False Narrative of Church History

[Boxjobox]

I'm a San Diego person, who walked away from the LC in the mid-80' when the LC officially married the LSM. Today, out of curiosity, I went to the "church in San Diego" web site, and clicked on "history". The picture on that page is of mountains with pure, wind driven snow, and the history presented exactly matches the picture- so high, so clean, so pure. There is no mention of their subservience to LSM, no mention of how many saints and elders walked away- it's a total plastic, copacetic, false narrative of the true history. If Paul had used this method, Corinthians 1 and 2 could have been a one chapter book, Luke would have the Acts looking like a cake-walk! I mean a history should be a history. All Israel had before them their complete history, with the good, the bad and the ugly, so that they could learn, reflect, understand, seek the Lord about, the how, when, where, and whys of their present state.
Denial, a false narrative, an unreal assessment of the true condition is the characteristic of the church in Laodicea. It does not reflect the person or work of the one who walks among the churches, whose words are a sharp, two edged sword.
Their history points out that they have been meeting in San Diego for 35 years, and that there are about 275 adults currently meeting. There are over 1.5 million people in the city proper. What's wrong with this picture?

[countmeworthy]

I was there from 1975 - 1978.. then 'migrated' to Tempe, Az The LC in Tempe was a disaster as I think everyone wanted OUT...it was more of a venting church than anything else..

I still have a heart and love for my San Diego brethren. I was totally shocked when I went to visit in 2005 and there was a SIGN on the building that said 'the church in San Diego'.

There were a few 'old timers'... but many had left or moved away 'migrated'. I still had a good time visiting nevertheless. But I could not ever go back. I would not fit in!! Everyone was engrossed in the 'footnotes' of Brother Lee and the HWMR garbage.

Yeah... the narrative is old and antiquated. It has not changed in eons.. decades!!

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'm a San Diego person, who walked away from the LC in the mid-80' when the LC officially married the LSM. Today, out of curiosity, I went to the "church in San Diego" web site, and clicked on "history". The picture on that page is of mountains with pure, wind driven snow, and the history presented exactly matches the picture- so high, so clean, so pure. There is no mention of their subservience to LSM, no mention of how many saints and elders walked away- it's a total plastic, copacetic, false narrative of the true history. If Paul had used this method, Corinthians 1 and 2 could have been a one chapter book, Luke would have the Acts looking like a cake-walk! I mean a history should be a history. All Israel had before them their complete history, with the good, the bad and the ugly, so that they could learn, reflect, understand, seek the Lord about, the how, when, where, and whys of their present state.
Denial, a false narrative, an unreal assessment of the true condition is the characteristic of the church in Laodicea. It does not reflect the person or work of the one who walks among the churches, whose words are a sharp, two edged sword.
Their history points out that they have been meeting in San Diego for 35 years, and that there are about 275 adults currently meeting. There are over 1.5 million people in the city proper. What's wrong with this picture?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The picture on that page is of mountains with pure, wind driven snow, and the history presented exactly matches the picture- so high, so clean, so pure. There is no mention of their subservience to LSM, no mention of how many saints and elders walked away- it's a total plastic, copacetic, false narrative of the true history.

Part of the "de-leavening" process ex-members go through is to reject every bit of church history we learned there.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Part of the "de-leavening" process ex-members go through is to reject every bit of church history we learned there.

I would say part of the LC brainwashing technique is to forget every bit of their own history and create a false narrative. As I say, this is not how the scripture handles the history of God's people.

It's like China- you have the People's Liberation Army, but the people are under the thumb of the communist regime that controls them and the liberation army!

