was going to do.” He continued: “None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do. You criticize my young trainers in Taipei, telling me their mistakes, but I was doing everything; what they did was to carry out my burden.

"Don Rutledge, an elder in Dallas before moving to North Carolina, told me, “That meeting was the most devastating and discouraging experience of all my time in the church.” What particularly bothered him was Brother Lee’s attitude toward the brothers. The atmosphere, he said, was heavy, oppressive, and abusive. (Reports came to my ears from a number of brothers who attended that meeting; all indicated something similar.) Brother Lee had wanted to have a time of fellowship `with Don immediately following the session, but Don was so troubled and depressed that he told Brother Lee he had to go home. As he walked out the door, Titus Chu came up and said to Don, "I’m afraid this will make our situation worse. I hope not”.

2. Elders From Raleigh Visit Brother Lee
Brother Lee was not interested in the fellowship offered to him from brothers in the church in Raleigh, who came to him seeking his fellowship over the desperate concerns in their locality.

John Ingalls

"In the summer of 1988 Tom Cesar of the church in Raleigh came to Anaheim to discuss with Brother Lee the points of a seventy-one-page compendium entitled Concerns with our Practice Regarding Truth and Life, which had been mailed to him earlier. The brothers in Raleigh had labored for many hours over this work in the expectation that Brother Lee would read it, be apprised of their concerns, realize the gravity of the situation, and hopefully make some major changes in the course we were taking. Under each point they had put together zeroxed copies of pages with quotes from Watchman Nee and Brother Lee’s earlier printed ministry together with quotes from his recent ministry to prove that there had been significant changes contradicting Brother Lee’s own teaching. While Tom was in Anaheim that summer I saw him, and learning that he had presented Brother Lee with this writing I commented, "I doubt that Brother Lee will read it. He doesn’t like to read things of that nature that raise questions concerning his work or ministry.”

"The Raleigh brothers…agreed to come to Anaheim the week after the training to meet with Brother Lee. He said he would answer their questions. They arrived on Saturday, January 7, and met with Brother Lee that night. They met also on the Lord’s Day morning, afternoon, and evening, and again on Monday morning – a total of approximately ten hours. The first evening Brother Lee did most of the speaking, giving them a history of the "conspiracy and rebellion." However, the brothers were able to say a few things. Tom pointed out how the church life was going down, and they were looking for answers. He said they had no problem with the matters of the new way, but how it was carried out was a problem. They were not concerned for right and wrong, but for God’s righteousness. They read some verses to him and quoted from the Normal Christian Church Life by W. Nee, but Brother Lee did not want to hear it. He said that he knew what Watchman Nee meant in that book, and what Watchman Nee meant then does not apply to today’s situation. He said, moreover, that there is no basic problem among us, but only a storm in Germany and Anaheim. John So, he said, exercises a strong control over Stuttgart, and just like Bill Freeman (a former elder of the church in Seattle) he is trying to set up another ministry. One of the Raleigh brothers then asked how you can identify another ministry. Brother Lee replied that it is very difficult. The brothers said that Brother Lee was very defensive at times and was like a ball bouncing from one matter to another. Tom Cesar asked, "Why can’t brothers come together to discuss their concerns without being considered to be conspiring?” But Brother Lee, they said, had no ear to hear them. It was as if they were talking to the wall. He didn’t want to clear up their points; he hadn’t even read the outline they had presented to him the previous summer. He would not answer their questions directly. They were impressed that he never asked how the saints in the church in Raleigh were doing, as if he was not concerned for them. The brothers were very disappointed (p. 140).

3. LSM Sister’s Report

As a sister working in the office of the Living Stream Ministry, a former elder’s wife had day-to-day exposure to the interferences that were being encountered by dear saints - elders, co-workers, and churches - in places around the recovery both far and near. She had been troubled to the extent of writing to Brother Lee an eleven-page letter expressing her concerns of the ill-treatment of the saints in different places at the hands of the LSM. She and her husband, an elder in Southern California, went to Brother Lee to read him the letter, and as she began to read Brother Lee cut her off soon after she started, and he took over and dominated the time, sharing his own burden about “the Lord’s move.” She was very discouraged, but Brother Lee granted her another visit to him with her husband at her husband’s request, and again as she began to read, Brother Lee stopped her, before she could get through half a page. He then dominated the remainder of the time with his own burden concerning “the Lord’s move” on the earth, not showing interest in her fellowship.

Brother Lee could not listen to what the husband considered a mild part of the letter compared to the more serious matters the letter addressed. His wife, thoroughly despondent over her experience, never tried again and never recovered from her experience and disillusionment with the church and the recovery. She has never met again with any group of believers.

She and her husband had experienced the same attitude in Brother Lee that was encountered by John So, Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, the Raleigh brothers, and many more. Brother Lee was not interested in the interferences - they were to him just “misunderstandings” of the “help” the LSM was trying to render.

4. Churches in Southern CA

In the late eighties, during “the Lord’s new move”, the elders pondered many things in their hearts and were not short of desire and need to open up and talk about what was on their heart for their localities and for the recovery. In a surprising elders’ meeting in 1988 when they did open up to one another and share in an honest way about what they felt, Brother Lee was unable to truly hear them or understand the problems they faced in their localities, as morale in locality after locality declined. A description of that elders’ meeting follows:

John Ingalls –

"Dick Taylor, an elder in Long Beach, started [the sharing] with a lively, full-of enjoyment kind of testimony, such as Dick is well-known for, thanking the Lord for the door-knocking and the Gospel preaching in Long Beach, but ending with an honest word about the depression and the discouragement among some of the saints. This was unusual for Dick but he was telling it like it was. Other brothers followed who also spoke very honestly about dissensions concerning the new way and discouragement among the saints in their localities, for which they were very concerned. In some places divisions had arisen over the new way. John Smith, an elder in San Diego, ended the time of sharing with an honest account of his concerns for the saints in his church, mentioning how he feared that with the overemphasis on methods, numbers, and increase, the saints would become activity-centered instead of Christ-centered.

"What was extraordinary was the elders speaking up in such an honest and forthright way, knowing that such reports were not what Brother Lee liked or wanted to hear. We were not accustomed to doing this due partly to a sense of intimidation. To my knowledge this was the first time that had been done. This was encouraging. But Brother Lee was visibly bothered, and later reacted strongly to the brothers’ speaking, saying of one brother’s sharing (John Smith’s) that it was like pouring iced water on him.

As a result of Brother Lee's not being open to the brothers and their fellowship, the Lord had no way to care for the churches in a practical way through Witness Lee to maintain the oneness of the Body.

As the Raleigh brothers said, they had no problem with the matters of the new way, but how it was carried out was a problem. They were not concerned for right and wrong, but for God’s righteousness. This word could have been echoed by many brothers at that time, who found that “fellowship” with Brother Lee was a one-sided matter of complying with him and his wishes, regardless of the circumstances and objections in their spirit. (all excerpts are from Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery)

Steve Isitt

[aron]

Re: Brother Lee Not Open for Fellowship



John Ingalls: "Brother Lee strongly vindicated the way he had taken against all criticisms. He drew a line; any who would not take this way, he said, are “dropouts”, and the Lord will have no mercy... 'you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do.'

"Don Rutledge, an elder in Dallas before moving to North Carolina, told me, 'That meeting was the most devastating and discouraging experience of all my time in the church.' What particularly bothered him was Brother Lee’s attitude toward the brothers. The atmosphere, he said, was heavy, oppressive, and abusive."

The Bible is about Jesus. WL's focus, however, was on a particular aspect of the Bible, the ministry of the apostle Paul. Of course, Paul wrote that he was a slave of Jesus Christ, so WL as "today's Paul" would say he also was a slave of Jesus Christ. But look at what happens with "WL as the continuation of Paul's ministry": quotes like the one above from JI. WL was accountable to no one, and received a "blending spirit" of mutuality from no one.

So, how did WL get to be "today's Paul"? My understanding is that WN looked around at the Chinese Christian scene, circa 1920, and saw "British/Chinese" and "American/Chinese" churches, and realized that the Brethren model offered him an opportunity to create indigenous, locally based, "Chinese" churches. This was successful, and eventually it led one of his successors (WL) to expand abroad. So we end up with the irony of "Chinese/American" churches in the U.S.; they simply are extensions of a church which itself had been raised up as an Asian rejection of external European & American influence.

But WL didn't see it that way: he felt that he was simply "today's Paul". So everything he did was God's move on the earth today, and anyone who didn't get with the program was an "opposer of God."

Now I return to my original point: there were actually a number of textual witnesses of Jesus Christ, and by obsessively focusing on one aspect of one witness as the sole vehicle for God's move on earth we see the result: an unbalanced and non-Christian ministry, indicated above.

The apostle John wrote this: "if all the things which Jesus did were to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain all the books therein". In other words, there is a lot to say about Jesus. So why disparage the testimonies? Why reject Peter, James, Jude, Job, and the Psalms? Because they don't support the narrow, Paul-centric "God's New Testament economy" template that was supposedly the culmination of the present recovered truth. And eventually you get the discouragement felt by Ingalls, Rutledge, and so many others when they realized that the "glorious church life" was merely a cover for something neither about nor according to Jesus Christ.

Additionally, WL probably turned his focus from "life" to "truth" because at some point he realized that his explications of "life" couldn't hold the Lord's recovery together. But neither could his revealed "truth", because it was based on a shallow and truncated reading of the scripture. The truth is a person, Jesus Christ, revealed to us in the very pages of the scripture, and in more depth and detail than we might realize. All scripture is God-breathed, not just some of it. WL's ministry presented a narrow and unbalanced reading from just a few sources, and everything else got shoehorned to fit the "revelation", or else was ignored or rejected.

Given all of that, should any of the statements like quoted above, or found in the pages of TFOTPR, or even more recent speakings, be a surprise? These statements of WL and the BBs are not about Jesus Christ, but about the continued viability of a ministry which at its core has always been about something else.

[aron]

WL's ministry presented a narrow and unbalanced reading from limited sources, and everything else got shoehorned to fit the "revelation", or was ignored or rejected.

Peter said that David was a prophet (Acts 2:30) and foreknew of the coming Christ. WL disagreed, saying that David was speaking according to his natural, soulish concepts. David prophesied of a persecuted righteous man, saved by God. WL said that no one is righteous, and that David actually saved himself.

There is nothing to support this. The apostle John didn't support it, nor did Paul. Only WL's "economy of God" stands behind this kind of analysis. And who in the Lord's recovery could object to this kind of teaching, and "restrain the madness of the prophet"? Everyone was intimidated into silence. Is it any wonder that WL eventually went off the rails, and dragged so many with him?

LSM can get as many theologians as they want to verify WL's orthodoxy. That doesn't remove the unbalanced and non-Christian teachings and behaviors.

[Ohio]

Additionally, WL probably turned his focus from "life" to "truth" because at some point he realized that his explications of "life" couldn't hold the Lord's recovery together. But neither could his revealed "truth", because it was based on a shallow and truncated reading of the scripture.

WL turned his focus from "life" to "truth" in the aftermath of the so-called "Max" rebellion. Lee scolded the entire Recovery for "letting" Max so easily fool us. Never once did Lee tell the churches that he himself had sent Max out to the churches with a certain charge. Lee acted like he had no idea what Max was doing, thus it was all the church's fault for not knowing the "truth" and being easily fooled because we only knew "life."

[aron]

WL turned his focus from "life" to "truth" in the aftermath of the so-called "Max" rebellion. ... he acted like ... it was all the church's fault for not knowing the "truth" and being easily fooled because we only knew "life."

This reminds me of a dream, once: I was interviewing a convicted bank robber in jail, going over his criminal past and how he got there. He kept interjecting with what he had done wrong, to end up behind bars. He would say, "I should have gotten a different wheelman. Joey was a terrible driver." Or, "We needed a Pontiac. That Ford was too slow." Or he'd say, "We should have gone down that little side street. Instead, we went down Main street and the cops were waiting for us there."

At some point I interrupted: "Your problem, sir, was not which escape route you took after you robbed a bank, or which vehicle you drove. Your problem was that you robbed a bank."

WL's and the BB's continued attempts to explain the source of the unrelieved turmoil in the local church system (too much stress on "life" at the expense of "truth", or one of Lee's lieutenants had "ambition") remind me of this.

[aron]

Re: Brother Lee Not Open for Fellowship

...why disparage the testimonies? Why reject Peter, James, Jude, Job, and the Psalms? Because they don't support the narrow, Paul-centric "God's New Testament economy" template that was supposedly the culmination of the present recovered truth. And eventually you get the discouragement felt by Ingalls, Rutledge, and so many others...

John had quoted Psalm 69 in the second chapter of his gospel: "Zeal of Thy (the Father's) house has eaten Me (Jesus) up." The coming Messiah is revealed in the Psalms, according to the NT revelation. A true and righteous man, once briefly shadowed in the Psalmist but eventually fully expressed in the incarnated Son of God.

Now, do you suppose that only that one verse in question references the coming Christ? That the rest of the chapter are the words of a vain, soulish man who is trying to be good? And that the same rule applies in John 19:36 with reference to Psalm 34? And so on and so on?

Do you suppose that the noble Berean Jews in Acts 17, when examining the scriptures, only found those cited verses, and concluded that the rest were fallen concepts? Why not? They had the New Testament ministry of Paul right in front of them, right? Why not conclude, a la Lee, that the bulk of the text in question was merely natural, not revelatory of Christ?

Pity for them that they only had Paul and not the "rich ministry of Witness Lee". They wouldn't have wasted their time "eagerly examining the scriptures every day" because Lee would have saved them from all of that.

What we see here is a feedback loop. The leadership of Lee was unquestionable. John Ingalls testimony, and others' makes this clear. So Lee could interpret the scriptures any way he saw fit, and nobody could raise a hand and say, "Excuse me, sir, it says here..." If you did that you were called "rebellious" and "negative" and when you came to the next meeting you'd find, like Ingalls, that your seat had been filled by someone more "positive".

And, Lee's teachings showed Paul as the culmination of all ministry (never mind that once Paul had departed, we could still see John, and better yet, functioning as a prophet [Rev 1:3, 22:18]). All Lee had to do was "imitate Paul" and voila, he had the ministry of the age.

So Lee controlled the scriptural understanding, and the scriptural understanding (per Lee) said that to maintain good order in the church he must be the lonely guy at the top, and accountable only to God. It's tough at the top, but I guess someone has to do it. Right?

[Ohio]

The unrelieved turmoil in the local church system and both WL's and the BB's continued attempts to identify the source of the trouble (i.e. too much stress on "life" at the expense of "truth", or "someone had ambition") reminds me of this.

If we examine the history of Witness Lee's system, we find that he regularly employed scapegoats to maintain his own pristine image inside the Recovery. The scapegoat of Israel (Lev. 16.8) was a goat selected by lot and sent outside the camp into the wilderness to Azazel never to be seen again. That scapegoat carried away the sins of the people, thus purifying the congregation.

Following every chaotic "storm" in the Recovery, also known as "rebellions," Witness Lee would immediately select the best "goat," though obviously it was not randomly chosen. All the sins of Lee and LSM, along with the supposed failures of the saints, were transferred to this selected scapegoat, who was once for all banished from the Recovery via an orchestrated "dog and pony show" called a quarantine.

During the interim between storms, Lee and LSM would rehearse in their trainings how all the blame was the scapegoat's, and that now the Recovery was purified from such awful sins as ambition and opinion. Thus we would all proclaim how living and timely each training was, certain that every failure of old was now replicated and exposed among us, proving how much we alone were on the Lord's heart.

[aron]

If we examine the history of Witness Lee's system, we find that he regularly employed scapegoats to maintain his own pristine image inside the Recovery. ...Following every chaotic "storm" in the Recovery, also known as "rebellions," Witness Lee would immediately select the best "goat," ... All the sins of Lee and LSM, along with the supposed failures of the saints, were transferred to this selected scapegoat, who was once for all banished ...

Reminds me of the priest who said, "It is necessary for one person to die that the nation might be saved"; little did he know how true his words were. Likewise we see the "church authorities" re-enacting the crucifixion periodically to purge the flock, and to "maintain good order". But they want to play the part of the murderers, not the victim.

Similarly, we hear "Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ." (Eph. 5) But that "being subject" is to apply to everyone except the "authority", here WL or his deputy. The authority is subject to no one. Thus the speech of WL, as relayed by JI, makes perfect sense. I mean, what else could the "minister of the age" say?

[TLFisher]

During the interim between storms, Lee and LSM would rehearse in their trainings how all the blame was the scapegoat's, and that now the Recovery was purified from such awful sins as ambition and opinion.

Not only, but there would be subtle reinforcement in at least one Holy Word for Morning Revival I had seen.

[Ohio]

Not only, but there would be subtle reinforcement in at least one Holy Word for Morning Revival I had seen.

For years I heard about scapegoat Max, then we moved on to the Ingalls scapegoat. It's so predictable what they are saying now.

[TLFisher]

"There is a statement made about Brother Lee; you can’t ask Brother Lee about it. If you try to discern this way, you will be brought into death. This is serious. You read through this thing, you listen to this thing, you exercise your mind, you try to discern what is right, what is wrong, and all the while you are eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and you will be the first one to be killed." RK

From post #45,

Amoral is: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

[aron]

They read some verses to him and quoted from the Normal Christian Church Life by W. Nee, but Brother Lee did not want to hear it. He said that he knew what Watchman Nee meant in that book, and what Watchman Nee meant then does not apply to today’s situation.

The fact that Brother Lee didn't receive any fellowship indicates what spirit was operating. This "autonomous spirit" had been submerged, suppressed, when Don Rutledge first met him fifteen years earlier. Then Brother Lee had been expressing a meek and humble spirit. Eventually the "true colors" emerged and you could clearly see a spirit that wanted to dominate the assembly of the saints.

Now, am I a better man than WL? No. Or BP or RK? I doubt it. But any spirit that wants to dominate the assembly should be identified as not of Christ, and instantly and utterly rejected. If you subject yourself to it your journey will be quite distorted by the experience, I can assure you.

Occasionally I access this website, Local Church Discussions, via Google. So when I am typing in "localchur" the Google website helpfully points me to possibilities. One of which is "localchurches.com" Their heading reads: "The local church loves Jesus Christ and have received help through His servants, especially Watchman Nee and Witness Lee."


My question is simple: Who put the name of Witness Lee, or Watchman Nee, up next to Jesus Christ? Did God do that, or man?

It is clearly revealed in the scripture that God will judge all, and will indeed put some up higher and some down lower. This is repeated in various ways throughout the scripture, both in OT type, in Gospel parable and teaching, in epistle, in John's revelation. But to place ones' name, work, and person next to Jesus Christ in this age, in an attempt to anticipate the Judge's work, is folly. Talk about "natural", and "fallen"!

[Ohio]

My question is simple: Who put the name of Witness Lee, or Watchman Nee, up next to Jesus Christ? Did God do that, or man?

It is clearly revealed in the scripture that God will judge all, and will indeed put some up higher and some down lower. This is repeated in various ways throughout the scripture, both in OT type, in Gospel parable and teaching, in epistle, in John's revelation. But to place ones' name, work, and person next to Jesus Christ in this age, in an attempt to anticipate the Judge's work, is folly. Talk about "natural", and "fallen"!

My, have they come full circle.

In the early days, we focused on "Christ, only Christ." We regularly discussed how degraded was the whole of Christianity for plastering the pastor's name on the church signboard. Now we see Lee's name on every website.

So degraded!

[aron]

In the early days, we focused on "Christ, only Christ." We regularly discussed how degraded was the whole of Christianity for plastering the pastor's name on the church signboard.

In early days, as I remember -- I may have not been paying close attention -- the "ground", i.e. the reason for our corporate existence, gathering, and function, was Jesus Christ. We were there for the testimony of Jesus Christ in that city. As you say, "Only Christ." Period.

Now, it seems that our testimony in that city is based on Jesus Christ, as helpfully revealed to us by the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, as carefully tended by the Blendeds Publishing House in Anaheim, CA. Got that? And if you tell me that WN/WL as presented by the Blendeds is equivalent to "Christ", I reply that anyone who makes that kind of assertion on this side of the Judgment Seat has rocks in their head. Is THAT what our oneness is based on? Our faith? Our testimony?

You can complain about "anonymous internet posters" all you want, but if you silence every voice other than the ministry of WL as tended by his curators in Anaheim, someone will anonymously take to the internet and say "Wrong!" You can silence me, and shut down this website, and the stones themselves will cry out: "Wrong!" And you may say, "We don't care for right and wrong" but see how long that statement stands at the Judgment Seat. It will be vaporized in an instant.

