Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Indiana · 10-23-2013, 07:03 PM

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.

10-23-2013, 07:03 PM	#216
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 718	Our Practice Does Not At All Match Our Teaching 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.