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'm a San Diego person, who walked away from the LC in the mid-80' when the LC officially married the LSM. Today, out of curiosity, I went to the "church in San Diego" web site, and clicked on "history". The picture on that page is of mountains with pure, wind driven snow, and the history presented exactly matches the picture- so high, so clean, so pure. There is no mention of their subservience to LSM, no mention of how many saints and elders walked away- it's a total plastic, copacetic, false narrative of the true history. If Paul had used this method, Corinthians 1 and 2 could have been a one chapter book, Luke would have the Acts looking like a cake-walk! I mean a history should be a history. All Israel had before them their complete history, with the good, the bad and the ugly, so that they could learn, reflect, understand, seek the Lord about, the how, when, where, and whys of their present state.
Denial, a false narrative, an unreal assessment of the true condition is the characteristic of the church in Laodicea. It does not reflect the person or work of the one who walks among the churches, whose words are a sharp, two edged sword.
Their history points out that they have been meeting in San Diego for 35 years, and that there are about 275 adults currently meeting. There are over 1.5 million people in the city proper. What's wrong with this picture?

Great points Boxjobox.

What's even weirder and outlandish is there are similar mixed good, bad, and ugly histories in all of the many local churches I've lived in and visited during 27 years and all of their web sites have the exact same sanitized and false versions of their beliefs, practices, and history.

I wouldn't want to be one of their leaders explaining the lies to the Lord when he asks for an accounting of how they shepherded the flock in righteousness and truthfulness.

[Boxjobox]

I mean, really, if you are God's up to date move on the earth in San Diego, and you have a ministery where the deputy authority's material is being dispensed into you and you are being transformed by it, and this has been going on for 35 years in the city, shouldn't your history statement include this. Why deceive or hide this from the public and seeking Christians? Come out and proclaim it boldly!

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I mean, really, if you are God's up to date move on the earth in San Diego, and you have a ministery where the deputy authority's material is being dispensed into you and you are being transformed by it, and this has been going on for 35 years in the city, shouldn't your history statement include this. Why deceive or hide this from the public and seeking Christians? Come out and proclaim it boldly!

I moved to San Diego in 1999 after suffocating in Seattle to the extent a new start was needed. I hadn't yet written In the Wake of the New Way, but I had read John Ingalls book (1995) and my eyes were opened to see what was going on; and, to Br. Lee there was one narrative, totally positive, but to others a deviation from the path was in full swing.


Witness Lee had one narrative - John Smith and others had another.

Excerpt from my writing Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery (2007)

"When the elders in Southern California came together and opened to one another about the real situation in their churches, Brother Lee showed little interest that serious problems were taking a toll on the members, especially on the elders. He did show much concern though for the progress of LSM and fully expected elders to submit to his objectives, showing no regard for their feeling."


John Ingalls –

"On the evening of Monday, December 14, 1987, Brother Lee called a meeting of the elders of Southern California. There was a fair number there representing most of the churches in the area. After prayer, Brother Lee opened the fellowship by giving a long word concerning the new way and its great success in Taiwan. Then he asked for fellowship from the brothers, desiring especially to know how successful the new way had been in their locality.

Dick Taylor, an elder in Long Beach, started 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.

We were not the only ones who went to Brother Lee with our concerns during these days. We heard that Dan Towle, individually, and Frank Scavo together with Dick Taylor also went to see Brother Lee to express to him their concerns about the present situation." (Deviating from the Path, p. 103)

Witness Lee commented from his book about the same meeting:

"Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, [B]John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.' (p. 59, FPR).


"This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Witness Lee commented from his book about the same meeting:

"Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, [B]John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.' (p. 59, FPR).

"This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls."

We have a choice. We can believe the numerous accounts of all the men of God who left the LC's, or we can believe Witness Lee's farcical account of this "vast global conspiracy," which btw is the same version of events he has used for every "storm" in the recovery.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have a choice. We can believe the numerous accounts of all the men of God who left the LC's, or we can believe Witness Lee's farcical account of this "vast global conspiracy," which btw is the same version of events he has used for every "storm" in the recovery.

The thing is, WL has been dead and gone for a good number of years now. They hash over his material as if it relevant. If after 35 years, in a large city, you only have 275 people eating the hash, I would say it's time to take a long, honest look at what it's really done for the church ( in the scriptural sense) in San Diego. You would think, because his material is believed as the oracle of God, and WL was the present day apostle of some sort, that flocks of Christians would have seen this great light by now and God would have honored the hashing extravaganza with pastors, believers, and new ones flooding in.