[OBW]

Sorry I don't come around often enough to respond in a timely fashion.
Well, let’s also take a look at how Ron was doing at the end of that same time period, 11 years. We know that he was still defaming from the pulpit the brothers and not seeking reconciliation with them. And, another 11 years later he was defaming me. The BBs, including Ron, were a continual subject of dismay for Brother Lee, as seen in A Word of Love where WL describes their condition,

"As I have said before, the spirit of not shepherding and seeking others and being without love and forgiveness is spreading in the recovery everywhere. I believe that not having the Father’s loving and forgiving heart and not having the Savior’s shepherding and seeking spirit is the reason for our barrenness."If you want a different perspective on this little bit (which might recolor your considerations on the rest) consider this. . . . For all the private meetings that Lee had with these people you suggest were dismaying Lee, why did he not take them to task privately? Why did he speak publicly about it as if he might be talking about someone else?

Maybe it is because he was talking about someone else.

Maybe the implication was intended to direct the "little saints" to be different and put the blame for the problem on them. If we are supposedly the vast priesthood, then we are all the shepherds. So you don't have to blame the leadership because there supposedly isn't any.

(Of course, we all know there is leadership. And it is the trunk of the tree. And it is rotten . . . . Doesn't speak well for the tree.)

I just have this problem that the guy who can get the entirety of the "Recovery" to quickly change direction based on one message is needing to speak to everyone to somehow get the people he is otherwise privately brow-beating to do what they should. You would think that if they were going to subject themselves to the kind of brow-beating that James Barber's sons said he told about, they would either do as told or get out.

So I think that pointing those words at the BBs is probably not the right answer. Or interpreting it the way we are is not the right answer.

[TLFisher]

You can complain about "anonymous internet posters" all you want, but if you silence every voice other than the ministry of WL as tended by his curators in Anaheim, someone will anonymously take to the internet and say "Wrong!" You can silence me, and shut down this website, and the stones themselves will cry out: "Wrong!" And you may say, "We don't care for right and wrong" but see how long that statement stands at the Judgment Seat. It will be vaporized in an instant.

As much as that phrase "we don't care for right and wrong" has been uttered in localities, the co-workers, etc, what this lack of caring indicates is an unwilligness to be held accountable to the brothers and sisters in the local churches.
Not caring for right or wrong? If you believe All scripture is God-breathed, the writers of the Bible did care about right or wrong. There are 299 instances of righteousness found in the Bible. It is unscriptural to say we don't care for right or wrong.

So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him.
Malachi 3:18

[Indiana]

Quote by WL:

"First Corinthians 11:19 says that divisions are unavoidable that the approved ones might be made manifest. The kind of turmoil and rebellion [late 80s] that we are now experiencing always sifts the congregation. In such a situation some are sifted and some are manifested as being approved."


What do you think, you members of the Body of Christ?

I know what I think and will probably submit an article, as we all work toward oneness in the Body....

[Indiana]

Turmoils Manifest Approved Ones


1 Cor. 11:19 – “For there must even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you.”


from DCP book, Properly Discerning Spiritual Authority to Rightly Follow the Lord, p70

“At times the Lord sovereignly allows turmoils in and among the churches. These turmoils serve to purify the churches and to manifest those who are approved.

.”During the desolation of the church, the different kinds of confusion, errors, and corruption function to manifest the ones approved by God. Whoever passes the tests and is approved by God will be manifested through the desolation.

“God does not desire the desolation, but in His hand it functions to manifest those who can pass the tests. Without desolation, confusion, errors, corruption, and darkness, we would not be able to see each individual’s condition.” - W. Lee

DCP assertion: “In our history, such turmoils have often been caused by brothers of some prominence in the work. This should not surprise us. Remember that the 250 who followed Korah were ‘leaders of the assembly’ (Num. 16:2). What then should we do when those who seem to be authorities deviate from the truth?”


The implication given here is preposterous by men whose practice is to deflect the truth and disseminate lies in the churches - “that brothers of some prominence” have caused turmoil and desolation in our history; when the brothers they refer to in the late 80s were actually men of conscience objecting to the formation of a party during a movement set in motion by Witness Lee and recklessly promoted by LSM co-workers, causing turmoil and division.


DISASSOCIATION LETTER
This letter addresses major concerns that “brothers of some prominence” had during the late 80s turmoil, which LSM / DCP withhold from the churches while also suppressing other serious concerns which clears the way for their fabricated version of church history.

“Dear brother Witness Lee,

It has come to our attention recently through several witnesses that gross immorality and some other sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 have been committed by your son Philip Lee (who is identified as your Ministry Office) on more than one occasion over a long period of time. This deeply disturbs us. It grieves us even more that you and some of your close co-workers were aware of the situation and yet not only tolerated it but covered it up. What is worse is that, while this was happening, you and your co-workers were promoting and exalting him to the extent that he was able to intervene in the churches’ affairs in recent years. The peak of this promotion was evident at your elders’ training in Taipei in June 1987. Some of your co-workers were not only themselves under the influence and control of Philip Lee, but were also openly bringing elders and young people of many local churches to come under the same influence and control in your name and for your sake. The five brothers whom you and your Office sent to Europe in your place in May 1986 were trying to do the same here. Our young people who went to your training in Taipei have also testified of the same.

Before God, before the brothers and sisters in the local churches, before the Christian public, and for the sake of the Lord’s testimony, we are compelled by our conscience to fully disassociate ourselves from such sins and behaviour in your work”.

(signatories were twenty-one brothers from nine churches in Europe who effectually withdrew from the recovery with this letter on September 17, 1989)

[aron]

. For all the private meetings that Lee had with these people you suggest were dismaying Lee, why did he not take them to task privately? Why did he speak publicly about it as if he might be talking about someone else?

Maybe the implication was intended to direct the "little saints" to be different and put the blame for the problem on them. I just have this problem that the guy who can get the entirety of the "Recovery" to quickly change direction based on one message is needing to speak to everyone to somehow get the people he is otherwise privately brow-beating to do what they should. .

I understand your logic but the history doesn't bear it out.

WL used proxies, "medium potatoes" if you will, to deal with the "little saints". Remember the role of Max R in the "young Galileans" episode. In my local church we occasionally had various regional or sector leaders who always made it clear they were not free-lancing but were blending with us at the behest of higher-ups. And when the visitors were from Anaheim they usually tried to give us a private word from WL himself. Wow! a word only one person removed from the great man himself!

And on the negative side, look how WL dealt with these agents when things turned bad. As Ohio said they became convenient scapegoats. Again, Max R comes to mind. Also I saw WL publicly browbeat TC in a meeting once. WL didn't say, "I wonder if that's how things are with the saints in Ohio"; rather, he turned to his left and said, "Titus, is that how things are in Cleveland?" and TC rose stiffly and looked at the ground and said gravely, "I am ashamed to admit..."

Lee panning his lieutenants' efforts in front of us all seems like a reasonable assessment to me.

[Ohio]

And on the negative side, look how WL dealt with these agents when things turned bad. As Ohio said they became convenient scapegoats. Again, Max R comes to mind. Also I saw WL publicly browbeat TC in a meeting once. WL didn't say, "I wonder if that's how things are with the saints in Ohio"; rather, he turned to his left and said, "Titus, is that how things are in Cleveland?" and TC rose stiffly and looked at the ground and said gravely, "I am ashamed to admit..."

Titus Chu told us years age that to the Blendeds Witness Lee was god, but to him Witness Lee was a man. The Blendeds received the words of Lee above the Word of God, and received the actions of Lee as the actual work of God. Should the words or the works of Lee run contrary to sound judgment or their conscience, they would actually recalibrate them to match Lee. That's why statements like, "even if Lee is wrong, he is still right," can pass by them without alarms going off.

Titus Chu, of course, convinced us in the Great Lakes area that his way was the more spiritual one. But was it really? He liked to say that Witness Lee was his spiritual father, and that the mistakes of one's father are, "none of my business." But when it comes to enabling the unrighteousness and the abuses of Witness Lee, what is the difference between treating him as an infallible god and saying that all his actions are "none of my business"? Granted Titus Chu did take considerable heat from the Blendeds for not being such a fervent cheerleader, but neither did Titus Chu stand for righteousness nor alert the churches to corruption at LSM. Did he not condemn John Ingalls for exposing LSM filth?

Thus we see the unwritten mandate placed upon every Recovery leader -- unwavering loyalty to leadership supersedes personal integrity, Christian righteousness, steadfastness to the truth, faithfulness to the Lord, and, of course, care for the saints under your care. Then, in another great show of irony, we have Witness Lee publicly shaming all the leaders for not being proper shepherds. Did he really expect to have it both ways?

[alwayslearning]

Thus we see the unwritten mandate placed upon every Recovery leader -- unwavering loyalty to leadership supersedes personal integrity, Christian righteousness, steadfastness to the truth, faithfulness to the Lord, and, of course, care for the saints under your care. Then, in another great show of irony, we have Witness Lee publicly shaming all the leaders for not being proper shepherds. Did he really expect to have it both ways?

And I think the unwritten mandate became a written public commitment to the mandate in 1986 when 400+ elders and coworkers pledged their blind allegiance to Witness Lee declaring he was indispensable to their oneness. And in fact he is indispensable to their oneness. The problem is that's not the oneness discussed in the Bible. It's a "oneness" within a ministry sect based on complete adherence to a dead man's ministry as officially interpreted by LSM staffers.

[alwayslearning]

John Ingalls..."Brother Lee strongly vindicated the way he had taken against all criticisms. He drew a line; any who would not take this way, he said, are “dropouts”, and the Lord will have no mercy. Addressing the brothers, he said that none of them understood what he was doing. None knew what he was doing in Taipei; hence there was no one that he could fellowship with. When I went to Taipei, he said, “I did not fellowship with one person concerning what I was going to do.” He continued: “None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do. You criticize my young trainers in Taipei, telling me their mistakes, but I was doing everything; what they did was to carry out my burden.

This nicely sums up the attitude and arrogance of Witness Lee. It displays what he really thought about the coworkers and elders. At other times he called them nothing but school boys, etc.

And basically here he is once again reinforcing that he is the boss of "the work" and what he says goes. He can do whatever he wants without fellowship and if you don't like it too bad - you're not qualified to fellowship with him anyway. He is far too superior. To fellowship with you is beneath him.

Further in a surprising moment of candor - which he probably hoped would never be repeated - he admitted that all the crazy things being done and said by his young trainers came with his blessing and therefore nobody is allowed to criticize it. And this means that mere hoi polloi should not question such things as: "Follow Witness Lee blindly; even if he's wrong he's right", "Philip Lee is brother Lee's top coworker", "We should learn from the Red Guards", etc.

Of course there are countless problems with this sort of thing but the one that stands out the most to me is this: a good leader produces good leaders and a good teacher produces good teachers. And they are not threatened in anyway when these leaders and teachers emerge and are better than they are. It is an indication that they did their job well. So if what Witness Lee said is true it is to his shame and exposes his complete inability to train and equip people. You have no one to fellowship with about the direction of the work after almost 30 years in the US? Really? Then shame on you! You are a disgrace! You should be fired immediately!

[OBW]

I understand your logic but the history doesn't bear it out.

WL used proxies, "medium potatoes" if you will, to deal with the "little saints". Remember the role of Max R in the "young Galileans" episode. In my local church we occasionally had various regional or sector leaders who always made it clear they were not free-lancing but were blending with us at the behest of higher-ups. And when the visitors were from Anaheim they usually tried to give us a private word from WL himself. Wow! a word only one person removed from the great man himself!

And on the negative side, look how WL dealt with these agents when things turned bad. As Ohio said they became convenient scapegoats. Again, Max R comes to mind. Also I saw WL publicly browbeat TC in a meeting once. WL didn't say, "I wonder if that's how things are with the saints in Ohio"; rather, he turned to his left and said, "Titus, is that how things are in Cleveland?" and TC rose stiffly and looked at the ground and said gravely, "I am ashamed to admit..."

Lee panning his lieutenants' efforts in front of us all seems like a reasonable assessment to me.I agree with the general issue of scapegoating. And he did do much open shaming at times. But, just as the examples given show, they were pointed, not so vague and general.

I'm pretty sure that Lee did take the top leaders to task in their private meetings. But when he wanted to shame, he was direct and pointed. Not vague. So I was just wondering out loud whether this is the same thing as the others.

Maybe it was just the way you wrote it up in the post I was responding to. It just sounded much less specific. More vague and general.

But trends among the rank and file might not be so easy to just bark an order about. Better to suggest that they were somehow missing some alleged mark and see what happens. That way they wouldn't be entirely surprised when the elders started taking action on some who were staying "off the mark."

Just sayin.

[aron]

I agree with the general issue of scapegoating. And he did do much open shaming at times. But, just as the examples given show, they were pointed, not so vague and general.

I'm pretty sure that Lee did take the top leaders to task in their private meetings. But when he wanted to shame, he was direct and pointed. Not vague. So I was just wondering out loud whether this is the same thing as the others.

Now I get you. I was probably talking past your point.

[OBW]

DCP assertion: “In our history, such turmoils have often been caused by brothers of some prominence in the work. This should not surprise us. Remember that the 250 who followed Korah were ‘leaders of the assembly’ (Num. 16:2). What then should we do when those who seem to be authorities deviate from the truth?”That is a very good question.

We leave the errors of such so called authorities. We reject the claims of those who would be apostles and their deputies. We see their hollow words for what they are — lies cloaked in the rhetoric of the Godly. Unrighteousness called righteousness. And even worse — unrighteousness excused as unimportant. As irrelevant in the discerning of truth.
My sister once asked me, or rather assumed that I would agree with Lee when he said (whatever it was). In the particular case, the answer was "no." And at this point, my default position on anything Lee says is "no — until estabilshed otherwise." I will assume he is wrong until I become convinced that on a particular thing he is actually right.

[TLFisher]

"even if Lee is wrong, he is still right"

That phrase at least in the last two years, brother Ron has been backtracking on.

[TLFisher]

my default position on anything Lee says is "no — until estabilshed otherwise." I will assume he is wrong until I become convinced that on a particular thing he is actually right.

Just reinsert Lee with LSM/DCP and that is my position.

To sum up:

I will assume LSM/DCP are in error until I have become convinced otherwise.

[TLFisher]

And I think the unwritten mandate became a written public commitment to the mandate in 1986 when 400+ elders and coworkers pledged their blind allegiance to Witness Lee declaring he was indispensable to their oneness. And in fact he is indispensable to their oneness. The problem is that's not the oneness discussed in the Bible. It's a "oneness" within a ministry sect based on complete adherence to a dead man's ministry as officially interpreted by LSM staffers.

This unwritten mandate is really a pledge of allegiance to a man and his ministry. In short, A pledge to partiality.

As long as you can be partial to their sect, you can have oneness. However it is not the oneness according to the Bible. It's a oneness according to man.

[Indiana]

We leave the errors of such so called authorities. We reject the claims of those who would be apostles and their deputies. We see their hollow words for what they are — lies cloaked in the rhetoric of the Godly. Unrighteousness called righteousness. And even worse — unrighteousness excused as unimportant. As irrelevant in the discerning of truth.
My sister once asked me, or rather assumed that I would agree with Lee when he said (whatever it was). In the particular case, the answer was "no." And at this point, my default position on anything Lee says is "no — until established otherwise." I will assume he is wrong until I become convinced that on a particular thing he is actually right.

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=44665

In the link is an LSM mindset being put to the test by various posters taking the position of "no" against an LSM poster till truth eventually prevails and the LSM poster stops his "artful" display of unrighteousness being called righteousness. He does not confess he was wrong; he just disappears and the thread ends.

The 6 pages of short posts on the thread goes fast, and is well worth the reading, as Norm, Ohio, Mr. Smith, Speakers Corner, Paul Cox (and others, eventually me), try to deal with him. And, oh yes, Hope (Don Rutledge) made a timely contribution.

"Just say no long enough and loud enough and truth will prevail." _Steve Isitt

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=27668#post27668)
"even if Lee is wrong, he is still right"

That phrase at least in the last two years, brother Ron has been backtracking on.

Really? In what way? Anything specific? Just curious.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=27668#post27668)
"even if Lee is wrong, he is still right"



Really? In what way? Anything specific? Just curious.

I would have to listen to the message again when Ron visited here in the NW. Basically admitting WL was not infallible. All the while no admission of any mistakes made by the ministry (the pledge of allegiance to WL and his ministry for one).

[Ohio]

I would have to listen to the message again when Ron visited here in the NW. Basically admitting WL was not infallible. All the while no admission of any mistakes made by the ministry (the pledge of allegiance to WL and his ministry for one).

***** Breaking News ***** Breaking News *****LSM's chief theologian, Princeton educated Ronald Kangas, has publicly stated that Witness Lee was not infallible.

Yet he was not willing to state where and when such failure had occurred.

***** Move along folks ***** Move along folks *****
There's nothing here to see. There's nothing here to see.

[aron]

***** Breaking News ***** Breaking News *****LSM's chief theologian, Princeton educated Ronald Kangas, has publicly stated that Witness Lee was not infallible..

Only RK can say this. He is now the oracle, and can modify previous oracles. Only those at the top can criticize and amend. Anyone further down attempting to critically assess WL will be labeled a "man of death" a la Steve Isitt, and expelled. This, of course, is necessary to maintain good order in the church.

Yet he was not willing to state where and when such failure had occurred..

But we all know WL's failures: he was too trusting with Max Rappaport. He was too lenient with John So. He was too patient with John Ingalls. Etc.

***** Move along folks ***** Move along folks *****
There's nothing here to see. There's nothing here to see.

[Indiana]

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/TheChurchofNoAccountability.pdf

"Leaders from several Local Churches convened recently (April 2010) in Boise, ID. Among
the items set forth for discussion was the announcement that DCP, the defense and
confirmation team for the LC and Living Stream Ministry (LSM) was in need of financial
donations from the saints for dealing with “attacks” on the internet, pointing out that their
funds have run low due to the years of litigation against Harvest House Publishers."

S.I. 2010

[alwayslearning]

***** Breaking News ***** Breaking News *****LSM's chief theologian, Princeton educated Ronald Kangas, has publicly stated that Witness Lee was not infallible.

Yet he was not willing to state where and when such failure had occurred.
***** Move along folks ***** Move along folks *****
There's nothing here to see. There's nothing here to see.

:lol:

Thanks for that major insight Mr. Kangas! We kinda knew that already. So which actions and teachings of Witness Lee do you think are wrong?

Dead silence? Really?

:rolleyes:

[OBW]

***** Move along folks ***** Move along folks *****
There's nothing here to see. There's nothing here to see.Yes, Officer Barbrady.

[OBW]

I would have to listen to the message again when Ron visited here in the NW. Basically admitting WL was not infallible. All the while no admission of any mistakes made by the ministry (the pledge of allegiance to WL and his ministry for one).So we finally have one of the infamous "Brothers We" joining Lee who made what was essentially a death-bed declaration that we had been wrong. I guess Lee managed to pass out before he uttered even one example of error, so it was not really much of anything. So, in keeping with their example, RK and the rest will follow suit and start many repentances that repent of nothing. Just say the word "repent" or "fallible" or "wrong."

[Ohio]

But we all know WL's failures: he was too trusting with Max Rappaport. He was too lenient with John So. He was too patient with John Ingalls. Etc.

Exactly.

Serious flaws!

And too longsuffering with Titus Chu.

Such failings by the consummate Minister Of The Age! :rollingeyesfrown:

[Indiana]

So we finally have one of the infamous "Brothers We" joining Lee who made what was essentially a death-bed declaration that we had been wrong. I guess Lee managed to pass out before he uttered even one example of error, so it was not really much of anything. So, in keeping with their example, RK and the rest will follow suit and start many repentances that repent of nothing.
Just say the word "repent" or "fallible" or "wrong."

Barbara Mallon response to Witness Lee "repentance"

"Allow me to respond. I do not believe that W. Lee had a genuine repentance in Feb 1997. If he genuinely did, there would be some 'fruit' to such a repentance. Where is it?

If he genuinely repented, would not the Lord have kept him alive a few years more to see and cherish that fruit?

Allow me to illustrate, let me assume for a moment that it's genuine; he repented, in private, concerning just one name, Bro. X. 14 years have passed, I don't know of any record of an attempt at reconciliation toward Bro. X.

Surely Lee would not have passed on this 'crucial charge' to others without first leading by example. He would not have left it up to others 'to read over, fellowship, and interpret'. This is a cop-out. this is passing the buck yet again.

again W. Lee does not take responsibility for his own 'mistakes' . 'mistakes' is a lie. Assuming the headship of Christ (by referring to oneself as 'the oracle of God'/minister of the age/ commander-in-chief) or branding fellow brothers as rebels are sins against and undermine the Body. No one does such things by mistake, by accident. These are wilful acts and have been symptomatic of W. Lee's regime. Symptomatic to the point of abuse.

