[Nell]

Originally Posted by Davis

Hi Nell, Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I realized that in my haste to post about my thoughts, I was overly and unfairly critical of John Ingalls. I apologize. I'll try to better express myself and respond to your points.

The attached file is an article that came out in the LA Times January 7, 1989: "Crisis Threatens Future of Little-Known Church". It covers the Phillip Lee scandal with some pretty interesting stuff.

The points you made were rational in most situations...except in the context of the Local Church/LSM. They do things differently there. They use words differently. Phillip Lee was a reprobate son protected by his father. I believe it has been stated before that WLee may have actually been "afraid" of Phillip to some extent, and had little to no control over him. It seems that Phillip was a bully.

This is a very good point, one which I feel silly for having overlooked, especially in the context of the LCs. I admit I don't know the legal specifics in these matters. Would it still be libel to have stated the nature of a legitimate accusation (not saying "Philip Lee did this" but that "Philip Lee was accused of this")? I'm guessing that if the sister was unwilling to testify publicly, it would be, and I respect his desire to respect her wishes and privacy.

Maybe. I'm not sure how it would play out, but keep in mind, in the legal system in this country "anybody can sue anyone for anything."

I was a "legal assistant" in another life, and typed up many "Petitions" initiating a lawsuit. Mostly personal injury. The Petition always claimed that the Plaintiff's injuries had broken every bone in his body, pulled and tore every muscle, his life was permanently altered, he could never work again...on and on...and it was all the fault of the Defendant. The real injury was in there somewhere, but they cover all the bases "just in case." Eventually, everything is thrown out except the real cause of action.

I could imagine such a case with a Lee Family lawsuit. Massive overstatement of "facts" and damages, etc.. John could come out looking like the criminal and Phillip the poor victim of John and some naughty sister's imagination. This has been the pattern of the LSM lawsuits.

Taking a step back, I realize that you are completely right here. Again, I apologize that my earlier post attacked John's character, that was not my intention.

I didn't think that was your intention. Asking "why" is not a bad thing...unless you're in the LC!

This is what frustrates me the most, and my first post didn't explain that properly. I think that John did what he could; however, the expectations of behavior in the LC severely limited the effect of his good intentions. My criticism here is not of the man, but of the actions that I believe were a result of years alongside Witness Lee.

I guess what bothered me was the brothers accepting that Witness Lee would do anything less than taking immediate action to rectify the situation (removing Philip and listening and responding to the victims compassionately and justly). However, in John's position, I may very well have done the same thing. If I had worked with him for years and believed him to be the minster of the age, it probably would have taken a lot for my faith to be shaken. As someone who is now removed from the LC and never knew WL personally, it is easy to see his behavior for what it was, but I realized I could not expect the same from someone who esteemed him so highly.

At one of those fellowship dinners when John was in town visiting, I reminded him of something he said when I first heard him speak at a conference in Dallas. I had never forgotten it. When this conversation took place, John had already been gone from the LC for a few years. In this context I said to him

"John, I remember something you said in that conference that I will never forget."

His eyes started to get real big and he had an "uh-oh" look on his face.

"You said that you would never leave the way of 'life and building'. Even if Witness Lee himself were to leave and take another way, you could not abandon what you had seen in the Word of God as the path for believers and in meeting together as the church." (Paraphrased)

His eyes were saucers now. He s-l-o-w-l-y said, "I did?"

"Yes. You did."

We were all cracked up laughing at him now. He was very expressive when he talked about almost anything! Those who heard John speak in conferences or knew him personally can imagine the look on his face!

My point in reminding him about his statement in that conference was this: he was true to his word. Witness Lee was not faithful to the vision he brought to all of us. John had seen something from the Lord, and he was faithful to the Lord...not Witness Lee. Witness Lee had changed, or maybe, Witness Lee was never faithful to his own ministry. Maybe he had the family business and his sons as priorities.

That said, you're right. John had been with Lee for at least 20+ years. I'm sure John loved Witness Lee like a brother and the personal ties they shared were very real.

I think this goes to a matter that has been central to many discussions here: covering the brothers. The well meaning brothers trusted that by covering the situation, WL would handle it properly, and the church could go on healthily, but then he didn't, left the elders to deal with the outrage, and blackballed them when they tried to explain what had actually happened.

I don't think John "covered" the situation. He took it up the chain of command as he should. The problem was Witness Lee allowing his reprobate son to manage "the office" for LSM. (If you have a problem with a brother...go to the brother.) He gave Lee a chance to handle it properly so the church could go on. When Lee failed, and the church found out, the band-aid was ripped off and the Church in Anaheim came unglued. If I had been there, I think I would have been right there with them to excommunicate Phillip. Eventually John went on the record. This is also scriptural. Every word was established from John's position.

I believe this clarifies what I wanted to say earlier, I don't wish to be unfairly negative or harsh. I hope this thread can be a site of discussion for anyone reading the book for the first time or returning to it.

On the "negative/harsh" scale, from 1 to 10, for this forum, you get a .5!

I remember a conversation I had with Ray Graver when I was a newbie. He asked me if "whoever" was "negative". I said "No. They weren't negative. The situation was negative." I think we can put STTIL in that category.

Thanks for the post!

Nell