On the Lee Road

[Indiana]

Dick Taylor tried to encourage John Ingalls, saying, “I think this is all we can do (or expect)”, but, John said, his conscience was bothered, that “nothing major was addressed”. Ken Unger, a former LSM trainer, told me “it was a perfect opportunity and setting” for Brother Lee to gain the brothers by addressing their LSM-related concerns. They had appreciated his speaking to minor concerns previously; but he never got to the crux of the “Problems and Concerns”, the real factors of turmoil and division - omitted in Lee’s book; but not in John’s. (excerpt from John Ingalls' book, Speaking the Truth in Love)


https://reviewingchurchhistory.com/O...Feb19-2025.pdf

[PeterG]

Thank you Indiana!
how do you see things at the moment? You wrote that would like to see easing some tensions...

[Indiana]

We could Review the public stand taken passionately after W. Lee accepted their invitation to join them in LA, where the blessing of the Spirit began.


"We receive all of God’s children as fellow-members of Christ’s Body, regardless of their Christian background; however, we have no organizational connections
with any of their particular associations, works, activities, etc."

https://reviewingchurchhistory.com/P...ment%20(2).pdf

[PeterG]

On the Nee road

Hi Indiana,

I would appreciate that, because I too am someone who likes to hold on to good roots. But that's why I have to dig a little deeper.

At the beginning of the 1963 statement it says:

"We do not intend to be any kind of new 'movement', but to practice the unity of the Spirit, a unity with variety, and the variety versus uniformity, in the way of a local church."

But Watchman Nee said in 1934 (the year of the “Vision”):

„Due to the outward ruinous appearance of the Church today, however, the division among God’s people is so serious that no group of believers — including ourselves — can freely call itself the local assembly.”
Nee repeated this several times in Assembly life (1935).

Do you see the difference? I fully believe in the blessings of the early work in the USA and would have loved to have been there. But here, in my opinion, the core of all later confusion already exists. Yes! The little flock should have remained a "movement" that explains anew to a confused Christianity what a church is in God's eyes.

It should still be.

[Indiana]

Stephen Kaung spoke similarly to your quote by Nee. When WL wanted SK to take the ground in NY, the response from SK was "There are millions of people in NYC, how can we say that 'we are THEE Church in NY." He couldn't go that far. And, it wasn't without sound reasoning. It should be well-worthwhile to trace back the thoughts of Nee and SK, others too, on the subject. I like what you quoted from WN in Assembly Life. It is a solid start of tracing back the understandings of others. That book was from the beginning of the resumption of Nee's ministry after the 6 year suspension of his ministry.

[PeterG]

Yes, both Kaung and Nee obviously had the right attitude of humility and respect for what already exists in the locality.