With LSM, there is a 'White House' and commander-in-chief , but where is the 'House of Representatives', where is the 'secretary of foreign affairs'? Watching 24 and Jack Bauer's frenzied one-man ministry of 'lets pursue the terrorists', with it's direct line to the White House routine, is, for me, illustrative of whats wrong with the LR.

W. Lee, TV evangelists, they all have something in common, an addiction to power even if the cost is dignity.

We have been too kind to the 'Wizard of Oz'."

(2010 email 3 1/2 years)

Barbara had just heard in 2010 of Brother Lee's "repentance" in 1997 and wanted me to send her information about this. I sent her the transcript.

[Ohio]

W. Lee does not take responsibility for his own 'mistakes.' 'mistakes' is a lie. Assuming the headship of Christ (by referring to oneself as 'the oracle of God'/minister of the age/ commander-in-chief) or branding fellow brothers as rebels are sins against and undermine the Body. No one does such things by mistake, by accident. These are willful acts and have been symptomatic of W. Lee's regime. Symptomatic to the point of abuse.


And this was my own conclusion as I studied our history during the buildup to the quarantine of Titus Chu and the mid-west area churches. There is no way on earth that we could reduce Witness Lee's own actions during this era of time to some happenstance "mistakes." These were carefully calculated decisions arrived at over a lengthy course of time. It was not like me driving home for dinner, making a wrong turn, and then apologizing to my wife for arriving late.

This was a plan hatched out of the dire necessity to protect one's own ministry and immoral son, while smearing the reputation of those closest to him, who were only concerned for God's righteousness and God's people.

[TLFisher]

In the link is an LSM mindset being put to the test by various posters taking the position of "no" against an LSM poster till truth eventually prevails and the LSM poster stops his "artful" display of unrighteousness being called righteousness. He does not confess he was wrong; he just disappears and the thread ends.

Another example of the LSM mindset, is a response to concerns of our history is "why are you coming to me with this stuff? I had nothing to do with it."

For most brothers, not directly. However indirectly they have not resisted the condemnation of former leading ones. Brothers have not told the co-workers to stop this kind of speaking regarding former elders.

[TLFisher]

This was a plan hatched out of the dire necessity to protect one's own ministry and immoral son, while smearing the reputation of those closest to him, who were only concerned for God's righteousness and God's people.
Ironically the phrase coined by Philip Lee and carried out by co-workers "we don't care for right or wrong. We only care about life." Of course not. When you want a culture where there's the absence of morality, there is indifference to righteousness.
Is the Bible indifferent to righteousness? Not hardly! At least in one translation there is 299 verses with righteousness. Obviously right and wrong does matter in the Bible.
We read in 2 Timothy "All Scripture is God-breathed", in books of the prophets, there is always a contrast between the righteous and the wicked.
If the Word of God did not care for right or wrong, why would there be so many verses contrasting the righteous and the wicked?
Quite simply that phrase uttered many times is a tool meant to silence brothers and sisters from expressing concerns.

[Cal]

Ironically the phrase coined by Philip Lee and carried out by co-workers "we don't care for right or wrong. We only care about life." Of course not. When you want a culture where there's the absence of morality, there is indifference to righteousness.
Is the Bible indifferent to righteousness? Not hardly! At least in one translation there is 299 verses with righteousness. Obviously right and wrong does matter in the Bible.
We read in 2 Timothy "All Scripture is God-breathed", in books of the prophets, there is always a contrast between the righteous and the wicked.
If the Word of God did not care for right or wrong, why would there be so many verses contrasting the righteous and the wicked?
Quite simply that phrase uttered many times is a tool meant to silence brothers and sisters from expressing concerns.


Nee/Lee/LSM's interpretation of the significance of the Tree of Life (ToL) vs. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (ToKoGE) is so totally out of whack it is an insult to God and all human intelligence.

The ToKoGE does NOT represent discerning good and evil and acting on good rather than evil. It represents attempting to achieve righteousness apart from God. Thus it represents attempting to live a "good life" while remaining independent from God.

It should NOT be taken to mean that recognizing and acting on what is right vs. what is wrong is somehow contrary to God. That idea is ridiculous and itself evil. Verse after verse in the Bible exhort us to do good and reject evil. God has given us several ways to discern good and evil: conscience, nature, intelligence, revelation and his Word, to mention some. The idea that there is some overriding principle called "life" which stands in opposition to all we know about good and evil, or if you feel "life" you can commit any evil with impunity, is not biblical, and, as I said, is itself evil.

You can see the ugly fruit of it in the "Recovery." Once again we see how far "Recovery" thinking has taken LSM/LCers into the dark nether regions of thought, resulting, almost humorously, in outright stupidity.

[Ohio]

W. Lee does not take responsibility for his own 'mistakes' . 'mistakes' is a lie. Assuming the headship of Christ (by referring to oneself as 'the oracle of God'/minister of the age/ commander-in-chief) or branding fellow brothers as rebels are sins against and undermine the Body. No one does such things by mistake, by accident. These are willful acts and have been symptomatic of W. Lee's regime. Symptomatic to the point of abuse.

Because it is now "National Bully Prevention Week," it is more than appropriate to discuss these matters. I personally have known too many LC leaders who felt bullying was a Christian virtue. The problem there is systemic.

I was once personally thrashed by a barrage of punches, and nearly hospitalized, by an angry elder inside the meeting hall. Another elder, who witnessed the whole thing, actually leveled a fair amount of blame on me for "pushing his button." What was my crime? Not taking the blame for something I was not even involved with. What truly incited him was all the facts in my favor.

I pray that LC leaders would one day realize what kind of bullies they have become, and how many of God's children they have hurt along the way while asserting their form of false authority.

[Indiana]

Nee/Lee/LSM's interpretation of the significance of the Tree of Life (ToL) vs. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (ToKoGE) is so totally out of whack it is an insult to God and all human intelligence....


It should NOT be taken to mean that recognizing and acting on what is right vs. what is wrong is somehow contrary to God. That idea is ridiculous and itself evil. Verse after verse in the Bible exhort us to do good and reject evil. God has given us several ways to discern good and evil: conscience, nature, intelligence, revelation and his Word, to mention some. The idea that there is some overriding principle called "life" which stands in opposition to all we know about good and evil, or if you feel "life" you can commit any evil with impunity, is not biblical, and, as I said, is itself evil.

You can see the ugly fruit of it in the "Recovery." Once again we see how far "Recovery" thinking has taken LSM/LCers into the dark nether regions of thought, resulting, almost humorously, in outright stupidity.

Read the above brothers and sisters,

Is there anyone who can counter with a degree of intelligence Igzy's words? Not brother Ron Kangas - he is, in fact, a prime example of reaching those "nether regions of thought;" and he along with many other Local Church leaders provide endless support for what Igzy has uttered. And, we don't know "the half" of it.

Link from 2010
www.Hidinghistoryinthelordsrecovery.us/THE SUBTLE ISSUES OF RIGHT AND WRONG.pdf

“How many were lured away during the last rebellion (late 80s) by subtle issues of right and wrong”
- RON KANGAS

In referring to the talk going around in the church about these issues, RK said, “What a travesty that the saints of God would speak out of the knowledge of good and evil and kill each other.” He added, “I simply will not sit in a brother's presence and allow him to fill me with death,” meaning that he would not listen to saints concerned for right and wrong; yes, matters of "conscience, nature, intelligence, revelation and [the Word of God]...", to which Igzy submits is an "insult to God" and "outright stupidity".

[TLFisher]

meaning that he would not listen to those concerned for right and wrong; yes, matters of "conscience, nature, intelligence, revelation and [the Word of God]...",
Meaning being unwilling to listen to brothers and sisters under the headship of Christ. To ignore their conscience is akin to leaving the headship of Christ.

[TLFisher]

"When doing a Google search on my name in 2010, immediately one very positive document appeared toward the top, My Experience in the Local Churches; and one negative one appeared at the very top, Ron Kangas’ public word declaring at an international leaders conference in South America that I was a “man of death” and “one of the most evil speakers on the internet”. I called his home to discuss this public speaking with him and left a message with his wife for him to call me. There was no response from him. I then wrote him a letter a few months later expressing my desire to fellowship with him over his concerns about me and my writings on the internet. But I did not hear back from him."

Bless brother Ron, but after what he spoke in Ecuador, with his speaking accessible on the internet, and with brother Steve's efforts to reach Ron by phone and in writing; Ron's no response is clearly irresponsible. One should not have to resort to legal means in order to get a response.

As I have told Steve on several occasions, it has been my sense Ron's tone, his speaking of Steve, and specifically mentioning Steve's name at that conference in Ecuador is directly related to Steve's critique of the book Ron and Kerry co-authored. It would not be a stretch to say that conference was a platform to levy a measure of retribution directed at brother Steve.

This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

[alwayslearning]

"When doing a Google search on my name in 2010, immediately one very positive document appeared toward the top, My Experience in the Local Churches; and one negative one appeared at the very top, Ron Kangas’ public word declaring at an international leaders conference in South America that I was a “man of death” and “one of the most evil speakers on the internet”. I called his home to discuss this public speaking with him and left a message with his wife for him to call me. There was no response from him. I then wrote him a letter a few months later expressing my desire to fellowship with him over his concerns about me and my writings on the internet. But I did not hear back from him."

Bless brother Ron, but after what he spoke in Ecuador, with his speaking accessible on the internet, and with brother Steve's efforts to reach Ron by phone and in writing; Ron's no response is clearly irresponsible. One should not have to resort to legal means in order to get a response.

IMHO this is just another example of the spiritual immaturity of the LC system leaders. If you make the mistake of declaring a bold negative public statement against a bro at least have the b***s to accept his invitation to fellowship in private about it.

Man-up Ron! What have you got to lose? Have the decency to answer Steve Isitt. Remember you represent God's government on the earth today! Giterdone! :rolleyes:

[Ohio]

Man-up Ron!

What have you got to lose?

Have the decency to answer Steve Isitt. Remember you represent God's government on the earth today! Giterdone!

Are you serious?!?

While I agree that the scriptural mandate for Ron Kangas is to fellowship with Steve Isitt, it will never happen!

Why?

Simple. Like a grand jury investigation, sitting down with Isitt will force Kangas to examine events which occurred during past quarantines in the light of scriptures. The problems between Kangas and Isitt are not personal in nature. Isitt is considered a "man of death" by Kangas because he has attempted to factually, historically, and honestly examine our history in the Recovery. Doing this will expose Witness Lee, Phiip Lee, and Living Stream Ministry to numerous cases of corruption. This is what a fair evaluation of the facts of history shows us.

Consider the non-scriptural allegations levied against all quarantined ex-members: writing books, doing their own work, allowing electric guitars, rebellion, speaking opinions, holding private conspiratorial meetings, etc. etc. Then as soon as the saints begin to understand how LSM hides the truth from them, LSM levies the most "serious" charge of all: division.

But let's not mention how so many other men of God and Ministers Of The Age (MOTAs) have also brought "division" into the body of Christ. The great-grand-daddy of all Recovery MOTA's was Martin Luther, who brought division to the Catholic Church. The grand-daddy Brethren MOTA John Darby brought division to the Anglican Church (which was previously divided from the Catholic Church by King Henry VIII.) Then the father of modern MOTA's, Watchman Nee in China, brought division to the Methodist Church (which btw was also divided from the Anglican Church by John Wesley.) Zinzendorf, the supposed 18th century MOTA, a contemporary of Wesley, began by accepting cast-offs from all other churches, thus forming the Moravian Church, another new division.

Thus to be charged with the high crime of "division," brings these outcast quarantined brothers into some seriously qualified company of spiritual giants, with the notable exception of the King of England. Isn't it amazing just how LSM loves to have things both ways? They exalt men of God for breaking away and starting something new, but then condemn their own contemporaries for identical actions.

Reminds me of something the Lord Jesus once said ...

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" --Matt. 23.29-33

[alwayslearning]

Are you serious?!?

Am I serious that Ron should man-up and have face-to-face fellowship with Steve Isitt? Yes! Do I think he will man-up? No! Manning-up is not Ron's strong suit. If it was he would have tried to oust Philip Lee from LSM or resign instead of working under him.

[TLFisher]

“How many were lured away during the last rebellion (late 80s) by subtle issues of right and wrong”
- RON KANGAS

Subtle issues of right and wrong? What is that? The statement comes across as equating any concern as a subtle issue of right and wrong. Concerns are reduced as being trivial.
Phillip Lee's abuses - subtle issues of right and wrong.
A brother being paid twice for the same work by a locality and LSM - subtle issues of right and wrong.
LSM workers going into localities without local fellowship- subtle issues of right and wrong.

Apparently what this all means is when it comes to the end justifying the means for LSM, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Quote is from Judges 21:25b.

[alwayslearning]

“How many were lured away during the last rebellion (late 80s) by subtle issues of right and wrong”
- RON KANGAS

Subtle issues of right and wrong? What is that? The statement comes across as equating any concern as a subtle issue of right and wrong. Concerns are reduced as being trivial.

Indeed! If you can convince people of this then you have license to do whatever you want and their screaming consciences are invalidated.

But within the context of the entire Bible life is both right and good. They are not in opposition. God is life. God is righteous. God is good. This is accurate Biblical theology. So when your conscience speaks out against, for example, Philip Lee being declared Witness Lee's top coworker that we all must submit to or Witness Lee being right even if he's wrong that is God as life. It is not something in opposition to life as falsely taught by Witness Lee, Ron Kangas and those of that ilk.

[alwayslearning]

In his book Andrew Yu calls for blind loyalty, stating that God wants His authority established in the church, and this order is brought in and maintained by divine authority and by submission to it. Then he submits that….“Once a certain member is a spiritual authority to others, the fact can never be overturned. There is no such thing as the revoking, overthrowing, or expiration of authority.

Except if that person in authority disagrees with Witness Lee. In which case his authority can be overturned, revoked, overthrown and expired. Why? Because Witness Lee said so!

Ahhh...but now Witness Lee is dead and authority has apparently been transferred to a committee. And this committee at LSM HQ has the authority to overturn, revoke, overthrow and expire the authority of a coworker/apostle like Titus Chu. This governing body/committee/board is The Authority over all others in the LC system. If you are an elder or coworker and refuse to submit to this bunch then: Surprise - we overturned you're authority! Goodbye!

[Cal]

“How many were lured away during the last rebellion (late 80s) by subtle issues of right and wrong”
- RON KANGAS



Funny how history always seems to turn on those subtle issues of right and wrong. :lol:

Martin Luther nailed 95 of them to the door of the Church at Wittenburg, and history turned. The Recovery claims to be the legacy of Luther, but actually it is the legacy of the religious powers that condemned him. I'm sure the Pope and his loyalists thought they were above those subtle (and no doubt irksome) issues of right and wrong, too. :hysterical:

Subtle issues of right and wrong will be the end of Kangas and his fellow ostriches. Not, as he would like you to think, because they brought in death, but because they exposed their brazen unrighteousness. If they had any real sense of history this would have dawned on them. :rollingeyesfrown:

[TLFisher]

Am I serious that Ron should man-up and have face-to-face fellowship with Steve Isitt? Yes!

My home can be a venue for face to face fellowship between brothers Ron and Steve next time brother Ron visits the NW. Am I serious, yes. Do I expect it will happen, no. But with God all things are possible.

When a brother such as Steve has been offended by an elder or even a co-worker, ideally they should have their conflict resolved brother to brother with a unbiased brother serving as a witness. However in the local church culture, it's not 1-1, but 10-1. That's a wolf-pack environment. How do you expect a relationship to be reconciled in such an environment? There's no possibility of having an impartial witness, because all witnesses have partiality towards the elder/co-worker. With Ron and Steve, I would be no exception. Which is why my suggestion is to go to a non-LSM/LC Christian congregation and see if there's a brother willing to bear the responsibility as an impartial witness.

[TLFisher]

“How many were lured away during the last rebellion (late 80s) by subtle issues of right and wrong”
- RON KANGAS

Following is a subtle issue of right and wrong brother Ron is referring to as told by John Ingalls from Speaking the Truth in Love.

"In late December a brother in the church in Anaheim who had been severely damaged through the misconduct in LSM office was so traumatized psychologically that he sought revenge and took definite steps to execute a very grave act. (Thank God it never happened.) This came too the ears of one of the elders in Anaheim, who without any delay met with him to calm and divert him."

Brothers, please stop misleading the saints. Make a distinction what is a subtle issue of right and wrong and what is blatant issue of right and wrong. Don't color all issues the same color as to minimize and trivialize issues and concerns brothers and sisters have.

[Ohio]

“How many were lured away during the last rebellion (late 80's) by subtle issues of right and wrong.” Referring to the talk going around in the church about these issues, he said, “What a travesty that the saints of God would speak out of the knowledge of good and evil and kill each other.” He added, “I simply will not sit in a brothers’ presence and allow him to fill me with death,” meaning that he would not listen to those who were concerned with such issues of right and wrong in the church. -- Ron Kangas, LSM's chief theologian.

The real travesty here is the the distortion of facts and the attitude displayed by Ron Kangas years after these events occurred. At the time of these events, Kangas was the Senior Editor working at Living Stream Ministry under the management of Philip Lee, the "Office" Manager. Philip had recently molested a married sister in the church in Anaheim, and her irate husband wanted justice. The husband quickly learned that no one at LSM, including Witness Lee, cared one bit for his debased wife; neither for righteousness nor justice. Soon the whole church became outraged and became outspoken in their meetings. Were it not for John Ingalls' wise counsel, the brother probably would have killed Philip Lee.

Don't you think the folks at LSM, especially the Lee family, would have appreciated Ingalls' intervention? On the contrary, Witness Lee started a smear campaign to discredit, not just the husband and his molested wife, but any brother who learned of these events and sought justice, including the church elders and deacons in Anaheim. The sorry details of Lee's smear campaign are recorded in Lee's disgusting book Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. The actual and true history of events was recorded in Ingalls' account Speaking the Truth in Love.

For Ron Kangas back in the day to hear what his boss (Philip Lee) had done to that sister at LSM must have "filled him with death." Can you imagine the disgusting nausea traveling through his gastro-intestinal tract upon catching wind of these events? Kangas soon learned from Benson Philips and Ray Graver what to do when serious matters of corruption at LSM come to their attention -- just get up and leave the room, covering one's ears, and humming a hymn, lest one be adversely affected by "subtle issues of right and wrong." Hence Kangas emphatically states, “I simply will not sit in a brothers’ presence and allow him to fill me with death.” How convenient! Sounds more like the demeanor of a partisan bureaucrat than that of a servant of God.

[TLFisher]

Kangas soon learned from Benson Philips and Ray Graver what to do when serious matters of corruption at LSM come to their attention -- just get up and leave the room, covering one's ears, and humming a hymn, lest one be adversely affected by "subtle issues of right and wrong."

"We don't care about right and wrong, we only care about life."

[TLFisher]

This governing body/committee/board is The Authority over all others in the LC system. If you are an elder or coworker and refuse to submit to this bunch then: Surprise - we overturned you're authority! Goodbye!

Alwayslearning, the two terminologies regarding authority I have heard are "deputy authority" and "delegated authority". Seems delegated authority is at the local level and this delegated authority can be revoked if you are not man-honoring, placating, partial to the committee known as BB's.

[awareness]

. . . the two terminologies regarding authority I have heard are "deputy authority" and "delegated authority".In practice it's trickle down authority ; the only authority, cuz it's top down.

[alwayslearning]

The real travesty here is the the distortion of facts and the attitude displayed by Ron Kangas years after these events occurred. At the time of these events, Kangas was the Senior Editor working at Living Stream Ministry under the management of Philip Lee, the "Office" Manager. Philip had recently molested a married sister in the church in Anaheim, and her irate husband wanted justice. The husband quickly learned that no one at LSM, including Witness Lee, cared one bit for his debased wife; neither for righteousness or justice. Soon the whole church became outraged and became outspoken in their meetings. Were it not for John Ingalls' wise counsel, the brother probably would have killed Philip Lee...Don't you think the folks at LSM, especially the Lee family, would have appreciated Ingalls' intervention? On the contrary, Witness Lee started a smear campaign to discredit, not just the husband and his molested wife, but any brother who learned of these events and sought justice, including the church elders and deacons in Anaheim.

It should be pointed out that to most in Anaheim and certainly LSM staffers like Kangas Philip Lee was a known quantity even before his behavior as described above by Ohio. He was an ill-tempered bully and ran LSM like a fiefdom. He was completely disrespectful and disdainful towards the elders of the church there and had been for many years. This was no secret. (As a matter of fact he was like this towards many elders and coworkers.)