Instead, in their history statement they don't even mention him or his material. Makes you wonder if they are ashamed of it, embarrassed? Or just plain sneaky.

They left their first husband, and are now living with Mr LSM, yet they are too ashamed to let other believers know about this strange relation, they now have. What? If they bring up Mr. LSM are they afraid it will scare people off? Or do they just not have a good way of explaining their adulterous situation?

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have a choice. We can believe the numerous accounts of all the men of God who left the LC's, or we can believe Witness Lee's farcical account of this "vast global conspiracy," which btw is the same version of events he has used for every "storm" in the recovery.

from a piece by Nigel on G. H. Lang


LSM’s Vilification of G. H. Lang (excerpt)

The Brethren Bible teacher, George Henry Lang (1874-1958) was unjustly maligned by LSM’s ‘Local Church’ movement. LSM exhibits a schizophrenic attitude towards Lang. On one hand they laud him, saying “G. H. Lang [was] one of the greatest Bible expositors and scholars during the past century and the author of 40 Christian books...” Plus they appeal to Lang’s support of their ‘ground of locality’ doctrine. On the other hand, Lang was a whipping boy’ during LSM’s 1980s campaign against local church autonomy. Among members of LSM’s Local Church movement this latter aspect—the vilification of G. H. Lang--dominates their overall impression. LSM publications—books authored by Witness Lee--document over a dozen instances in which G. H. Lang is vociferously berated for teaching the autonomy of the local church. We argue that LSM’s maligning of G. H. Lang is undeserved; during his lifetime, Lang was an enthusiastic supporter of the Local Church’s ‘founding father’—brother Watchman Nee. Christian history scholar, Dr. David O. Woodbridge, asserts that1 Watchman “Nee...received enthusiastic support, particularly from...[G. H.] Lang.” This claim is substantiated by G. H. Lang’s personal correspondence with Watchman Nee—a resource LSM totally neglected. Moreover, Lang’s teaching on “autonomy” was not significantly different for W. Nee’s own teaching. It is hypocritical therefore to denounce G. H. Lang, while claiming to faithfully follow Watchmen Nee. It appears that G. H. Lang was simply a ‘scapegoat’ during LSM’s campaign to undermine a fundamental tenet—the autonomy of each local church. “The Body” was used to trump the local church. Meanwhile LSM’s soon-to-be ‘blended brothers’ began promoting W. Lee under the rubric of being ‘one with the ministry.’ In retrospect these events marked the start of LSM’s subversion of the local churches and began the globalization of Witness Lee’s ministry.

[countmeworthy]

Brother Lee was visibly bothered, and later reacted strongly to the brothers’ speaking, saying of one brother’s sharing (John Smith’s) that it waslike pouring iced water on him

Interesting choice of words. Sounds like he liked being 'luke warm'.. comfortable... and yet somewhere in the message to Laodicea Jesus says:
‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

Originally Posted by Indiana

I moved to San Diego in 1999 after suffocating in Seattle to the extent a new start was needed. I hadn't yet written In the Wake of the New Way, but I had read John Ingalls book (1995) and my eyes were opened to see what was going on; and, to Br. Lee there was one narrative, totally positive, but to others a deviation from the path was in full swing.


Witness Lee had one narrative - John Smith and others had another.

Excerpt from my writing Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery (2007)

"When the elders in Southern California came together and opened to one another about the real situation in their churches, Brother Lee showed little interest that serious problems were taking a toll on the members, especially on the elders. He did show much concern though for the progress of LSM and fully expected elders to submit to his objectives, showing no regard for their feeling."


John Ingalls –

"On the evening of Monday, December 14, 1987, Brother Lee called a meeting of the elders of Southern California. There was a fair number there representing most of the churches in the area. After prayer, Brother Lee opened the fellowship by giving a long word concerning the new way and its great success in Taiwan. Then he asked for fellowship from the brothers, desiring especially to know how successful the new way had been in their locality.