An example of this was when John Ingalls, Bill Duane and Al Knoch were told in 1987 the Recovery Version translation work was henceforth to be under the direction of Philip Lee and they were to work from an office in LSM facilities. Since Philip Lee was a known quantity a red flag went up and they anticipated there would be problems due to his immature and erratic behavior. He loved to create drama out of thin air. And of course almost immediately there were problems and this work which had been quietly and effectively handled for years in Anaheim by these brothers was abruptly dismantled, uprooted and moved to Irving. Duane and Knoch were out and Ingalls was out of the day-to-day work but did some final review tasks until he resigned from it a year later.

Kangas knew what Philip Lee was like and how he treated people and he didn't care. He didn't do a thing about it. He just kept working for the guy who unrelentingly abused God's people. And now he goes around saying what happened back in the late 1980s was about the "rebellious" ones eating of the wrong tree instead of turning a blind eye like he did.

[alwayslearning]

Alwayslearning, the two terminologies regarding authority I have heard are "deputy authority" and "delegated authority". Seems delegated authority is at the local level and this delegated authority can be revoked if you are not man-honoring, placating, partial to the committee known as BB's.

Yes there may be such a nuance. But Titus Chu in terms of the LC system is an apostle/coworker with apostolic authority i.e. beyond the local level. Yet this committee at LSM HQ 3,000 miles away decided to oust him and fully expected their edict to be carried out globally.

And of course this whole idea of a committee ousting apostles can be found no where in the NT. Even Andrew Yu in his weird little book writes: "Once a certain member is a spiritual authority to others, the fact can never be overturned." A committee is not an authority. So if Titus Chu is a spiritual authority to others per their own words the fact can never be overturned. And yet there Andrew was with his big mouth open in Whistler helping to oust Titus. The hypocrisy of the LC system leadership knows no bounds!

[TLFisher]

Kangas knew what Philip Lee was like and how he treated people and he didn't care. He didn't do a thing about it. He just kept working for the guy who unrelentingly abused God's people. And now he goes around saying what happened back in the late 1980s was about the "rebellious" ones eating of the wrong tree instead of turning a blind eye like he did.

"It's better to blame than to be blamed." This is the blame game LSM plays. Never taking accountability. Never taking ownership .It's always deflecting cause for turmoils onto the "rebellious" ones; brothers and sisters who exercised their conscience. Even these dear brothers and sisters who came into or grew up in the local churches post 1990 have been indoctrinated with the teaching that to learn the other side of the story equals to being poisoned.
Someone could come onto this forum and wonder why there is such negative speaking directed at the ministry. Consider the ministry has such a negative past that has never been dealt with. LSM can only mislead the saints for so long before the lies and half-truths become unveiled.

[TLFisher]

Yes there may be such a nuance. But Titus Chu in terms of the LC system is an apostle/coworker with apostolic authority i.e. beyond the local level. Yet this committee at LSM HQ 3,000 miles away decided to oust him and fully expected their edict to be carried out globally.

And of course this whole idea of a committee ousting apostles can be found no where in the NT. Even Andrew Yu in his weird little book writes: "Once a certain member is a spiritual authority to others, the fact can never be overturned." A committee is not an authority. So if Titus Chu is a spiritual authority to others per their own words the fact can never be overturned. And yet there Andrew was with his big mouth open in Whistler helping to oust Titus. The hypocrisy of the LC system leadership knows no bounds!

On the topic of authority something further needs to be said. Among the local churches, there is an unhealthy application of authority. Primarily when the leaders respected as authority (locally or extra-locally) are considered above reproach, rebuke, and accountability.

[Indiana]

Preface

Dear Ron and Kerry,

I am giving to you copies of a book that addresses your word in print concerning brother John Ingalls, written in 1989, called A Response to Recent Accusations. I don’t know how much you are concerned about any mistake you might have made in representing brother John, but brothers, your mistakes are numerous. There is the need, therefore, to bring this to your attention and, possibly, to the saints’ attention. You said in the book,

"We wish to comment on two of John’s closing remarks. John says, 'if we have offended any of you saints, we ask you to please forgive us. We surely never intended to offend anyone of you.' On the one hand, offended saints should receive the grace to forgive from their hearts. To maintain a sweet, harmonious church life we need to forgive one another. On the other hand, John’s word 'If we have offended any of you saints' is somewhat disturbing for it is altogether too general and superficial and it displays a lack of consciousness of the grave offenses caused not only to saints but also to other churches. Certain things said and done in Anaheim since August 28, 1988, have caused damage and distress and should not be dealt with generally and superficially. There is the willingness to forgive but there should also be the willingness to repent."

Brothers, what I will be addressing in my book is what you did not address in yours. You gave a slanted version of “certain things said and done in Anaheim” that caused “damage and distress”. You did not give the full story of what took place there. You left out vital detail that would give the saints the whole picture, the true scenes of the major factors of “damage and distress” in Anaheim, and also in the recovery.

Although the truth of what happened in Anaheim remains hidden by the leadership, there are windows into the real situation. I would like to share about two such windows, as Philip Lin and Francis Ball allow some light to shine in on the subject.

Philip Lin Comment
Philip Lin, an Anaheim elder during the late eighties on the Chinese side, spoke honestly during the turmoil. A brother relates a time with him,

"I recall a leaders’ meeting before a Sunday morning meeting in Anaheim during the late eighties turmoil. A few of us younger brothers who were learning to serve in the church, helping the elders, etc. were there and had been involved in such meetings for quite some time. I had asked the question: "Why should we let two brothers who don't even come to the meetings wreak havoc on a church of over 500 people? Let's just ignore them and go on." Just after I asked it, Philip Lin walked in late. He asked what the question was that was asked and Godfred replied, "It was a very good question, and told me to ask it again. So I did, and this was Philip Lin’s almost verbatim response: [B]"I know in my conscience you brothers are right according to the truth, but in my culture I must be loyal to Brother Lee." Of course he was not just referring to my question but to the overall situation, the 16 points the faithful elders had previously ministered, etc. Frankly, I appreciated and admired his honesty. It was so striking I still clearly remember it today."

Francis Ball Comment

The same brother relates a word from Francis,

In a leaders meeting held in Rosemead during the Pasadena conference, Brother Lee was complaining about how much the church in Anaheim was mistreating him and his son and how much he and his family were suffering because of the church in Anaheim. At the end they had a question period so I got up to ask a few questions, stating something like, "I just wanted to preface my questions with a remark to clarify this issue publicly before all the brothers here so there is no misunderstanding. In fact, it is not the church in Anaheim causing suffering to Brother Lee and his family but it is Brother Lee and his son Philip that is causing suffering to the church in Anaheim. Now I have a couple of questions... In the Genesis life-studies you claimed that John So was a pillar in the church, and we should follow his example. In the Timothy training you turned to John Ingalls and declared publicly that he was your Timothy. But now that they disagree with you and your son, instead of accepting their fellowship you attempt to discredit them before others and cut them off. How could a pillar and Timothy so easily be cut off? Why would you treat these brothers in such a fashion?” … Then immediately after my questions the so-called "question and answer fellowship" part of the meeting ended, and Francis jumped up to abruptly end the meeting, shamelessly declaring that he was [B]delighted to be an ostrich with his head in the sand. Shortly thereafter he was chosen as a replacement "elder" in Anaheim.
.
In other words, Ron and Kerry, there is another side of the story to the partial and superficial version put forth in your book and in other “official” writings and speakings of the church. It has been the habit, the practice, the tradition of our leadership in the recovery to be non-transparent concerning themselves and their failings. Blame is nearly always shifted to others; it is never placed on yourselves. In view of this, I urge you to read my book and consider what truly is an incredible “lack of consciousness of the grave offenses caused not only to saints but also to other churches”.

“There is the willingness to forgive but there should also be the willingness to repent”, so you have advised John Ingalls to do. Brothers, so I urge you to do. This is not an attack, but an appeal to you to examine yourselves, for righteousness sake and for the good of all.


Yours in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Steve Isitt 2006

[Indiana]

On the topic of authority something further needs to be said. Among the local churches, there is an unhealthy application of authority. Primarily when the leaders respected as authority (locally or extra-locally) are considered above reproach, rebuke, and accountability.

"The Local Churches have well-earned the reputation of bringing others to accountability for perceived wrongs committed against them, while never being able to subject themselves to others who would examine them. Thoughtful, sound, scriptural writings on the internet from Nigel Tomes, David Canfield, and Dave Shields are ignored. Don Rutledge also has weighty fellowship on the internet that warrants sober thought from LC leadership....." (2006) Steve Isitt

[TLFisher]

" There is the willingness to forgive but there should also be the willingness to repent."

Brothers Ron and Kerry, following is an excerpt of a message brother John gave within the last 10-15 years:

"Now in my background brothers and sisters, I don't think that I designed some new carts or fabricated them very much, but I must admit to my shame I helped to pull them. And I regret that. I've repented about that. I've helped to pull the new cart. So what does that make me? A dumb ox? I'm sorry to say. Right? I've stumbled too. You know since that time I've believed I have gained a kind of phobia for new carts. New cart phobia. So, really! You know when I see something coming up, "let's do it this way". "I think that's the best technique", " the Best method". Whoa! That brings back some bitter memories. Really I'd like to run for my life. But, I just consider brothers and sisters, I really feel among Christians today too many new carts. Now in my background years ago we didn't call them new carts. Of course. But we used to call them "the flow". "This is this years flow". And next year we had another kind of flow. "Are you with the flow?" Well, it wasn't really a flow. But then that's what we called it. And then we called it "a move". "A new move". That was really a new cart. The result does not bring in Christ. The result is not the house of God being built. No, no! I surely can testify all these kind of new carts have damaged the people of God. They torn down the house of God. They were not profitable at all."

[alwayslearning]

"It's better to blame than to be blamed." This is the blame game LSM plays. Never taking accountability. Never taking ownership .It's always deflecting cause for turmoils onto the "rebellious" ones; brothers and sisters who exercised their conscience.

In any corporation if you are a "company man" you will turn a blind eye to anything immoral, unethical and even unlawful for the cause of the corporation. And this kind of behavior will typically help to advance your career.

One would hope "the work" in the LC system would be different but of course it isn't and never was. Those running LSM today are those who turned a blind eye and knew how to play slimy politics with Witness Lee and his son. They got their reward. And every time I think of them and I have to go and take a shower!

[alwayslearning]

On the topic of authority something further needs to be said. Among the local churches, there is an unhealthy application of authority. Primarily when the leaders respected as authority (locally or extra-locally) are considered above reproach, rebuke, and accountability.

I completely agree but sadly this is how their system works. The MOTA i.e. Witness Lee was the top global apostle with absolute authority. (And somehow this authority was passed on to the committee at LSM HQ.) Under him were regional apostles. Under them were elders. Elders were accountable to their Regional and Regionals to the MOTA. Notice none of them are accountable to the local flocks for any of their behavior, teachings, etc.

Of course the elders are mere puppets to do and teach whatever their Regional and the MOTA tell them to. They have no say in the matter if they want to keep their position. So really the only authority they have is to blindly implement whatever comes down the pike from HQ and to make sure the locals are following along blindly without comment, opinion or - God forbid - a contrary thought spoken out loud!

[TLFisher]

In any corporation if you are a "company man" you will turn a blind eye to anything immoral, unethical and even unlawful for the cause of the corporation. And this kind of behavior will typically help to advance your career.

One would hope "the work" in the LC system would be different but of course it isn't and never was. Those running LSM today are those who turned a blind eye and knew how to play slimy politics with Witness Lee and his son. They got their reward. And every time I think of them and I have to go and take a shower!

I disagree. The company I work for is big on ethics and each year we have to go through ethics training. Having a conflict of interest is severly scrutinized. There are ethics compliance personnel to go to if it's even suspected ethics have been compromised.
In the LC system there is NO such thing as ethics compliance. The very same decision makers in the LC system are products of a conflict of interest (the spirit versus the ministry).

[TLFisher]

a contrary thought spoken out loud!

You're touching on a subject I have long wondered what elders, deacons, co-workers really think. Are they really devoid of their conscience? I don't think so. I do believe why some responsible brothers have suffered mental anguish is tied directly to not speaking their contrary thoughts and keeping their contrary thoughts from being uttered.
Verbally they will say "I'm one with the brothers" or "I respect the feeling of the Body". It's the system that has kept them in one accord superficially because without the system and apart from Christ, there is no way to genuinely be in one accord.
One Accord from the LSM/LC system is truly a facade. Once contrary thoughts are utttered, then you see brothers are not in really in one accord as they would like everyone else to see them as.

[alwayslearning]

I disagree. The company I work for is big on ethics and each year we have to go through ethics training. Having a conflict of interest is severly scrutinized. There are ethics compliance personnel to go to if it's even suspected ethics have been compromised.
In the LC system there is NO such thing as ethics compliance. The very same decision makers in the LC system are products of a conflict of interest (the spirit versus the ministry).

You are right. I should have written: "In some corporations..." E.g. some of the Wall Street banks who crashed our economy.

[Indiana]

Eighteen Points Reconsidered

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Two members of the current leadership in the Lord’s recovery wrote a book in 1989 of what they felt was a “careful scrutiny” of the challenging words spoken by John Ingalls on March 19, 1989 when John notified the church of his decision to withdraw from the eldership of the church in Anaheim.

Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux stated in the first chapter, “In our response, we will examine brother John’s opening remarks, his eighteen numbered points, and his closing words” (p. 7). “Those who are inclined to believe John’s word and follow him would do well to consider seriously what the basis of his speaking is and whether this basis is trustworthy” (p. 9).


The Basis of Speaking

Likewise, we would do well to consider seriously what the basis of Ron and Kerry’s speaking was in their book, A Response to Recent Accusations (1989), and whether or not their speaking is a fair and accurate portrayal of the former prominent co-worker and elder, John Ingalls.

They wrote in the preface,

"Since the material in this document concerns an event that took place in the church in Anaheim and since we, the authors, do not live in Anaheim, we believe that it is appropriate for us to state our grounds for writing this material. First, we are organic members of the Body of Christ, and what took place in Anaheim was not only a local matter but also a Body matter. For this reason, it is a matter that concerns us and affects us. Second, the speaking of John Ingalls was transcribed, edited, and distributed. His word has spread beyond his locality, and this word has been brought to our attention. Third, since John’s speaking is actually an attack on Brother Lee and his ministry and on all the churches and saints who continue to receive this ministry, we felt responsible to respond to this attack for the sake of our brother, the churches, and the saints. Fourth, because John’s speaking is subtle and deceptive, some of the saints may appreciate help in discerning the nature and character of this speaking. Finally, John’s speaking presents a distorted picture of the Lord’s recovery and of the Lord’s up-to-date move in His recovery. It is necessary that this distortion be exposed and refuted and that a word of truth be given. In view of the foregoing, we have prepared this analysis of and response to John Ingalls’ speaking." (end quote)

Was Their Speaking Trustworthy?

We must be careful people when we represent others. According to our history in the recovery, since 1984 at least, our leadership has been anything but careful in this regard. A prime example of misrepresentation of others is found in the book, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, which tells a slanted version of the story of what happened in the local churches in the late eighties that brought division into the Lord’s recovery.

That book, though it is a book of defamation, has been accepted among the churches as the official story of the so-called rebellion of former leading ones, including John Ingalls as a supposed ringleader of a conspiracy to take over the recovery. Its claims were based, not on substantial evidence, but upon suspicion and imagination. It is similar to Ron and Kerry’s book in that regard. Both books feature the ugly smearing of John Ingalls, with Ron and Kerry’s book focusing only on him, not including other brothers as FPR does.

In this current atmosphere of litigation over defamation against the local churches and Witness Lee in a few obscure pages of an obscure book, it behooves us who do not want to be responsible ourselves for defamation of character to consider the far more serious cases we have among us in the churches that have had a vastly more profound impact on the recovery than that which is now costing the churches millions of dollars to litigate.

The Lord is no respecter of persons. If false witness has been borne in these two books by brothers of repute, the churches should be informed about this and the saints should be advised to destroy the books, and thorough repentances among us ensue. Deviating from the Path in the Lord’s Recovery is a book that deals with the inaccuracies, unfairness, and outright falsehoods found in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. This book deals with Ron and Kerry’s book, A Response to Recent Accusations and its misrepresentations of John Ingalls.


A Knee-Jerk Reaction

One element involved in being careful in representing others is to investigate, to research. Did Ron and Kerry do this? Or, was their writing a quick, knee-jerk reaction, based on the appearance of rebellion, with very little research applied, if any at all. As they said, they were not even in the church in Anaheim; therefore, they did not have the experience and perspective that John Ingalls had. Neither did they fellowship thoroughly with him or with the other Anaheim elders to learn the facts from them.

John Ingalls, however, was in the same locality as Witness Lee and his son who were causing serious problems in Anaheim that outsiders had no way to understand without thorough investigation.

John Ingalls, as the leading elder in Anaheim had responsibility for the oversight of the church and conscientiously sought out fellowship with Brother Lee. After many unproductive sessions with Brother Lee to deal with the problems, and after unsavory developments took place in Anaheim, and after a group of brothers declared that they would not follow John’s leadership, John felt that it was best for him to resign from the eldership. At the time he announced his resignation, he also gave a rather short and concise word to the church about his concerns, which became the object of rebuttal by Ron and Kerry in their book.

The Five Points

Ron and Kerry used five points as their basis for speaking. Let us look at those five points and “consider seriously what the basis of [their] speaking is and whether this basis is trustworthy”.

1) They felt that since they were members of the organic Body of Christ and that what took place in Anaheim was not merely a local matter but also a Body matter, that it was then something that concerned them and affected them in their locality, Irving, Texas. Yes, whatever happened in Anaheim, was not merely a local matter but a Body matter. But what actually did take place in Anaheim? What happened that brought John to the point of resigning from the eldership? Ron and Kerry didn’t touch this important matter. Further, what was happening in other localities that alarmed John, and his fellow elders, that contributed to John’s concern for Anaheim? This information is not documented in the book offered by the Irving brothers. They left out crucial background information in their book, making John appear in the worst light to their readers.

John’s decision to resign did not happen overnight. There was a long process leading to his decision. He did have a strong basis to resign from the eldership, and had initially planned to continue in fellowship with the church just as a brother. Without this strong basis, he would have had nothing to say and would not have resigned. Did Ron Kangas take the time to consider John’s experience and the paradigm from which he spoke? Or did he just take the hard-core line established among the leadership in the local churches that condemns anything that appears to be an attack and anyone who appears to be attacking?

The following word by Witness Lee reveals the character trait needed to appropriate truth, that is, if someone actually is seeking the truth. "He should be deep, not superficial, when representing other people, matters, or the church". The brothers from Irving did not have this trait during the writing of their book. They, therefore, came to quick, disparaging, and unthoughtful conclusions that were simply in line with the “one accord” movement in the churches.

Deep—Searching Downward and Digging Deeper, Not Being Superficial

"The book of proverbs says that a foolish person is a shallow person. The observation of a shallow person is not accurate. His understanding of the church, people, matters, and things is superficial. Being deep is closely related to being thorough and serious. A shallow person always makes superficial observations, whereas a deep person always searches and digs when he looks at things."

"We should not draw conclusions quickly concerning people or matters."
(Character, W. L. p. 22-23).

2) Ron and Kerry said John’s speaking was printed and distributed, spread beyond his locality and that this spreading and speaking was brought to their attention. Since John’s word concerned them, they responded by writing a book and distributing it in 1989. Likewise, their book came to my attention in 2002, and it concerns me. Because I believe their work was superficial and lacked a sufficient knowledge base for representing John Ingalls, I am responding to give the background and present the facts that they did not, or would not, offer.

3) Ron and Kerry alleged that John’s speaking was actually an attack on Brother Lee and his ministry and on the churches and saints who continue to receive this ministry. In the five-year period I have researched and studied the events and concerns of the late eighties turmoil, I never had the impression John Ingalls was attacking anyone or anything. He certainly was addressing and responding to negative developments in the recovery and chose to speak according to his conviction with the saints and the churches.

However, I do have the registration within that he has been attacked and maligned and misrepresented by a host of brothers, including brothers Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux. To tell the saints that John’s speaking was an attack on Brother Lee and his ministry is a common attack by LSM-oriented brothers on those who differ from their view and who speak accordingly. Truth is not the object with brothers like Ron and Kerry. Whether or not one is speaking the truth on a given matter is not what concerns them. Their concern is the “one accord”. They want others to line up with the leadership, right or wrong, “take the cross to their own opinion”, “submit to the ruling ones” and “not make an issue about anything”.

John Ingalls wasn’t attacking, but was speaking according to his conviction of heart before the Lord and the saints. Do Ron and Kerry feel that they were not attacking John’s person to assert otherwise in making the following evaluation of him and his speaking?: “Since John’s speaking is actually an attack on Brother Lee and his ministry and on all the churches and saints who continue to receive this ministry, we felt responsible to respond to this attack.” Ron and Kerry did as LSM-trained brothers do: they protect the image of Brother Lee at any cost in order to preserve his ministry and maintain their “one accord”.

4) Ron and Kerry said that John’s speaking was subtle and deceptive and that they wanted to help the saints discern the nature and character of his speaking. But how can these two brothers help the saints when they don’t tell them the whole story, or know the whole story themselves? With insufficient knowledge, they themselves cannot discern the nature and character of his speaking.

5) Ron and Kerry felt that John’s speaking presented a distorted picture of the Lord’s recovery and of the Lord’s up-to-date move in His recovery. They felt it was necessary to expose and refute “this distortion” and that a word of truth should be given. Having thoroughly considered both sides of the matter, it isn’t John Ingalls who gave a distorted picture of the Lord’s recovery; rather, he spoke honestly and faithfully. However, Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux have given a much distorted picture of John Ingalls in their analysis and response to John’s speaking. I ask Ron and Kerry to consider the facts about John, the church in Anaheim, and the recovery in those years of turmoil, 1986-1989, and to be willing to adjust their concept accordingly.

[TLFisher]

Preface

Dear Ron and Kerry,

I am giving to you copies of a book that addresses your word in print concerning brother John Ingalls, written in 1989, called A Response to Recent Accusations. I don’t know how much you are concerned about any mistake you might have made in representing brother John, but brothers, your mistakes are numerous. There is the need, therefore, to bring this to your attention and, possibly, to the saints’ attention. You said in the book,

"We wish to comment on two of John’s closing remarks. John says, 'if we have offended any of you saints, we ask you to please forgive us. We surely never intended to offend anyone of you.' On the one hand, offended saints should receive the grace to forgive from their hearts. To maintain a sweet, harmonious church life we need to forgive one another. On the other hand, John’s word 'If we have offended any of you saints' is somewhat disturbing for it is altogether too general and superficial and it displays a lack of consciousness of the grave offenses caused not only to saints but also to other churches. Certain things said and done in Anaheim since August 28, 1988, have caused damage and distress and should not be dealt with generally and superficially. There is the willingness to forgive but there should also be the willingness to repent."

Brothers, what I will be addressing in my book is what you did not address in yours. You gave a slanted version of “certain things said and done in Anaheim” that caused “damage and distress”. You did not give the full story of what took place there. You left out vital detail that would give the saints the whole picture, the true scenes of the major factors of “damage and distress” in Anaheim, and also in the recovery.

Although the truth of what happened in Anaheim remains hidden by the leadership, there are windows into the real situation. I would like to share about two such windows, as Philip Lin and Francis Ball allow some light to shine in on the subject.

Philip Lin Comment
Philip Lin, an Anaheim elder during the late eighties on the Chinese side, spoke honestly during the turmoil. A brother relates a time with him,

"I recall a leaders’ meeting before a Sunday morning meeting in Anaheim during the late eighties turmoil. A few of us younger brothers who were learning to serve in the church, helping the elders, etc. were there and had been involved in such meetings for quite some time. I had asked the question: "Why should we let two brothers who don't even come to the meetings wreak havoc on a church of over 500 people? Let's just ignore them and go on." Just after I asked it, Philip Lin walked in late. He asked what the question was that was asked and Godfred replied, "It was a very good question, and told me to ask it again. So I did, and this was Philip Lin’s almost verbatim response: [B]"I know in my conscience you brothers are right according to the truth, but in my culture I must be loyal to Brother Lee." Of course he was not just referring to my question but to the overall situation, the 16 points the faithful elders had previously ministered, etc. Frankly, I appreciated and admired his honesty. It was so striking I still clearly remember it today."

Francis Ball Comment

The same brother relates a word from Francis,

In a leaders meeting held in Rosemead during the Pasadena conference, Brother Lee was complaining about how much the church in Anaheim was mistreating him and his son and how much he and his family were suffering because of the church in Anaheim. At the end they had a question period so I got up to ask a few questions, stating something like, "I just wanted to preface my questions with a remark to clarify this issue publicly before all the brothers here so there is no misunderstanding. In fact, it is not the church in Anaheim causing suffering to Brother Lee and his family but it is Brother Lee and his son Philip that is causing suffering to the church in Anaheim. Now I have a couple of questions... In the Genesis life-studies you claimed that John So was a pillar in the church, and we should follow his example. In the Timothy training you turned to John Ingalls and declared publicly that he was your Timothy. But now that they disagree with you and your son, instead of accepting their fellowship you attempt to discredit them before others and cut them off. How could a pillar and Timothy so easily be cut off? Why would you treat these brothers in such a fashion?” … Then immediately after my questions the so-called "question and answer fellowship" part of the meeting ended, and Francis jumped up to abruptly end the meeting, shamelessly declaring that he was [B]delighted to be an ostrich with his head in the sand. Shortly thereafter he was chosen as a replacement "elder" in Anaheim.
.
In other words, Ron and Kerry, there is another side of the story to the partial and superficial version put forth in your book and in other “official” writings and speakings of the church. It has been the habit, the practice, the tradition of our leadership in the recovery to be non-transparent concerning themselves and their failings. Blame is nearly always shifted to others; it is never placed on yourselves. In view of this, I urge you to read my book and consider what truly is an incredible “lack of consciousness of the grave offenses caused not only to saints but also to other churches”.

“There is the willingness to forgive but there should also be the willingness to repent”, so you have advised John Ingalls to do. Brothers, so I urge you to do. This is not an attack, but an appeal to you to examine yourselves, for righteousness sake and for the good of all.


Yours in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Steve Isitt 2006

Brother Steve, this writing of yours is the catalyst that led to Ron taking the liberty to call you a Man of Death at an International Conference in Ambato, Ecuador in 2008.
http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_Ecuador-Ambato-enero.2008/comunion.para.hnos.responsables.y.servidores.mp3

If Ron's speaking of you, was not because he wasn't personally offended what then? Ron had the opportunity to mention Bill Mallon by name at that conference and did not. Ron had opportunity to mention Bill Freeman by name at the November 2012 Puget Sound Blending conference and did not. What makes you so special for Ron to mention you specifically by name at an international conference if it was not due to being offended by your critique of his book?

[Ohio]

Brother Steve, this writing of yours is the catalyst that led to Ron taking the liberty to call you a Man of Death ... If Ron's speaking of you, was not because he wasn't personally offended, what then?

What makes you so special for Ron to mention you specifically by name at an international conference if it was not due to being offended by your critique of his book?

The only reason Ron Kangas would personally slander Steve Isitt publicly in that conference would be that Steve's writings were affecting their people, both established members and new ones. Probably, due to the world wide web, Steve's writings about LSM failures and past scandals, formerly hidden from the saints in South America, became widespread during the time of Dong's quarantine.

If that were not so, Steve would not even know that he was a "man of death." :rollingeyesfrown: The Apostle Paul was also an honest writer, and he became an "enemy" to some of the saints in Galatia. (4.16)

Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, LSM does not actually love the "truth," rather it is only those exhausting doctrines of Witness Lee that they love.

[Ohio]

5) Ron and Kerry felt that John’s speaking presented a distorted picture of the Lord’s recovery and of the Lord’s up-to-date move in His recovery. They felt it was necessary to expose and refute “this distortion” and that a word of truth should be given. Having thoroughly considered both sides of the matter, it isn’t John Ingalls who gave a distorted picture of the Lord’s recovery; rather, he spoke honestly and faithfully. However, Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux have given a much distorted picture of John Ingalls in their analysis and response to John’s speaking. I ask Ron and Kerry to consider the facts about John, the church in Anaheim, and the recovery in those years of turmoil, 1986-1989, and to be willing to adjust their concept accordingly.

We should soberly note that Ron and Kerry's version of events in A Response to Recent Accusations surrounding Anaheim in the late 80's is only believable if they can successfully silence the other side of the debate. Unless they have complete control over all access to information, LSM is in serious trouble.

Once any fair-minded reader compares their version of events with John Ingalls' Speaking the Truth in Love, the truth is readily apparent. I have corresponded with numerous members of the Recovery who have told me as much. They accepted Lee's reporting of events based on his reputation at the time, and because that's all they knew.

[TLFisher]

The only reason Ron Kangas would personally slander Steve Isitt publicly in that conference would be that Steve's writings were affecting their people, both established members and new ones. Probably, due to the world wide web, Steve's writings about LSM failures and past scandals, formerly hidden from the saints in South America, became widespread during the time of Dong's quarantine.

If that were not so, Steve would not even know that he was a "man of death." :rollingeyesfrown: The Apostle Paul was also an honest writer, and he became an "enemy" to some of the saints in Galatia. (4.16)

Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, LSM does not actually love the "truth," rather it is only those exhausting doctrines of Witness Lee that they love.
I understand what you're saying Ohio. What I don't understand is with LSM co-workers having a track record of speaking indirectly through innuendos and veiled speaking, why would one co-worker break M.O. and speak directly?

[alwayslearning]

1) They felt that since they were members of the organic Body of Christ and that what took place in Anaheim was not merely a local matter but also a Body matter, that it was then something that concerned them and affected them in their locality, Irving, Texas. Yes, whatever happened in Anaheim, was not merely a local matter but a Body matter. But what actually did take place in Anaheim? What happened that brought John to the point of resigning from the eldership? Ron and Kerry didn’t touch this important matter. Further, what was happening in other localities that alarmed John, and his fellow elders, that contributed to John’s concern for Anaheim? This information is not documented in the book offered by the Irving brothers. They left out crucial background information in their book, making John appear in the worst light to their readers.

This is another classic example of why I would never trust the LC system leadership. When John Ingalls presented his concerns especially regarding Philip Lee to Benson Phillips and Ray Graver they told him that's a local matter that we don't want to hear about. However when it suits the fancy of Witness Lee and the two LSM staffers Ron and Kerry suddenly it switches and becomes an extra local matter of the Body.

Seriously? Do they really think people who know what actually went on are that naive or stupid? We know you were just jerking us around. We know you are paid to write advertorials and polemics for your MOTA. We know you are mere pseudo-scholars who's job it is to regurgitate Witness Lee materials ad nauseum - both then and now. And that is why we lost all respect for you and those of your stripe.

[TLFisher]

I completely agree but sadly this is how their system works. The MOTA i.e. Witness Lee was the top global apostle with absolute authority. (And somehow this authority was passed on to the committee at LSM HQ.) Under him were regional apostles. Under them were elders. Elders were accountable to their Regional and Regionals to the MOTA. Notice none of them are accountable to the local flocks for any of their behavior, teachings, etc.

Of course the elders are mere puppets to do and teach whatever their Regional and the MOTA tell them to. They have no say in the matter if they want to keep their position. So really the only authority they have is to blindly implement whatever comes down the pike from HQ and to make sure the locals are following along blindly without comment, opinion or - God forbid - a contrary thought spoken out loud!

Now, I don't doubt these brothers are authorities. They can and have in some places determine who's not welcome and most have authority when to set meeting times and when to close the meetings.

I have severe reservation whether or not local/extra-local authorities are under the headship of Christ. If they are, there would be far more instances of accountability to brothers and sisters instead of being puppets of the ministry.

[Ohio]

This is another classic example of why I would never trust the LC system leadership. When John Ingalls presented his concerns especially regarding Philip Lee to Benson Phillips and Ray Graver they told him that's a local matter that we don't want to hear about. However when it suits the fancy of Witness Lee and the two LSM staffers Ron and Kerry suddenly it switches and becomes an extra-local matter of the Body.

Me too!

This is the kind of spiritual gobbledygook that makes me want to puke. During those quarantines, LSM just produced endless rigmarole in tracts and websites in the guise of "spiritual" principles. They have become masters at spiritual doubletalk, using long-winded esoterica to both impress and silence their members into submission.

Can you believe that their members are actually convinced that "coming back to the pure word of God" is a tactic of the enemy?

[Ohio]

I understand what you're saying Ohio. What I don't understand is with LSM co-workers having a track record of speaking indirectly through innuendos and veiled speaking, why would one co-worker break M.O. and speak directly?

It's like the quarantine of Titus Chu.

For decades LSM's co-workers (so-called blended brothers) have used indirect speaking, innuendos, and veiled speaking to undermine the ministry of Titus Chu. Eventually they came out and eliminated TC by quarantining him. They made him a "marked man" among their membership.

[TLFisher]

Can you believe that their members are actually convinced that "coming back to the pure word of God" is a tactic of the enemy?

That's part of the Isaiah 5:20 culture of the recovery. It's upside down when you as a brother or sister could be marked for wanting to prophesy from the Bible instead of the HWFMR.

[TLFisher]

This is another classic example of why I would never trust the LC system leadership. When John Ingalls presented his concerns especially regarding Philip Lee to Benson Phillips and Ray Graver they told him that's a local matter that we don't want to hear about. However when it suits the fancy of Witness Lee and the two LSM staffers Ron and Kerry suddenly it switches and becomes an extra local matter of the Body.

This is a prime example why I do not see the Blended brothers and co-workers being under the headship of Christ. They are P-A-R-T-I-A-L. If these brothers were impartial, their decision making would be according to God's Word and not according to their relationship in a ministry. Even if it meant suffering personal loss.

As it is Living Stream Ministry becomes the common denominator if a matter is to considered local or extra-local.

[Indiana]

CHAPTER 2

John’s Opening Remarks

Ron and Kerry say, “The basis of John’s speaking here is not the Word of God, the leading of the Spirit, or the sense of the Body. The basis of his remarks on this occasion is his own personal, subjective feelings and opinions” (p. 9). They say further that he presumed to be the “spokesman for the recovery or for the church in Anaheim or for the elders of the church or for the saints” (p. 9) Actually, John did speak according to his convictions, which were surely based on the Word of God, the leading of the Spirit, and according to the sense of the Body, since many felt as he did, not only in Anaheim but wherever John traveled.

As far as being a spokesman, why would John not speak out since he was indeed speaking according to the Word, the Spirit’s leading, and the sense that he and many others had in the Body? Seven months before John’s resignation, John and Godfred Otuteye presented to the church in Anaheim similar points as John did at the time of his resignation. Some saints responded positively; some negatively, so the church was already familiar with the points John gave at the time of his resignation and he knew the feeling of the saints. Fellow elders Godfred and Al Knoch had the same sense and leading as John. They were in agreement with his fellowship, as were many in the church he represented. He was, therefore, a spokesman for others’ concerns in Anaheim, as well for his own. (p. 13) He also represented those in other places, speaking on their behalf at his resignation.


Conferences in Charlotte and Miami
"On Easter weekend, April 1-3, 1988, the church in Charlotte, N. C. invited me to come and share the word of the Lord. I did so. Many saints representing the churches in North and South Carolina plus some from Virginia and Georgia gathered for the conference. I ministered to them concerning the Lord’s word to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, mentioning nothing whatever of the problems we had encountered. We emphasized the need of coming back to the beginning, as the Apostle John emphasized in his ministry, back to Christ as the tree of life and back to our first love for Him.

"A number of brothers in North Carolina – in Charlotte, Greensboro, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh – already had very much the same concerns as we had, and we fellowshipped with them outside the conference meetings regarding our situation in the work, the ministry office, and the churches. We also talked with Brother John Little, who came there from Nashville, about some of the present problems, and he was very open to us, agreeing at that time with all our concerns regarding the present situation in the work, the ministry office, and the churches. We were burdened to open to him since we had known him well for many years and wanted him to know how we felt. At the end of April 1988 I was invited to come to Miami, Florida, for a conference with the churches in Southern Florida. It was held April 29th through May 1st. I spoke there again on the Lord’s word to the seven churches, but in a different way, this time emphasizing the practicality and spirituality of the local churches: the practicality being embodied in the local nature of the church, and the spirituality in the three matters of love, life, and light, so stressed in John’s ministry. Concerning the practicality, I emphasized the need for local administration in every church balanced with mutual fellowship together among all the churches.


Further Conferences
"During the months of May and June 1988 I was asked to minister in a number of places, in almost all of which I was burdened to share from the Lord’s word to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3. We emphasized the need to come back to the beginning, saying that the way for us to go on is to come back – back to the living person of Christ as the tree of life. We also spoke in some places concerning the need for local administration in the churches to preserve the Lord’s headship as we did in Miami. Some saints who were in these conferences were disturbed because we were not speaking exactly the same things as Brother Lee concerning the “new way”, although we certainly were not teaching anything different from God’s economy, Christ and the church.

"The brothers in Orange County, California, were desirous of having a conference and arranged for one meeting to be held in Long Beach (Friday night), another in Huntington Beach (Saturday night), and the last in Irvine (Lord’s Day evening). This transpired over the weekend of June 3-5, 1988. The Lord’s blessing was on these meetings as we spoke here locally the same as we had spoken in other churches elsewhere: coming back to the beginning, Christ as our unique Head and center, and local administration and universal mutual fellowship. In Irvine we also stressed the need of all the saints to feed richly on the Word of God for the building up of the church.

"Attending the conference meeting in Irvine were Joseph Fung of Hong Kong and Paul Ma of Santa Cruz, California. It was the first time I had seen these brothers in years and I did not know just where they stood in regard to the concerns we had. They, on the other hand, did not know where I stood. They asked to have a time of fellowship with me the next day, Monday, June 6th, at which time I testified to them what we realized and passed through in recent months. They fully echoed our concerns. I was impressed to learn that Joseph Fung, as well as many others in the Far East had the same burden and realization as we had. This was an encouragement and strengthening.

"The brothers in Anaheim wanted me to share the Word in a little conference there. This I did in two meetings, Saturday evening and the Lord’s Day morning, June 18th and 19th. On Saturday evening we ministered from Ezra on leaving Babylon (which had been manifested in the confusion, division, and depression among us in Anaheim) and returning to Jerusalem to build the house of the Lord. There was a strong sense of the Lord’s speaking and presence, and the sharings of the saints were excellent and very inspiring."


John Ingalls had traveled among the churches and found out the feeling of the elders and saints in many places. He had fellowship with them in order to know their real situation and condition. Ron and Kerry did not have this experience. They did not have John’s exposure to the churches or his function in the Body. They were instead LSM employees working long hours to produce ministry-related materials for the churches. They, therefore, would not have the same feeling and opinion that John had. Based on his fellowship with others in the recovery and his sense within, John Ingalls spoke at his resignation not only voicing his own concerns but also those of many saints in the churches, and he did so according to the Word and the leading of the Spirit.


The claims of Ron and Kerry, therefore, were absolutely false. Steve Isitt Oct 22, 2013

[Ohio]

John Ingalls had traveled among the churches and found out the feeling of the elders and saints in many places. He had fellowship with them in order to know their real situation and condition. Ron and Kerry did not have this experience. They did not have John’s exposure to the churches or his function in the Body. They were instead LSM employees working long hours to produce ministry-related materials for the churches. They, therefore, could not have the same feeling and opinion that he had. Based on his fellowship with others in the recovery and his sense within, John Ingalls spoke at his resignation, not only voicing his own concerns, but also those of many saints in the churches, and he did so according to the Word. The claims of Ron and Kerry, therefore, were absolutely false.

This is why Living Stream Ministry must elevate and exalt Witness Lee to the heretical and papal position of Minister Of The Age (MOTA) within the Recovery. This establishes, exclusively within the walls of the local churches, Witness Lee as the sole ministerial oracle on earth who can (1) speak for for the Lord and (2) know the feeling of the body of Christ. Thus, no elders on earth can know their local flock better than Witness Lee, even if Lee had zero contact with the saints in their locality nor attended their meetings.

Whenever an elder or minister began to speak his conscience for the Lord according to the leading of the Spirit, he was immediately disqualified by Lee and his minions for "doing his own thing, having his own work, speaking for himself out of subjective feelings, or that he presumes to be a spokesman for the whole Recovery." These are supposed to be "serious sins" to God. But, think about it. These exact same condemnations can be spoken about each and every prophet sent by God to his people of old.

This mindset exists only because the Recovery for decades has been inundated and indoctrinated with the thought that God has one and only one spokesman at any time. Thus, if the saints in Anaheim listen to the heartfelt concerns of John Ingalls and their other elders, then automatically, in the minds of the Recovery faithful, John Ingalls must be rebelling against God and Witness Lee, and must be ambitious to be himself the next sole MOTA on earth.

Today this sounds absolutely ridiculous as I write it, but this is the group think I was a part of for many years. This describes the mental framework of every blended brother and LSM adherent. But is this the pattern of the scripture? Did not the Lord appoint Twelve Apostles, and added others like Paul, as Acts unfolded? Did not Jesus while on earth repudiate the thought that any one of them would be the greatest? Was it not the deformed and heretical church in Rome which first presented us with with Peter, the first Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the Holy See, the Oracle of God, the spokesman for the body of Christ?