Dick Taylor, an elder in Long Beach, started 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.

We were not the only ones who went to Brother Lee with our concerns during these days. We heard that Dan Towle, individually, and Frank Scavo together with Dick Taylor also went to see Brother Lee to express to him their concerns about the present situation." (Deviating from the Path, p. 103)

Witness Lee commented from his book about the same meeting:

"Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, [B]John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.' (p. 59, FPR).


"This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Witness Lee commented from his book about the same meeting:

"Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, [B]John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.' (p. 59, FPR).


"This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls."

It's as if elders were incapable of thinking for themselves and making their personal decisions.
Paraphrasing, it was December 2011 when Steve Isitt was at a Anaheim restaurant with John Ingalls, John was confronted by a Vista elder and his wife. In the same spirit of Witness Lee's speaking, they were holding John responsible for influencing the ones who had left the recovery in the late 80's. Should Steve choose to do so, present his account of what transpired at that Chinese Buffet.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's as if elders were incapable of thinking for themselves and making their personal decisions.
Paraphrasing, it was December 2011 when Steve Isitt was at a Anaheim restaurant with John Ingalls, John was confronted by a Vista elder and his wife. In the same spirit of Witness Lee's speaking, they were holding John responsible for influencing the ones who had left the recovery in the late 80's. Should Steve choose to do so, present his account of what transpired at that Chinese Buffet.

WOW.. I know who that couple is! I stayed with them in Vista when I visited San Diego in 2005. They were very close to John I at one time. He stayed at their home many times before John I left. I asked them about John Ingalls in 2005. They did not say much but their expression was that of disdain and I left it at that. They also knew John Smith of course. We all loved John and Sonya, his wife. I asked them about John Smith as they were close to him too. They "Did not know where John was" ! BOOSHWAH! They knew. They never told me what happened in the 80s.

I have not heard from them in eons but I know they are living in England now under the LSM umbrella. We were so close in San Diego back in the day. I still love them. I know God is going to fix this mess. He is going to make all things new.

Blessings

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's as if elders were incapable of thinking for themselves and making their personal decisions.
Paraphrasing, it was December 2011 when Steve Isitt was at a Anaheim restaurant with John Ingalls, John was confronted by a Vista elder and his wife. In the same spirit of Witness Lee's speaking, they were holding John responsible for influencing the ones who had left the recovery in the late 80's. Should Steve choose to do so, present his account of what transpired at that Chinese Buffet.

There is a children's story written by Hans Christian Anderson called The Emperor has No Clothes. The Emperor loves rich clothes, some clothiers come and say they will make the most exquisite clothes for him, but only those who are not stupid can see them. No one wants to appear stupid or offend the king, so everyone says how splendid his new outfit is. Finally, some honest child says "hey, the king is naked"
I think the elders, which also passed it on to the saints, did not want to be counted as stupid, or unspiritual. The whole garment WL wore- his association with the " spiritual giant" WN, his extensive knowledge of many past Christian teachings, his expounding on things spiritual, etc., mixed with a growing myth that this was Gods present day man, the elders wanting to keep their jobs, to be liked, the comradery, etc., kept everyone seeing only a splendid outfit, when in fact, the emperor had no clothes!

[Boxjobox]

So, in the city of San Diego, with a population of 1.3 million there are only 275 adults meeting after 35 years! I would say their historical perspective lacks credibility. I would also say that the low numbers is entirely due to their association with LSM. The title, or their nomer THE church in San Diego should not be assigned to them. They have taken a biblical designator and abused it. This is not a small thing, really, in the sphere of Christian practice, but is quite serious. Wasn't it WL that talked about the woman married to Smith that calls herself Mrs Jones. The " church in San Diego" in the mid-80s left her husband and now lives with Mr LSM.

The insane part is that their history mentions nothing about LSM!