It's now so disgusting for me to consider that I once swallowed and supported this nonsense. The very thought of a MOTA/Pope directly contradicts at least half of the New Testament. Read your Bible folks!

[OBW]

Thanks for quoted material Steve. I think that it gives the very basis for all of the writings that go on here on this and other similar web-sites, and of the grounds that others, including a number of Biblical scholars, have had for various writings concerning the LRC.

Let's take a closer look.The Basis of Speaking
. . . .

"Since the material in this document concerns an event that took place in the church in Anaheim and since we, the authors, do not live in Anaheim, we believe that it is appropriate for us to state our grounds for writing this material. First, we are organic members of the Body of Christ, and what took place in Anaheim was not only a local matter but also a Body matter. For this reason, it is a matter that concerns us and affects us. Second, the speaking of John Ingalls was transcribed, edited, and distributed. His word has spread beyond his locality, and this word has been brought to our attention. Third, since John’s speaking is actually an attack on Brother Lee and his ministry and on all the churches and saints who continue to receive this ministry, we felt responsible to respond to this attack for the sake of our brother, the churches, and the saints. Fourth, because John’s speaking is subtle and deceptive, some of the saints may appreciate help in discerning the nature and character of this speaking. Finally, John’s speaking presents a distorted picture of the Lord’s recovery and of the Lord’s up-to-date move in His recovery. It is necessary that this distortion be exposed and refuted and that a word of truth be given. In view of the foregoing, we have prepared this analysis of and response to John Ingalls’ speaking."First, we, just like those who took exception to John Ingalls, are organic members of Body of Christ. What happens in the LRC is a Body matter. It concerns and affects us all.

Second, the speakings of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, Titus Chu, Ron Kangus, and so many others have been transcribed, published, and circulated far beyond the confines of the hidey-hole of the so-called Recovery. It has been brought to our attention.

Third, so much of the speaking of these and other men has been an attack on the ministries of many faithful servants of Christ and on the millions of brothers and sisters, called saints in the scripture. We feel to respond on behalf of these, our churches, and the saints who populate them.

Fourth, because the speaking of these men from the LRC is subtle and deceptive, some of the saints may appreciate help in discerning the nature and character of this speaking. (It is amazing how perfectly their own words fit exactly as written.)

Fifth (and finally), their speaking presents a distorted picture of those millions of Christians and their assemblies. It also presents a distorted picture of the so-called "Lord's recovery," daring to call itself the "Lord's up-to-date move in His recovery," and both by open and hidden exclusion, intend that such term only applies to themselves.

"It is necessary that this distortion be exposed and refuted and that a word of truth be given. In view of the foregoing, we" will continue to prepare and submit analysis and response to the deception that parades among God's people as the only true representation of the church.

One less than stellar take on the nonsense that comes from Benson. Unfortunately, I do not expect that a new version of the Jerusalem conference would find Benson back-peddling as James did (if he was actually the source of the problem). Instead, he would be the strongest to assert that his modern-day Judaizers are the core of "the Lord's recovery" and "God's move on the earth."

But that god is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is not the God of Israel and the one who became flesh and dwelt among us. That god is a poor substitute. One that should have been torn down and burned with the Baals and other idols.

[OBW]

I was asked via PM to clarify what the last two paragraphs of my previous post meant. To bring it closer, I have repeated them here.
"One less than stellar take on the nonsense that comes from Benson. Unfortunately, I do not expect that a new version of the Jerusalem conference would find Benson back-peddling as James did (if he was actually the source of the problem). Instead, he would be the strongest to assert that his modern-day Judaizers are the core of "the Lord's recovery" and "God's move on the earth."

"But that god is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is not the God of Israel and the one who became flesh and dwelt among us. That god is a poor substitute. One that should have been torn down and burned with the Baals and other idols."The first sentence is a little self-deprecation. Just like my byline, I think I'm pretty smart, but I'm also smart enough to know that it is not always the truth. So while I may have spun those five points in a different way, I bet someone can take a little time and make even more out of it.

The references to the Jerusalem conference require some consideration.

There are some parallels. Benson has typically been seen as the one behind the curtain for so long. Sometimes out front speaking himself, but even when he does speak, it appears that he is capable of giving a virtually verbatim Lee message (though I doubt he can get the inflections right). So the parallel is to James.

But unlike James, Benson clearly is the leader of the kinds of things that get published, pushed, etc. James might have been given the attribution for source only because he was the leader back in Jerusalem and the troublemakers in the gentile world were claiming to be emissaries of Jerusalem, and therefore from James. When you come to the actual meeting, while James was clearly in the lead, he did not do as would be expected if he had been Lee or even Benson. He did not spit on some letter written by Paul or just say "suck it up and get circumcised" or other such nonsense. He lead a thoughtful and prayerful group that weighed the evidence, the scriptures, what they knew of the speaking of Jesus, and then prayed and concluded that people should generally leave the gentiles alone with respect to the Jewish law.

But Nee and Lee created a hyper law within Christianity that is referred to by such names as "the Lord's recovery," "the local churches," and to others "the church of Lee," or "the Lord's recovery church" (thus LRC). And his speaking internally was to constantly belittle those that do not adhere to his rules, such as one church per city (his), a Minister of the Age (him), etc. Referring to everyone else as "poor degraded Christianity" or "mooing cows." Given the attempt to reach outside of their sect (cult?) with their excessively footnoted bible and other means, it would seem that there is much that "comes from Lee" (or did) and now "comes from Benson."

When they refer to their sect — a sect among the most divisive among Christians — as holding private title to "God's move on the earth" then it is clear that, in some sense, they do not serve the same God that we do. I do not say (as Justyn would back on the Berean forum) that this makes then not Christian. But in these kinds of positions — as well as many other extreme and novel teachings — they are not following the true God, but some other god.

Maybe the god they are following is Lee. I'm beginning to be more and more sure that was who Lee himself was following. His own private rewrite of scripture to fit his own goals and thoughts. Seems that Mohammed had already done that back in the earlier centuries. Lee just managed to keep his version connected with Christianity.

I'm stepping on some toes. Toes of people I love dearly. Family. People that I know to be solid Christians. But Christians blinded into following such error that no matter what you think about the Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and even the Catholics, they at least center on Christ. The LRC speaks a lot about Christ. But they mostly speak about Lee. Whatever he said years ago that got repackaged into the latest Lee-stew book, or HWMR.

I wish there was some way to excise the Lee-leaven out of the LRC because so many of the people are an otherwise good Christian community. I'm afraid that it is nearly impossible because any kind of slow picking at the scabs will just cause the errors to be the focus for so long. Better to jump ship, try to get along with some mainstream Christian group, and deal with each Leeism at it rears its head up. Within a healthier environment there is the hope that truth can be found. From within . . . well, it is like Lee's garlic room. It is virtually impossible to smell the stench after so long a time.

[TLFisher]

One less than stellar take on the nonsense that comes from Benson. Unfortunately, I do not expect that a new version of the Jerusalem conference would find Benson back-peddling as James did (if he was actually the source of the problem). Instead, he would be the strongest to assert that his modern-day Judaizers are the core of "the Lord's recovery" and "God's move on the earth."

But that god is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is not the God of Israel and the one who became flesh and dwelt among us. That god is a poor substitute. One that should have been torn down and burned with the Baals and other idols.

OBW, how I had interpreted this the quoted text of yours when I initially read it, Benson is too fortified with pride to back-peddle. He's the president of LSM (last I knew) and when one of your beliefs is you're the center of God's move on the earth; it's hard to be humble when you're that proud.

When you sell out your conscience for the LSM system, LSM is the lower case god so many precious saints dearly love. The ministry becomes the basis for receiving fellow brothers and sisters which results in division. "If you're not for the ministry, don't waste my time" some might say. Living Stream Ministry has looked the other way when it came to an adulterous office manager. LSM is a ministry that has strengthened the hands of evildoers by calling the true prophets false through their endless quarantines and character assassinations.

“Also among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing:
The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood; And they strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one has turned back from his wickedness.
All of them have become to Me like Sodom, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah."

Jeremiah 23:14

[Indiana]

Opening Remarks continued

The Accusation that Our Practice Does Not At All Match Our Teaching

Ron and Kerry’s keen intellects were very much engaged in their critique of John Ingalls. In their “careful scrutiny” they picked John’s accusations apart, such as “Our practice does not at all match our teaching”. Having more heart and more understanding of the essential message John was trying to convey would have helped Ron and Kerry in their judgment of him. But they cared for scrutinizing the letter of his word, rather than hearing his heart and his spirit. They said,

Please notice the our here. It clearly indicates that John is presuming to speak on behalf of the whole recovery, including all the churches, with all the saints. The word practice denotes the totality of the practices in the local churches; it refers to the whole of the practice in the Lord’s recovery. Then we have the extremely crucial words not at all. These words mean exactly what they say; they are part of an absolute, universal, and exclusive statement, a statement that applies everywhere and at all times and that allows for no exceptions…Is it not evident that John’s statement is far from accurate? Instead of saying that our practice has not at all matched our teaching, John could have said something more moderate and temperate. He could have said, “Our practice is deficient”, or “certain of our practices have not been wholly in keeping with some of our teachings” (p. 10-11).


Yes, that would have been better. Sometimes we overstate things to make a point. Brother Lee was always doing this. Always. He made statements such as, “Nowhere in the recovery is there a proper vital group”. Or, “There is not one case that any leader who has left the recovery has prospered spiritually”. These are absolute statements, but he is just trying to say the vital groups are not doing well and that former leaders have not prospered since leaving the recovery. He tries to make these points. Ron and Kerry got carried away in their scrutiny. They over-scrutinized throughout their book. If they had transferred their scrutinizing exercise of the letter of John’s word to engaging in a proper investigative exercise of John’s burden, they would have understood John. John meant that he was concerned for our practice and this especially was so after having had much fellowship with other churches in the U. S. and having heard of serious problems overseas. His speaking as he did at his resignation was not as Ron and Kerry say in their book, “his personal views”, as if he alone had these views. There was a consensus among many responsible brothers that our practice was seriously not in line with our teaching. John shares,

"During the months of October and November 1987 the elders in Anaheim met regularly with the other elders in Orange County. We expressed to them our burden concerning the low condition of the churches and the need for the revival of our vision and some of the basic things of life. Others shared similar things.

"…A few days later Benson desired to meet with some of the elders representing churches in the area. A lunch was arranged in a nearby restaurant to be followed by fellowship. Present at the meeting were Benson, Dan Towle, Dan Leslie, Ken Unger, Ned Nossaman, Dick Taylor, Frank Scavo, Godfred Otuteye, Al Knoch, and John Ingalls. During the fellowship the brothers began to question Benson concerning current events with the full-timers and the Living Stream Office and the prospects for the church’s relationship with the full-timers. The involvement of the LSM office and its management was a real concern. Benson found it very difficult to answer the brothers’ questions and was alarmed at the attitude of the brothers toward the LSM office. He remarked that the atmosphere in Orange County had changed, and he was bothered. We also were greatly bothered."


Factors of Problem and Concern
John Ingalls wrote about the factors of problem and concern that he and other brothers had in Southern California that:

1) “the work and the ministry was being promoted and given a place of undue preeminence and centrality.”

2) “the burden of the ministry to find a way to preach the gospel and increase the numbers dramatically led to an inordinate emphasis on numbers and increase, with a great stress on budgets, goals, plans, methods, and ways, coupled with predictions of millions being baptized over a period of several years… but the fervor was beginning to diminish and many saints were left languishing.”

3) “numerous examples of the growing influence and control of the LSM office over churches, elders, co-workers, and the full-time training in Taiwan were an intolerable and unscriptural situation”.

4) “the aberrational speaking and activity in the FTTT was alarming… nothing more than the fact that Philip Lee was the administrator of the training… he was in daily fellowship with twenty-four of the trainers and leading ones who called and reported to him all activities (failure to do so resulted in an offense). The trainees were even told that Philip was administrating the training. His power and position were growing immeasurably”.

5) “the matter of serious misconduct related to the personnel in the LSM office could smear the Lord’s testimony and damage Brother Lee’s ministry”.

John’s statement, “Our practice does not at all match our teaching” had merit. All that is needed is an “ear to hear” and a heart to know the heavy matters that weighed on John, and on many others.

[Ohio]

Opening Remarks continued

The Accusation that Our Practice Does Not At All Match Our Teaching


Ron and Kerry’s keen intellects were very much engaged in their critique of John Ingalls. In their “careful scrutiny” they picked John’s accusations apart, such as “Our practice does not at all match our teaching”. Having more heart and more understanding of the essential message John was trying to convey would have helped Ron and Kerry in their judgment of him. But they cared for scrutinizing the letter of his word, rather than hearing his heart and his spirit.

Just another fine example of the seasoned "wordsmiths" in LSM's editorial board, so incredibly proficient at slicing'n'dicing, nit-picking, straining gnats, and niggling away at the words of the prophet raised up by the Lord to restore sanity and health to the church in Anaheim.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"

[TLFisher]

[CENTER]
Ron and Kerry’s keen intellects were very much engaged in their critique of John Ingalls. In their “careful scrutiny” they picked John’s accusations apart, such as “Our practice does not at all match our teaching”. Having more heart and more understanding of the essential message John was trying to convey would have helped Ron and Kerry in their judgment of him. But they cared for scrutinizing the letter of his word, rather than hearing his heart and his spirit. They said,

Please notice the our here. It clearly indicates that John is presuming to speak on behalf of the whole recovery, including all the churches, with all the saints. The word practice denotes the totality of the practices in the local churches; it refers to the whole of the practice in the Lord’s recovery. Then we have the extremely crucial words not at all. These words mean exactly what they say; they are part of an absolute, universal, and exclusive statement, a statement that applies everywhere and at all times and that allows for no exceptions…Is it not evident that John’s statement is far from accurate? Instead of saying that our practice has not at all matched our teaching, John could have said something more moderate and temperate. He could have said, “Our practice is deficient”, or “certain of our practices have not been wholly in keeping with some of our teachings” (p. 10-11).


Yes, I would agree with Ron and Kerry here. They should know as well as anyone how Witness Lee himself would speak in terms of "all or nothing" absoluteness in their work to discredit John. Yet by suggesting what John could have said in order to avoid speaking in absolute terms, Ron and Kerry's own admission is:

“Our practice is deficient”
"certain of our practices have not been wholly in keeping with some of our teachings"

Had Ron and Kerry thought John didn't have merit on any point, why would they suggest it would have been better for John to avoid absoluteness by speaking more moderate and temperate?

[Indiana]

Opening Remarks continued

The Accusation that the Lord’s Recovery Has Changed in Its Nature


Ron and Kerry say on page 11, “With [John’s] personal feelings as the basis, John says not only that none of our practices matches our teaching; he even goes so far as to say that the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed. ‘I also began to realize,’ John tells us, ‘that the nature of what we call the Lord’s recovery has changed’. Here John simply makes the accusation; he doesn’t support it…If John persists in his view, having neither a change of mind nor of attitude, he may take himself out of the divine stream, the flowing of the Triune God, which he once so dearly cherished.”

What flowing of the Triune God? There was dissension, division, and saints leaving the churches due to the change in nature that John refers to. There was no flow of the Triune God. Brother Lee spoke to this matter again and again for several years, especially in elders’ meetings, making statements, such as, “We all have to hate deadness, lukewarmness and barrenness. We must seek to be vitalized in desperation, considering this to be a matter of life or death”; “We may feel that we have been enjoying the Lord every day, but a tree is known according to its fruit. The real church life can be evidenced only by fruitbearing”; “As I have said before, the spirit of not shepherding and seeking others and being without love and forgiveness is spreading in the recovery everywhere. I believe that not having the Father’s loving and forgiving heart and not having the Savior’s shepherding and seeking spirit is the reason for our barrenness. I realize that you all work hard, but there is almost no fruit. The Lord says, ‘By the fruit the tree is known’ (Matt. 12:33), but we are a tree without any fruit.”

“Everywhere among us barrenness is very prevailing”; and “the Lord’s recovery in the United States has come to a point where we cannot go on further without the shepherding.” These are representative examples of much more speaking along these lines after the new way began, as well as before. (See A Word of Love)

The question is why were the churches in such a condition? John realized that there was really no flow, and he searched for the answers. He, and others, were not without spiritual discernment and began to address the idea that there had been a change in nature to the Lord’s recovery.

Godfred
John relates a conversation he witnessed between Brother Lee and Godfred that begins to tell the story of the change in nature.

The Center of the Church

"The next afternoon, Friday, August 26th, I joined Godfred and Al at Brother Lee’s home. Godfred spoke strongly, asking Brother Lee first if he had spoken anything against us recently. He replied that he had not. Then Godfred reasoned with him: How is it that you speak against autonomy, considering that a problem, but you will not deal with the problems that we brought to your attention. Godfred spoke earnestly and impressively. He said, “the center of the church should be Christ, but He has been replaced by you and your ministry.” Brother Lee was touched by what Godfred said, and perhaps considering that what he had just alleged afforded some light for clearing up the problem, he said, “I like to hear that.” I recall the scene vividly, and his words still echo in my ears. It seemed that this time Brother Lee appreciated the frank fellowship and was trying to warm up to us. But we could not seem to make any real progress. Brother Lee remarked that everything that had happened in Europe, which had cause so great a problem between the churches and the Living Stream Ministry was just a misunderstanding. After the meeting Godfred told us that he wanted to leave the eldership and was fully disgusted with the whole situation."


Two Senior Co-Workers From Taiwan

The following excerpt from John Ingalls’ book explains what is meant by the recovery changing in nature, as expressed in a conversation John had with two senior co-workers from Taiwan. John was not merely giving his own personal views in his resignation talk, but the shared views that he had with senior co-workers and many elders and saints in the Lord’s recovery. There was a feeling in the Body about the change in nature.

John continues
"I would like now to record some of the comments made by Brother Jeng Guang Ming. He spoke as follows: 'We co-workers in the past have not had genuine fellowship among us concerning any questionable practices in the churches due to the prevailing concept that we should have no opinion, but rather just listen and submit. Brother Lee has related his experience and attitude toward Brother Nee in order to kill all opinions as well as all feelings and concerns. But our genuine fellowship is in sharing the feelings the Lord gives us, and in this we discover the leading of the Holy Spirit.'

the brother continues
"I very much treasure Acts 13, where the Holy Spirit spoke, 'separate unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' I believe that the speaking of the Holy Spirit to the brothers there in Antioch must have been through the genuine fellowship of the feelings which the Holy Spirit Himself gave to them. The same thing occurred in Acts 15. As long as the Holy Spirit speaks among us there will be no problem. But we don’t have today the leading of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 13 and 15, a leading in fellowship, a subjective leading manifested by each one speaking his own feeling before the Lord. The plurality gives the Holy Spirit opportunity. If we emphasize the one leadership so much how can the Holy Spirit have opportunity? The Spirit’s leading in the Body is in the prayer and fellowship of all. The kind of submission being practiced today kills the move of the Holy Spirit in the churches through the genuine fellowship among the saints. We have no intention to rebel or overthrow Brother Lee. We have suppressed our feeling for many years, though we sensed there were many points of deviation. In Taiwan Brother Chu [Shun Min] and I had no such fellowship concerning the abnormal situation in the churches today as we now have. We feel that the genuine fellowship must be like that recorded in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, where the Lord did not refrain from pointing out the negative aspects as well as the positive, the real situation.

One basic item of the change in nature in the Lord’s recovery is that it appears the Lord’s work has become Brother Lee’s work; the churches have become Brother Lee’s churches; and the Lord’s workers have become Brother Lee’s workers. All things have become personalized, and everything appears to require Brother Lee’s approval to be legitimate. He can acknowledge and he can also deny the validity of the Lord’s workers, elders, and even churches. This concept has been injected to all the brothers and sisters, particularly those who have a heart for the Lord.

Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, “All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over".



John Ingalls
"I will mention just a few more comments made by Brother Chu. He said that he feels very sorry for the present state of things – he gave his whole life to this. He has received letters from elderly ones in Taipei that are full of blood and tears. There are very few elderly ones there who are not discouraged or withdrawn. The warfare now is fiercer than in Watchman Nee’s day when the issue was that of leaving the denominations. We are at a critical juncture. We cannot be silent regarding the change of nature in the Lord’s recovery. We should have no part in it. This is a day for further recovery. We need a new beginning to recover us back from the change of nature to the Lord’s original intention. We must discard all the changes of nature. The main direction is to come out of the system; it cannot change.

Realizations

Previous to meeting with the two senior co-workers, John met with other brothers.

"In those days I had further fellowship with Godfred and with some of the brothers we had contacted, with whom we had intimate fellowship through the years concerning the Lord’s work. We realized that the spiritual condition of the churches throughout the United States and in other places, generally speaking, was very poor, very low. We searched for the reason. Something was radically wrong. The Lord’s blessing was not among us. Life was at a very low ebb. In a number of places there was considerable discord and dissension, and instead of a steady increase in numbers, there was a steady decrease. We began to realize then that there were practices and tendencies among us that we had never considered before. And, we ourselves as well as others were responsible, having participated in these. But we had not seen clearly or realized previously what was being done. Thus we began to come to some conclusions.

I believe that the first was that the ministry was being given a place above the churches. It was being too highly exalted and emphasized, so that it became imperative for every church now to manifest that they were “for the ministry” and to “serve the ministry”. It was no longer, as we were often told, that the ministry was for the churches and that only the churches should be built up; rather the churches now should be for the ministry, and the ministry was being built up. We felt that we should voice such a concern to Brother Lee.

About the second week of October we began to fellowship with Dan Towle, an elder in the church in Fullerton and a trainer from the full-time training in Taipei, who was attempting to give direction and help to the fifty or sixty full-timers who had moved from Taipei to Orange County. To his great frustration, the full-timers were taken over by the LSM office and its management, and were charged to do construction and yard work over an extended period of time to the neglect of their gospel preaching. Dan had also heard some things concerning misconduct and irregularities related to the ministry office that greatly upset him, and he had serious concerns as we did for the Lord’s recovery. At one point he told me that he considered to resign from the work and to leave. We confirmed his feeling that the situation was indeed serious.

Godfred, Dan, and I came together a few times, joined also by Ken Unger on a couple of occasions to fellowship about the situation and what should be done. Ken Unger, who was an elder in Huntington Beach, had himself also become very concerned. We conferred about our burden to speak with Brother Lee, mentioning a number of our concerns that involved aberration of truth and practice (p. 102).

To say that John was leaving the flowing of the Triune God if he continued in his direction was an erroneous perception. Serious problems that had been stopping the flow needed to be addressed, and John did his best to do so. In 1977, Brother Lee had shared,

Do not say, as if it were a mere slogan, "I am following the flow." The real flow is the Lord Himself. How wrong it is to stir up a movement! That is an insult to the Lord. It is an offense to Him. There must never be a movement among us in the Lord's recovery. Do not use the word "flow" as a cloak to disguise a movement. When some of you speak of the flow, you actually mean a movement. To create a movement and then to encourage others to follow it is to make a tremendous mistake (The Spirit and the Body, p. 9, 1977).

John Ingalls was in the church in Los Angeles in the very beginning with Witness Lee in 1962. By 1989 at the time of his resignation he knew what the flowing of the Triune God was and what it wasn’t. In the new way, though it was Scriptural, there was no flow. It was a movement that featured a man and his ministry and a way. A system developed without the “real flow of the Lord Himself”. John tried to address those problems effecting the flowing of the Triune God, which he did experience in Los Angeles in the sixties and early seventies, with the church on a genuine ground of oneness in those years.

Abnormal Spiritual Perception?
Had Ron and Kerry considered what other members, besides John, were experiencing in the late eighties? and how they felt about aberration of truth and practice? and the change of nature in the recovery? John did not stand alone. Ron and Kerry, however, didn’t appreciate or understand John’s research, study, fellowship, and public evaluation, so they could only judge by their limited concept of him and his address to the church. They said,

Before we turn to John’s eighteen numbered points, we need to draw the reader’s attention to a striking feature of John’s speaking on March 19, 1989 – abnormal spiritual perception. As indicated by the material in the transcript, John’s perception of the situation in the Lord’s recovery is abnormal, and his view is biased and distorted. Again and again, his words demonstrate the failure to perceive the true character of the things about which he is speaking. “He does not see the true character of a thing; yet, he considers himself clear.” (Watchman Nee, Spiritual Reality or Obsession, p. 48) John claims certain things to be facts that are not facts. We believe that a careful examination of the content and implications of John’s eighteen points will show that his spiritual perception of the condition and direction of the Lord’s recovery is abnormal and unreliable and that the conclusions he draws from this perception are erroneous and unwarranted.

Again, Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux were Living Stream Ministry employees, working in Irving (also Anaheim). They were daily filled with exercise in writing and editing for printing and distribution. This was a major realm of their involvement in the recovery. They were Witness Lee loyalists through and through. He was their spiritual father, as well as employer. It didn’t matter what Witness Lee did, or how he did it; they stood by him. As long as he was speaking and they were writing, etc., they were happy. John Ingalls was an elder in Anaheim and not active in the LSM work. LSM was a world to itself, and its world was growing. Its influence in the churches was also growing. This was of great concern to those with the least bit of spiritual perception, and it had very much to do with the change in nature in the recovery, as well as to John’s claims in his eighteen points. John Ingalls relates from his own book what he and others perceived. His view is not “biased and distorted”, but honest and forthright, a very normal, not abnormal, spiritual perception.

As has already been shared, the influence and control of the LSM office was a major concern. Here again is some of John’s fellowship about the problem:

John Ingalls
"Another matter that concerned us greatly was the growing influence and control of the LSM office, (i. e. Philip Lee) over churches, elders, co-workers, and the full-time training in Taiwan. We had numerous examples of such an intolerable and unscriptural situation. With my own eyes I saw some leading ones reporting to Philip Lee what they were intending to share with a gathering of Orange County young people and ask if he thought that would be all right. I could hardly believe it. Was this the function of a business manager? When I reported this observation to some brothers who had coordinated with Philip Lee and associated with him, they laughed at me and said that that was very common. They were amused by my being startled by this discovery. Godfred even admitted later that he had done the same thing himself: he had suggested that before someone was chosen to lead a young people’s conference, it should be checked out with Philip. Godfred fully repented of that. Dan Towle remarked that this was our “life-style”. How far off we were!

"Moreover, elders were encouraged to call Philip Lee regarding conferences and many affairs concerning the work and the churches in their areas, asking his advice and who should come to help them. A few places actually practiced this. There are a number of instances of churches and whole areas being cut off by the management of the LSM office from the supply of literature and tapes due to some alleged offense of the elders, regardless of the suffering imposed upon the saints in those churches. When the elders repented in a manner satisfactory to the office, the ban was lifted. Some adjustments, we understand have been made in the administration of the LSM office, but at that time the situation was bad and worsening. The portent for the future was threatening. This was a genuine concern.

Are Ron and Kerry aware of the corrupting effect that Philip Lee brought into the recovery?

Are they aware of the facts concerning him? John Ingalls was well aware.

[UntoHim]

...I hope we can come together and talk about your concerns and also to seek to find a way to bring an end to the negative speaking about the Local Churches on the internet....***The original post has been deleted by the author***

Steve,
Not sure what you mean by "negative speaking about the Local Churches on the internet", but I hope you don't mean the exposing of the real history - the fact that Witness Lee was propagating extremely divisive teachings and practices going back to his days in Taiwan. Lee was attacking other Christians and even suing members of his own denomination long before he landed on our fair shores. Lee was also propagating strange and unbiblical teachings going back to his Taiwan days as well. Apparently Witness exercised some measure of self control (now we know it was just deceit) in the early days here in America, but eventually the real Lee came out, and he boldly declared himself to be the only one speaking for God on earth.

Let's all keep in mind that negative does NOT = false. The Bible is FULL of negative speaking - sometimes it speaks negatively against the words and actions of God's people, sometimes it speaks negatively against a certain leader/leaders. What do we see in the speaking of the Prophets? The vast majority of their speaking was "negative" against God's people and or the leaders. Look at the record of the speaking of the Lord Jesus in the Gospels. When he wasn't busy healing the sick, feeding the poor, eating with sinners and preaching the good news, he was clearing out the temple with a whip and calling the leaders a brood of vipers and sons of the devil! Much of the New Testament was a record of the apostles dealing with the "negative" side of the Church. The simple fact is that negative things will plague us until the end. There will be sin and sinners until the end - when God throws it all into the Lake of Fire.

But one more thing to keep in mind...negative speaking coming from man is not necessarily negative speaking coming from God: "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1) Tragically, this kind of testing was not encouraged in the Local Church. In fact Witness Lee pretty much forbade it. This is exactly what Steve is dealing with in Ron Kangas. He is only capable of testing the spirits of those who might test the person and work of Witness Lee and/or the religious system he established. Thus, those who follow the person and work of Witness Lee inevitably end up in the category of those who "measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding" (2 Cor 10:12) May God have mercy.

[Indiana]

Whether it's Ron Kangas or local brothers, any speaking such as mine or yours is considered negative; so to their ears I use the term "negative speaking". Much of the speaking on the forum is with a positive end in view. And, every type of perceived "negative" speaking on the forum would at least be diminished thru "coming together" and the brothers making at least general public concessions concerning the veracity of several of our concerns.

They should make specific concessions over specific concerns; but to get general concessions is a start. For example, they should have the integrity to admit the fact that

1) Philip Lee was a huge factor in causing turmoil and division in the Local Churches.

that

2) Co-workers did cover up his sins in the office and his abusive and divisive behavior among churches.

that

3) Leaving him out of "official" accounts of Local Church history is a travesty, as is the casting of blame on others, who were moved with righteous indignation to stop the tide of evil in the churches.

trav·es·ty

1. false representation: a distorted or debased version of something
It was a kangaroo court, a travesty of justice. Encarta ® World English Dictionary ©


4)
5)
6)
etc.

[Ohio]

They should make specific concessions over specific concerns, but to get general concessions over specific concerns is a start. For example, they should have the integrity to admit the fact that

1) Philip Lee was a huge factor in causing turmoil and division in the Local Churches.

2) That co-workers did cover over his sins in the office and his abusive and divisive behavior among churches.

3) That leaving him out of "official" accounts of Local Church history is a travesty.


While I agree with you that LSM should make specific concessions over specific concerns, they never will. That would open up a bucket of worms like no other, and their whole house of cards would come crashing down. Their integrity is superseded by their own existence.

What if someone like that new poster Lisbon, who was in the Recovery for 41 years, found out that Witness Lee lied about John Ingalls to coverup the fact that his son Philip was molesting the female volunteer help at the Living Stream ministry offices on Ball Road.

"No, Mr. Isitt, there will be no concessions forthcoming from LSM." :wow:

[TLFisher]

Are Ron and Kerry aware of the corrupting effect that Philip Lee brought into the recovery?

Are they aware of the facts concerning him? John Ingalls was well aware.

Whether Ron or Kerry were aware is a question. What is not debatable, Ron and Kerry were under Phillip Lee. He was for intents and purposes leading LSM on his father's behalf. Phillip was his father's most important co-worker. So, if Ron and Kerry wanted to remain as employees of LSM, they needed to cowtow to Phillip Lee even if they were aware of Phillip's misconduct. In Speaking the Truth in Love Benson Phillips and Ray Graver had admitted as much to John Ingalls and the late Ken Unger knowing about Philip's immoral behavior.

[alwayslearning]

Whether Ron or Kerry were aware is a question. What is not debatable, Ron and Kerry were under Phillip Lee. He was for intents and purposes leading LSM on his father's behalf. Phillip was his father's most important co-worker. So, if Ron and Kerry wanted to remain as employees of LSM, they needed to cowtow to Phillip Lee even if they were aware of Phillip's misconduct. In Speaking the Truth in Love Benson Phillips and Ray Graver had admitted as much to John Ingalls and the late Ken Unger knowing about Philip's immoral behavior.

Of course they were aware! Philip Lee's conduct was an open secret in The Church in Anaheim (more or less as a whole) and in Irving for those who worked at LSM.

But who played whom? Knowing that Benson Phillips since he was a young man dreamed of being the head of an international ministry leads me to believe that he and those in tow from Texas may have been playing the Lee's to insinuate and manipulate themselves into ultimately running LSM. If one has the ambition but not the wherewithal or personality to create an international ministry from scratch (Benson Phillips) one might be willing to tolerate and cover up for a guy like Philip Lee to appease his dad and gain control of the desired position. In other words without the prize of running LSM as a realistic outcome could Benson & Co really stomach the behavior and abuse of Philip Lee? Doubtful IMHO. They played daddy & son to get what they wanted!

[TLFisher]

But who played whom? Knowing that Benson Phillips since he was a young man dreamed of being the head of an international ministry leads me to believe that he and those in tow from Texas may have been playing the Lee's to insinuate and manipulate themselves into ultimately running LSM. If one has the ambition but not the wherewithal or personality to create an international ministry from scratch (Benson Phillips) one might be willing to tolerate and cover up for a guy like Philip Lee to appease his dad and gain control of the desired position. In other words without the prize of running LSM as a realistic outcome could Benson & Co really stomach the behavior and abuse of Philip Lee? Doubtful IMHO. They played daddy & son to get what they wanted!

While meeting in several localities I would hear the brothers who left was due to unfulfilled ambitions (among other reasons). I was told once by Bill Mallon, if he was ambitious he would have never left. (This stemmed from me asking Bill, about the claim I had heard for years. His leaving was due to unfulfilled ambition.) Interesting the full-time co-workers who remained and those who left had everything to lose; financial support.

[alwayslearning]

While meeting in several localities I would hear the brothers who left was due to unfulfilled ambitions (among other reasons)...

This was one of a few off the shelf stock explanations used by Witness Lee & Co. But to use this particular one for the coworkers who were ousted in the late 1980s is really grasping at straws - to say the least.

Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, John So, etc. were at the pinnacle of success (if you will) in the LC system. They were elders locally and senior coworkers in "the work". What would they be ambitious for? The only position higher was Witness Lee's as the global boss over all the work. Does anyone seriously believe any of these brothers wanted Lee's position? Does anyone seriously believe they were stupid enough to think they had the status to realistically claim that position even if they did want it?

Witness Lee and his LSM staffers often gave silly immature explanations hoping their listeners were naive and trusting enough to take them at face value. Unfortunately for the most part they were correct.

[Cal]

Please note also that Benson Phillips, who as a young man laid under the stars on a golf course and saw visions of his leading a big religious movement, was himself never ambitious. :yep:

:music: I've got some oceanfront property in Ar-i-zo-na... :music:

[Ohio]

While meeting in several localities I would hear the brothers who left was due to unfulfilled ambitions (among other reasons). I was told once by Bill Mallon, if he was ambitious he would have never left. (This stemmed from me asking Bill, about the claim I had heard for years. His leaving was due to unfulfilled ambition.) Interesting the full-time co-workers who remained and those who left had everything to lose; financial support.
Witness Lee once came out with these great swelling words of wisdom about all those who had left the Recovery, that they had either ...


Unfulfilled Ambitions
Unforgiven Offenses

Witness Lee, however, would never identify the real issues at the heart of every conflict. It was always so much easier to assign evil motives to those who voiced protest at unrighteousness and criminal activity, while all the time pretending like he alone was the only pure and holy man on earth, suffering evil persecution, from within and without. He was so quick to demand forgiveness from others, yet never would apologize for his own wrongs.

Think about his response for those who lost their life savings during the Daystar disaster, "they lost their virginity." Nothing was ever his fault! Somebody else was always to blame! These saints were robbed by Lee in some grand get-rich-quick scheme, but Lee owed them no apology, rather they should consider it a "gift to the Lord." For the ones who were finally compensated for their "investment," it was because they threatened to go to the authorities.

[TLFisher]

This was one of a few off the shelf stock explanations used by Witness Lee & Co. But to use this particular one for the coworkers who were ousted in the late 1980s is really grasping at straws - to say the least.

Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, John So, etc. were at the pinnacle of success (if you will) in the LC system. They were elders locally and senior coworkers in "the work". What would they be ambitious for? The only position higher was Witness Lee's as the global boss over all the work. Does anyone seriously believe any of these brothers wanted Lee's position? Does anyone seriously believe they were stupid enough to think they had the status to realistically claim that position even if they did want it?

Witness Lee and his LSM staffers often gave silly immature explanations hoping their listeners were naive and trusting enough to take them at face value. Unfortunately for the most part they were correct.

Yes, unfortunately they were correct. The listeners were #1 trusting and #2 naive. Something can be said of an analogy to the children's story"The Emperor's New Clothes".
One of the points I used to emphasize on thebereans.net, if these brothers were SO ambitious as Witness claims and as LSM co-workers still claim, why would they remain for 25 years? If they were ambitious, don't you think they would have exercised ambition to take opver the work while still young men? As it was, after 25 years they were in their late 50's. Much more logical is they were more spiritually mature than their younger co-workers (now known as the blended brothers). Being more spiritually mature, they saw things in the light most brothers and sisters did not see.

[alwayslearning]

One of the points I used to emphasize on thebereans.net, if these brothers were SO ambitious as Witness claims and as LSM co-workers still claim, why would they remain for 25 years? If they were ambitious, don't you think they would have exercised ambition to take opver the work while still young men? As it was, after 25 years they were in their late 50's. Much more logical is they were more spiritually mature than their younger co-workers (now known as the blended brothers). Being more spiritually mature, they saw things in the light most brothers and sisters did not see.

The whole "unfulfilled ambitions" explanation is just a red herring to distract those questioning away from probing into the real reasons these senior coworkers had legit concerns.

Personally I see nothing wrong with people being ambitious. Since when is that a crime? You have a goal and the determination and hard work to achieve it. What's wrong with that? Witness Lee could not build an international ministry without ambition.

So the first thing Witness Lee had to do was make being ambitious a bad thing. (Which he constantly did in his messages all the while being highly ambitious himself.) Once he could convince his audience of this he could henceforth dismissively use it as a one line stock "reason" why many of his closest senior coworkers weren't happy with some of the things going on in the late 1980s. In this manner he could keep covering up the real reasons.

However in this particular instance I'm surprised he and his LSM employees would use this stock answer instead of pulling another one off the shelf. Because as I wrote in a previous post the coworkers involved were already at the top. They were well respected elders and coworkers with stellar reputations throughout the LC system. If indeed they were motivated by ambition the only higher "position" they could hope to achieve was the one held by Witness Lee as the super-apostle over the work globally. Does anyone seriously believe any of these brothers were dumb enough to think that was a realistic goal? And if that was not the goal of their supposed "unfulfilled ambition" then what possibly could it have been? What were they ambitious to achieve for themselves in the LC system that they didn't already have?

May I state it plainly? This stock answer of Witness Lee & Co is otherwise known as: lying. Bold-faced lying to God's people to cover up the real legitimate reasons these coworkers were concerned.

[Indiana]

The Claim that Brothers Were Ambitious

John Ingalls – “It is not our desire, nor has it ever been, to overthrow anyone’s work or ministry, neither have we desired to put anyone’s ministry aside, but rather to bring everything to the light and put everything in the proper context. A report has been circulated that we would not be satisfied until we brought a certain person down; this report was erroneously applied to us. We never had any such intention, nor have we ever conspired against anyone – the Lord knows this and can testify for us. The accusation of conspiracy made against us is an utter falsehood – our testimony as recorded in this account bears this out. Rather we have grieved over those in leadership who have swerved from the path they once proclaimed and espoused. We desperately hoped there would be some change to resolve the serious problems that had emerged, and we fellowshipped earnestly with Brother Lee to this end. We have lamented the damage inflicted and suffered by many saints through practices and attitudes that we too in some measure participated in… For my part, I humbly repent of this”. (Speaking the Truth In Love conclusion, 1990)

Al Knoch – “Anyone who knows John Ingalls knows that he is not ambitious; he is not that way. Who would want that responsibility [of taking over the recovery]. There was no conspiracy” (from an interview with Al, Nov 2000).

John So – In his Manila presentation, John So expressed surprise at the conspiracy charge:

"I would like to just go through Brother Lee’s outline concerning the rebellion. It says the rebellion began to ferment from Stuttgart in 1986. What I would like to do is just give you the chronological events of what took place. I will only deal briefly with things that I personally know quite well, concerning myself, Stuttgart, and Europe. I don’t know and I am not thoroughly familiar with what went on in Hong Kong. I really do not know and I cannot say anything in details. So, I cannot speak for brother Joseph Fung. And I didn’t know exactly what happened in Anaheim in the very beginning. So I cannot speak for brother John Ingalls. I really cannot. And when things happened in Rosemead, I really had no idea what was going on there until I read the literature that they had put out. I did not even know that we had ever formed together an “international conspiracy ring” until Witness Lee said so. I am quite surprised. None of the places I’ve mentioned involved me. Okay, Witness Lee claims that rebellion and conspiracy started to ferment in Stuttgart in 1986. I’m going to start at this point…." (1990, John So’s testimony given in Manila by their invitation)

John Ingalls – John Ingalls speaks of having the same “heart’s burden” as others.
"Brother Lee mentioned then that Bill Mallon, John So, and myself all used the same term – central control. He deduced that we must have consulted or “conspired” together. The fact was that we all had the same realization because of separate similar experiences without any consultation and certainly without any “conspiring“ with each other. John So began to be concerned in 1986, Bill Mallon in the spring of 1987, and myself in the fall of 1987. Eventually, as we had done for years, we had telephone contact with each other, and our heart’s burden came out.

John Ingalls – John shares the following refutation of the conspiracy charge:

"At this point we felt that it would be useful for the brothers we had contacted to come together to fellowship and pray in preparation for going to see Brother Lee, so that we would be clear concerning the issues we would present to him. Moreover, we believed it would be best not to create any stir among the saints or other elders by doing this openly; so we sought some place where we could all meet privately. This was by no means a conspiracy, as we are being charged. At no time did we ever meet with the purpose of plotting to overthrow Brother Lee and his ministry. That is utterly ridiculous. We never had such a thought – the Lord can testify for us. A private meeting or a secret meeting does not constitute a conspiracy. A conspiracy takes form from the content of the meeting. Is it a conspiracy to pray and fellowship together in preparation for visiting Brother Lee and opening our hearts in frank fellowship? Of course not. We were very concerned for the saints and sought for an extended period to cover the grave matters from them lest they be distraught and we suffer worse consequences.
One of the brothers I sought to contact and confer with was Ray Graver, an elder in the church in Irving, Texas, and the manager of the LSM branch office there. I called him in Texas and proposed that I come to see him in Irving. It was thought, however, for us to meet in Irving would attract too much attention; so we settled on meeting midway in El Paso, Texas. This decision is being censured now as a plan for a secret meeting, as if that in itself is evil and a conspiracy. But I fail to see anything wrong with this. It was with a pure motive and desire and certainly was not a plot to draw him into a conspiracy to overthrow anyone’s ministry. Ray was quite willing to do this until Benson Phillips, another co-worker and elder in Irving, Texas, who was then in Taiwan, advised him against it. Had Benson been in Irving, I would have sought to speak with him also. I enjoyed a very good and close relationship with both Ray and Benson for many years."

John So - John So speaks straightforwardly to Brother Lee:

"Originally, I did plan to go to Anaheim to have some personal fellowship with you [Witness Lee] as you requested by phone early December. (I must say at this time I was not too polite anymore. If you would consider that as maybe a rebellion, that’s fine with me. Consider it as a rebellion. Conspiracy, that is also fine with me.) In my last page, I told him, please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry. Neither do I have any desire to convince any brother. By the Lord’s grace, I like to be straightforward and follow my conscience, not to hide anything and not play politics, not to please anyone, or to offend anyone. May the Lord have mercy on all His churches. (I ended the letter that way.)

Bill Mallon - Bill Mallon was very concerned over serious developments in the Southeast churches and of course he opened to other brothers about his concerns, but he spurns the idea that there was ever a conspiracy to overthrow someone. He said that to be charged in this way “would be funny if it were not so tragic”. (from a phone conversation with Bill, 2001)

The brothers simply came together to discuss their serious concerns and desired to bring those concerns into fellowship with other brothers, including Brother Lee. John Ingalls approached Brother Lee sixteen times on behalf of the feeling of many brothers and the burden that many of them had at that time. Ken Unger went to Brother Lee twenty times. After a considerable amount of time had passed with little progress being made, certain brothers began to speak out according to their convictions, based on the Word of God, prior church ministry, and their conscience. This, however, was interpreted by some as speaking differently, and negatively, and being against the new way in the churches.

(Excerpts from Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery)

Steve Isitt

[Cal]

So what if these brothers were ambitious? Since when was ambition a horrible thing? Oh yeah, Lee said so. :bored:

Witness Lee was more ambitious than anyone. He just got to live out his ambition because he was top dog. Nice work if you can get it. Ambition as a vice is a non-starter for everyone except people in "the Recovery." And they only worry about it because Lee told them they should, while all along he fulfilled his monstrous ambition of being the "Minister of the Age." In other words, he held everyone else down because he didn't want rivals. Talk about ambition!

Do you see a discrepancy there, or do I have to spell it out further? I mean, the psychology is so warped I guess you have to be warped to fall for it. Unfortunately, that's what being in a movement like that does to you.

The whole Recovery psychology is about submitting your thoughts to another person. Not God, but another fallen person. If you don't, you are labeled ambitious, rebellious, yada, yada. I mean, it's psycho. Some day someone will write a book about it.

The Recovery reminds me of Communist China. On the surface everyone paid lip service to the words of Mao, and would never oppose him in public. But in private the Chinese people ran capitalism wherever they could. My brother-in-law grew up there. That's how he described it. Christians in the Recovery are the same way. They give lip service to Lee's platitudes, but when push comes to shove they live pretty much like any other halfway-serious Christian. They have families, fun, vacations, hobbies, opinions. In short they live human life like everyone else. They just pretend in their conferences like they are significantly different. I guess it makes them feel good to think that. Or maybe they just think they are supposed to.

[alwayslearning]

Witness Lee was more ambitious than anyone. He just got to live out his ambition because he was top dog. Nice work if you can get it. Ambition as a vice is a non-starter for everyone except people in "the Recovery." And they only worry about it because Lee told them they should, while all along he fulfilled his monstrous ambition of being the "Minister of the Age." In other words, he held everyone else down because he didn't want rivals. Talk about ambition!

Yep! And ultimately it created a culture of passivity and dependency on him and his ministry.

The Recovery reminds me of Communist China. On the surface everyone paid lip service to the words of Mao, and would never oppose him in public. But in private the Chinese people ran capitalism wherever they could. My brother-in-law grew up there. That's how he described it. Christians in the Recovery are the same way. They give lip service to Lee's platitudes, but when push comes to shove they live pretty much like any other halfway-serious Christian. They have families, fun, vacations, hobbies, opinions. In short they live human life like everyone else. They just pretend in their conferences like they are significantly different. I guess it makes them feel good to think that. Or maybe they just think they are supposed to.

This maybe how they are now in the "Recovery" but there were some generations who grew up (in the U.S. at least) without TV, radio, vacations, sporting events, hobbies, etc. Kids watched while their parents burned their baby pictures, etc. Vacations were used for conferences and trainings. Parents would go to LA and later Anaheim and leave their kids with sitters for 10 - 21 days. Thanksgiving? Conference. Christmas? Training. Easter? Conference. Memorial Day? Conference. July 4th? Conference. Labor Day? Conference. For these generations their parents were completely consumed with the LC system and the agenda of Witness Lee.

[TLFisher]

The whole Recovery psychology is about submitting your thoughts to another person. Not God, but another fallen person. If you don't, you are labeled ambitious, rebellious, yada, yada. I mean, it's psycho. Some day someone will write a book about it.

In Afaithfulword.org it's been spun to a spiritual sounding term; respecting the feeling of the body. If you don't submit to the blending brothers, you're being independent. By all appearances, if you don't make LSM publications the basis of assembling, you are meeting independent of the body.

[Truth]

By all appearances, if you don't make LSM publications the basis of assembling, you are meeting independent of the body.

By the way, what happened to the one publication edict? I've noticed that everyone is blogging these days. News songs are being written and posted on the internet. I doubt all of them are LSM approved. Not sure if the one publication can really be carried out. It was possible before the internet era. But now with thousands of members blogging, writing on forums, posting music, messages, etc..., it is impossible to police the situation. I don't think this one publication thing is going to last for very long. What do you guys think?

[aron]

I don't think this one publication thing is going to last for very long. What do you guys think?

You can blog under the LSM, as long as your commentary is limited to "Praise the Lord for..." and then you follow with either a Bible verse or a quote from WL. Or, you can say, "I was really enjoying..." and follow with the same.

Anything beyond that, talk to Steve Isitt. He can tell you what happens next.

Or james73 more recently: see his thread on the subject, titled "Kicked out".

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=4405

james73 made two mistakes: first, he had an opinion. Second, he didn't keep it to himself - he expressed it publicly.

So as long as you don't violate those simple, basic rules: blog away.

[TLFisher]

"We wish to comment on two of John’s closing remarks. John says, 'if we have offended any of you saints, we ask you to please forgive us. We surely never intended to offend anyone of you.' On the one hand, offended saints should receive the grace to forgive from their hearts. To maintain a sweet, harmonious church life we need to forgive one another. On the other hand, John’s word 'If we have offended any of you saints' is somewhat disturbing for it is altogether too general and superficial and it displays a lack of consciousness of the grave offenses caused not only to saints but also to other churches. Certain things said and done in Anaheim since August 28, 1988, have caused damage and distress and should not be dealt with generally and superficially. There is the willingness to forgive but there should also be the willingness to repent."

[CENTER]

John Ingalls – [COLOR="Navy"][B]“ We desperately hoped there would be some change to resolve the serious problems that had emerged, and we fellowshipped earnestly with Brother Lee to this end. We have lamented the damage inflicted and suffered by many saints through practices and attitudes that we too in some measure participated in… For my part, I humbly repent of this”. (Speaking the Truth In Love conclusion, 1990)


Not only in Speaking the Truth in Love, but also at a conference in Virginia did John Ingalls repent. It's clearly in text for Ron and Kerry to read of John's willingness to repent.

[Ohio]

This maybe how they are now in the "Recovery" but there were some generations who grew up (in the U.S. at least) without TV, radio, vacations, sporting events, hobbies, etc. Kids watched while their parents burned their baby pictures, etc. Vacations were used for conferences and trainings. Parents would go to LA and later Anaheim and leave their kids with sitters for 10 - 21 days. Thanksgiving? Conference. Christmas? Training. Easter? Conference. Memorial Day? Conference. July 4th? Conference. Labor Day? Conference. For these generations their parents were completely consumed with the LC system and the agenda of Witness Lee.

Yeah ... but ... I was allowed to celebrate Chinese New Year. :rollingeyesfrown:

[Ohio]

By the way, what happened to the one publication edict? I've noticed that everyone is blogging these days. News songs are being written and posted on the internet. I doubt all of them are LSM approved. Not sure if the one publication can really be carried out. It was possible before the internet era. But now with thousands of members blogging, writing on forums, posting music, messages, etc..., it is impossible to police the situation. I don't think this one publication thing is going to last for very long. What do you guys think?

The one publication edict only applies when the saints stop buying LSM's publications. Perhaps you can post links to some of their sites.

[TLFisher]

By the way, what happened to the one publication edict? I've noticed that everyone is blogging these days. News songs are being written and posted on the internet. I doubt all of them are LSM approved. Not sure if the one publication can really be carried out. It was possible before the internet era. But now with thousands of members blogging, writing on forums, posting music, messages, etc..., it is impossible to police the situation. I don't think this one publication thing is going to last for very long. What do you guys think?

I see the key word being publication. Sure you can blog and you can write music. You can even post YouTube videos as long as it's positive for LSM. It's when you publish apart from LSM whether it's a gospel tract, an online article, or a book is when LSM has an issue. Publishing apart from LSM becomes a bigger problem if it detracts from their revenue as we saw in the last decade in the Great Lakes area.

[TLFisher]

“Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote
something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things. Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that?”
http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsrecovery.us/AudioKangasinEcuador.pdf

It's in writings. Either the writers are lying or blended brothers are exerting much effort to conceal their roles; specifically in the late 80's turmoil. I see them as part of the problem during the turmoil when they could have been part of the solution.

The two writings in particular that com to mind is John Ingalls' Speaking the Truth in Love and David Wang's testimony of his account in Rosemead's turmoil. I have attached for thoe who have not read it.

[Ohio]

“Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote
something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things. Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that?”
http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsrecovery.us/AudioKangasinEcuador.pdf

It's in writings. Either the writers are lying or blended brothers are exerting much effort to conceal their roles; specifically in the late 80's turmoil. I see them as part of the problem during the turmoil when they could have been part of the solution.

The two writings in particular that com to mind is John Ingalls' Speaking the Truth in Love and David Wang's testimony of his account in Rosemead's turmoil. I have attached for thoe who have not read it.

Terry, that Rosemead account by David Wang is an eye opener.

It shows how beloved brothers become bullies once they decide to "follow a man." By choosing to be so-called one with the ministry, they become men-pleasers capable of all manners of evil in order to justify their misaimed goals.

Only by following Christ our Head can we remain true to our conscience.

[TLFisher]

Terry, that Rosemead account by David Wang is an eye opener.

It shows how beloved brothers become bullies once they decide to "follow a man." By choosing to be so-called one with the ministry, they become men-pleasers capable of all manners of evil in order to justify their misaimed goals.

Only by following Christ our Head can we remain true to our conscience.
You know reading David Wang's account you read another instance how current blending brothers had their fingerprints in the late 80's turmoil. No wonder Dan Towle was so reactive when Steve Isitt wrote In Wake of the New Way. If responsible brothers start doing their research, they will be alarmed and incensed over the degree of whitewashing. To ignore or pretend the whitewashing (Matthew 25:27) does not exist, that is being irresponsible.
To be one with the ministry is in effect no different than liberals who choose to be one with Obama's administration. The principle is no different; playing politics. One administration regards a federal government while the other administration regards a Christian publisher which influences many local churches.

I saw this link http://www.blendedbody.com/AAA-PersonalEvaluation/The%20Lord%92s%20recovery%20is%20not%20a%20part%20 of%20Christianity.htm
in another thread. I thought it would be fitting here.

[Indiana]

This is my first post since last Nov (2013). I am compelled to share some developments.

To elders, brothers, sisters in Seattle, (Sept 27, 2014)

Excerpt from 1st letter
I have had recent church life experience in the church in Spokane after a 12 year absence from an environment of fellowship in the ministry of Witness Lee. This came after enough experience with believers elsewhere to comprehend the shortcoming in ministry of the word that there is in so many places. My experience in Spokane was highlighted by the home meeting I was brought into, as we viewed videos on messages from the Philippians and Galatians LS Trainings. The three I saw were excellent as was our fellowship together before and afterwards. The two Sunday morning meetings I attended were a profound exercise of spiritual singing and corporate sharing from the saints’ rich deposit within them. Additionally, there was an outstanding Sunday evening of fellowship that “featured” a video out of Anaheim, along with the saints’ sharing.

It is no small thing to be in an atmosphere conducive for the dispensing of Christ into one another. Neither is it a small thing to be cut off from fellowship, when word came from Seattle to Spokane about me. I came one more time and heard from an open window the singing and speaking of the saints. Before long I was infused and left amazed, smiling and enlivened....

2nd Letter
www.lordsrecovery.us/SeattleLetter2-2014.pdf

[Dave]

This is my first post since last Nov (2013). I am compelled to share some developments.

To elders, brothers, sisters in Seattle, (Sept 27, 2014)

I have had recent church life experience in the church in Spokane after a 12 year absence from an environment of fellowship in the ministry of Witness Lee. This came after enough experience with believers elsewhere to comprehend the shortcoming in ministry of the word that there is in so many places. My experience in Spokane was highlighted by the home meeting I was brought into, as we viewed videos on messages from the Philippians and Galatians LS Trainings. The three I saw were excellent as was our fellowship together before and afterwards. The two Sunday morning meetings I attended were a profound exercise of spiritual singing and corporate sharing from the saints’ rich deposit within them. Additionally, there was an outstanding Sunday evening of fellowship that “featured” a video out of Anaheim, along with the saints’ sharing.

It is no small thing to be in an atmosphere conducive for the dispensing of Christ into one another. Neither is it a small thing to be cut off from fellowship, when word came from Seattle to Spokane about me. I came one more time and heard from an open window the singing and speaking of the saints. Before long I was infused and left amazed, smiling and enlivened.... Excerpt from 1st letter

2nd Letter
www.lordsrecovery.us/SeattleLetter2-2014.pdf (http://www.lordsrecovery.us/SeattleLetter2-2014.pdf)
You are certainly persistent. I remember reading your material over the years on the internet. I'm sincerely glad you have found what you are looking for but from your pdf it appears they have cut you off again. That is a real bummer.

[Indiana]

First letter excerpt: "On August 8, 2014 I received a phone call from the Spokane brother hosting our home meeting, informing me that because of the report from Seattle I could no longer attend the home meeting. He was hopeful, though, and even jubilant in believing I would soon be restored to fellowship as there would be more contact with Seattle. I was to first take down my websites to open the way for fellowship, which I did take down, and informed this brother.

I knew though that if I would be dealing with the same mentality as in the past, I would not only NOT be restored, I would most likely be ignored - completely. And this is what did happen. The Seattle elder who gave the report of censure, did not respond to the fact that I was making progress in the Lord in Spokane and that the brothers were happy with me and wanted me there. The brothers in Spokane, then, closed the doors to me till I could get through with the brothers in Seattle, who also closed their doors to me.
Taking the websites down did not open up fellowship. And either did the testimony that I was doing well and that I was wanted in Spokane. Further, the fact I have had no activity on the internet in 2014 or in most of 2013 had not yet come to their ears, and if it had, still their mind and heart would remain closed."

[HERn]

Dear brother Indiana: Why do you waste your time with these people?

[Indiana]

Dear brother Indiana: Why do you waste your time with these people?

I understand, HERn. A brother close to me wrote:


"Bro. Steve,
"I know that you have been very exercised in your spirit regarding your burden to have the local church open to reconciliation, and so are many brothers, I being one. The leadership in the local churches (Living Stream affiliated) have had ample opportunity to review before the Lord what has happened with the churches over the years, yet I see no breakthrough. Perhaps, the Lord will keep the same burden in your heart until he returns, but I do believe, brother, the local churches in the "new way" have departed from the faith once delivered to us. That is, that our faith that is grounded in the light of God's word, in His love for the saints and his administrative Headship, not coming from "local church Leadership" who have propagated a systematized and robotic like practice to exact perverted oneness far removed from the dynamic working of the Lord in each saint's life. Steve, remember the age we are in. The Church in Laodicea will remain as is when the Lord returns/ He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit says, and the Lord is knocking at the door, much like you have been doing. Did they open the door for fellowship? Emphatically, No! Perhaps, it is time to declare enough and shake off your shoes and go on."

Love in Christ, Ruben

[TLFisher]

First letter excerpt: "On August 8, 2014 I received a phone call from the Spokane brother hosting our home meeting, informing me that because of the report from Seattle I could no longer attend the home meeting. He was hopeful, though, and even jubilant in believing I would soon be restored to fellowship as there would be more contact with Seattle. I was to first take down my websites to open the way for fellowship, which I did take down, and informed this brother.

I knew though that if I would be dealing with the same mentality as in the past, I would not only NOT be restored, I would most likely be ignored - completely. And this is what did happen. The Seattle elder who gave the report of censure, did not respond to the fact that I was making progress in the Lord in Spokane and that the brothers were happy with me and wanted me there. The brothers in Spokane, then, closed the doors to me till I could get through with the brothers in Seattle, who also closed their doors to me.
Taking the websites down did not open up fellowship. And either did the testimony that I was doing well and that I was wanted in Spokane. Further, the fact I have had no activity on the internet in 2014 or in most of 2013 had not yet come to their ears, and if it had, still their mind and heart would remain closed."

“I have heard that some brothers notice things happening that are not right, but they dare not say anything. To avoid getting involved, they stay silent and let the suffering go on. To do this is to play politics. This is what some of you have been practicing. Dear brothers, change your mind. Repent. Let us have no more such things.” (Witness Lee, Practical Talks 2, p. 23, 1983)

The brothers are playing politics. The ones in Seattle had no intention of offering fellowship. You were going on positively in Spokane FAR FAR away from Seattle. There was no need for brothers to play the Partiality card. Since when did the Church in Spokane begin catering to Seattle, Bellevue, etc? For years Spokane was a local church that practiced autonomy.

[HERn]

I understand, HERn. A brother close to me wrote:


"Bro. Steve,
"I know that you have been very exercised in your spirit regarding your burden to have the local church open to reconciliation, and so are many brothers, I being one. The leadership in the local churches (Living Stream affiliated) have had ample opportunity to review before the Lord what has happened with the churches over the years, yet I see no breakthrough. Perhaps, the Lord will keep the same burden in your heart until he returns, but I do believe, brother, the local churches in the "new way" have departed from the faith once delivered to us. That is, that our faith that is grounded in the light of God's word, in His love for the saints and his administrative Headship, not coming from "local church Leadership" who have propagated a systematized and robotic like practice to exact perverted oneness far removed from the dynamic working of the Lord in each saint's life. Steve, remember the age we are in. The Church in Laodicea will remain as is when the Lord returns/ He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit says, and the Lord is knocking at the door, much like you have been doing. Did they open the door for fellowship? Emphatically, No! Perhaps, it is time to declare enough and shake off your shoes and go on."

Love in Christ, Ruben

They cannot be helped or moved. I fear they may be whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones.