The Change in Nature of the Lord's Recovery

[Indiana]

The Change in Nature
of the Lord’s Recovery

In a conference given in January this year 2020 in the Philippines, Ron Kangas questioned John Ingalls’ 1989 remark that “the nature of the Lord’s recovery had changed“. Ron forgot to check with the blueprint and the warnings given by brothers Nee and Lee. John Ingalls was there when Witness Lee arrived in the U. S. and laid out the blueprint for the church life in Los Angeles, as Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had practiced in China. These two apostle-like figures were also key in the Philippines to lay out for the saints in Manila a solid foundation to practice the church life.

John Ingalls, Jim Reetzke, and others from 1962 onward were directed by W. Lee toward Christ as the Center – the life, content, and reality of the church, and were given clear scriptural help about “receiving believers only according to God’s receiving, no more, no less, according to Christ Alone. When deviation from this path was taking place, John Ingalls identified it as a “change in nature,” and that is what it was, a change that led the churches onto a path of controversy and confusion; turmoil and division.

Ron Kangas didn’t recognize what John was doing, but John shares in his book what he and others were doing. They were following brother Lee’s own word that if he left the path, they should not follow him, but follow the path. In his final message, Witness Lee again warned about deviating from this path:

This is a lesson for us all. The co-workers in different places need to learn; all responsible brothers in all localities need to learn. The eyes of the brothers and sisters all need to be opened. We have acted wrongly in the past, including me, I have to admit. I have had very painful repentance before the Lord. I am very sorry! I am sorry for the Body of Christ - not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also for the ones in the denominations. You have to bring this message back and read it over and over again in mutual fellowship. Then you will see we were wrong before. We must learn from our past mistakes to receive people according to God's Son...undeviating… not deviating a bit from the path…”
(LSM translation Feb 1997)

Many changes took place in the late eighties in the Lord’s recovery, and the basic change was the evident “change in the nature” of the recovery itself. An elder in the Northwest inadvertently expressed the essence of that change, declaring in a meeting, “If you are not here for Witness Lee and his ministry, you might as well not be here. There's the door.” The ministry of Witness Lee was promoted to such an extent that it became the primary factor of oneness in the churches, even with brothers making a Pledge to W. Lee, that “We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth…” (The New Way Pledge of 417 leaders, Feb 1986)

www.JohnIngalls.com

John Ingalls describes in his book the chaotic state of the church life in Anaheim that resulted from the “change in nature.” He draws important attention to a special meeting that was meant to re-establish the standing of the church in Anaheim (1988). But this effort by the elders was met with undaunted opposition to them by supporters of LSM establishment. John Ingalls says, “…we met with the brothers who had signed the letter to us…. During those times the brothers grilled us and accused us in a manner that was quite out-of-character for them. This led us to suspect that they were receiving direction from behind the scenes. (We received a definite report through one of them…that they had met with Brother Lee and talked with him about the Anaheim elders.) The atmosphere in these meetings was tense and oppressive. We felt that it was altogether not profitable…to meet in such a way. The chief spokesman [Carl Althaus] for the brothers said to my face bluntly, emphatically, and with great finality, "We will not follow your direction!" Minoru Chen… strongly confirmed and supported them.” He was a late strategic placement as an “elder” on the Chinese side, fully aligned with the objectives of W. L. and son.

Such are scenes on that path of deviation to which Ron might say, “Doesn’t bother me,” and Minoru, “What a beautiful sight.” (Their more recent remarks on said path.) S. I. 8/2020

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for sharing that post which was quite concise on the whole matter of where the LC's got off the right path of Christ alone! No matter the time that has passed or what has happened since, WL's message in 1997 was clear: He saw that things were off the mark in the LC, he said there should be a change/repentance, and he made an urgent plea to that affect. The LC leadership did not heed those words, and are therefore still running into left field.

Those are the facts ma'am. May the Lord have mercy! What a joyous day it would be indeed, if there was true repentance in the LCs regarding this!

[Indiana]

Amen, Sons of Glory!


Maybe there will be a day when Scottsdale holds a conference and invites Ron and Minoru, as "fellow citizens with the saints and members of the Household of God."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Amen, Sons of Glory!


Maybe there will be a day when Scottsdale holds a conference and invites Ron and Minoru, as "fellow citizens with the saints and members of the Household of God."

Nothing is impossible with Him, bro - all division melts in agape love!

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Nothing is impossible with Him, bro - all division melts in agape love!

This brother I will mention was quite active at LSM and a prominent figure in their work, but is so no longer. Maybe he will have a testimony at some point concerning John Ingalls' observation that the nature of the recovery had indeed changed. He has a tremendous amount of background and experience with Witness Lee, Philip Lee, quarantines, and more but what he might want to share publicly is up to him and his sensitive spirit before the Lord. Like Don Rutledge, he would have a lot of good things to share about the brothers he loved and served with. I only share the following to support the elders and their intention to recover what was lost.[/I]. (Taken from DeviatingfromthePathintheLordsRecovery.com)

Declaring the Standing of the Church in Anaheim

Brother Dan Towle continues his misrepresentation of John Ingalls and his misunderstanding of what was actually happening in the church in Anaheim that ultimately issued in the elders’ presentation of sixteen points concerning truth and practice for the church in Anaheim.

Dan Towle misrepresentation – “Eventually, [the Anaheim elders] even stood up in a meeting in Anaheim to declare a different standing of the church.” (p. 103, FPR).

Comment: It will help to know the background of the elders’ experience that led to their declaration, given in detail in John Ingalls’ book, Speaking the Truth in Love. The elders didn’t declare a different standing, but clarified the standing that they had from the beginning in Los Angeles before moving to Anaheim. John Ingalls and Godfred Otuteye offered the fellowship to the church, covering the sixteen points.

Benson Phillips, a prominent leading one in the recovery, was not critical of the sixteen points fellowship in a conversation John had with Benson: “the matter of the sixteen points spoken on August 28th was brought up, and we explained [to Benson] that they were addressed to the local need and were intended for that. He remarked that he did not think they had any need of covering those same needs in Irving, at least not now.”

It wasn’t something Benson condemned and neither did Minoru Chen, who was an elder in Anaheim and aware of the confusion that existed in the locality.

John Ingalls shares,

Toward the conclusion of the session as we were starting to pray, Minoru [Chen] arose and made a couple of statements. He said that he agreed in principle with all the points that we had made, but he stated that he wanted to reserve himself regarding some matters and concerning some of the points, particularly those made by Godfred. He stated that he would not say in a definite way that he agreed or disagreed. He also referred to Godfred’s apology for participating in certain promotions, which, he said, took place mainly in 1986. (He was alluding to the promotion of the LSM office and Philip Lee.) He said that he wanted to amen what Godfred had shared and declared that there was an excessive amount of this promotion, thereby bringing the saints into confusion and despondency, and the church into suffering. He also wanted to ask the forgiveness of the whole church for his part in this very matter.

Dan Towle went on to say that “Neither in the New Testament nor in the history of the Lord’s recovery with us has there been a case where one church stood up to make a declaration of its standing. There is not such a thing in the New Testament. If you do that, spontaneously you bring in division. Your standing is one way. Eventually, another church can say that they have another standing. Soon, we are in denominations. Everyone has his standing, and no one agrees with another’s standing. To declare the standing of a local church is something in the sleight of men.” (FPR, p. 103)

Comments: The sixteen points fellowship was a word of generality to the church in Anaheim and the brothers’ endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace with all the saints. Ken Unger was trying to maintain the church in Huntington Beach in the same way. For a comparatively long time he was trying to hold two sides together; then he received a letter asking him to step aside from the eldership. The letter came from his fellow elders in HB who wanted to line up squarely with Witness Lee and the new way. It also came through discussions the two other elders had with Brother Lee, who wanted Ken to “get off the fence”. Ken had gone to Brother Lee twenty times for fellowship, desiring that none of the sheep be lost in his locality.

Standing on the ground of oneness, both John Ingalls and Ken Unger were elders desiring to resist the strong tide of LSM usurpation in their respective localities. Ken ended up stepping aside from the eldership and became just a brother in the church, but when he found that he was being shunned by the saints, he began to stay away from the meetings, and simply never felt comfortable or at peace to return. He joined his wife in this regard. The church in Huntington Beach had lined up with its universal leader, and became a full-fledged “ministry church”.

John Ingalls also ended up stepping aside from the eldership after pressure was applied to him to do so. An activist group within the church in Anaheim effectively undermined the elders in their locality in their quest to line up the church in Anaheim with a universal leader. (See p. 83)

Dan Towle did not like the brothers’ word of generality to the church in Anaheim. However, taking an objective view of the chaotic condition of the church should invoke respect for the elders and their decision to make the standing of the church clear to the saints. This, at least, was their honorable endeavor to accomplish.

[UntoHim]

I don't believe "the nature of the Lord's Recovery" had changed as much as John Ingalls and others coming to their senses and seeing the real Witness Lee. For 20+ years Ingalls was apparently never on the receiving end of Lee's infamous temper, pettiness and immorality. But boy did he get the full dose when Lee turned against him. Of course there were many brothers in Taiwan/China who could have (and should have) warned the American brothers about the real Witness Lee. Had they done so, we probably wouldn't be on this forum today.

In my view, I don't believe our main concern and burden should be so much about Ron Kangas, Benson Phillips, Minoru Chen (or any of the other "Blended Brothers") but rather our focus should be on the thousands upon thousands of younger people who need to be set free from the system of error of the Local Church of Witness Lee. To be frank, I don't believe telling them that at one point the movement was more healthy, and not as much of a personality cult as we see today, is really doing anybody much good. Oh, it may make us old guys feel a little better - that we weren't really THAT deceived after all - but I think our energies are better directed at helping the many brothers and sisters who were raised in the LC movement and know nothing else, and also those young people being recruited off the college campuses.

This is not to discount what our brother Steve has been sharing with all of us for many years now. I appreciate his efforts more than I could ever express in words. But God has moved on. If the Local Church was ever a genuine move of God (a dubious notion in my view) it is very far from that now. It is no place to be for new believers or young people. May God have mercy.
-

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Nothing is impossible with Him - all division melts in agape love!

The Seismic Shift in Direction

Don Rutledge, a former leader in Dallas, Texas was well-respected among church leaders, including Witness Lee, and wrote about the flourishing time in the sixties and early seventies when the churches were growing in life and numbers, and spreading. It was certainly a time of blessing on a path of receiving believers according to Christ alone. That is, until the seismic shift in the direction of the churches occurred and wide- sweeping changes throughout “the Lord’s recovery” set the churches on another path. [This began another 12-year period that grew till 1986 and the New Way Pledge was signed by leaders to follow Witness Lee and his son, Philip, in one accord.]

Don Rutledge:
“The turn away from the local church life began in January 1974 at the very first special elders and co-workers conference. This is when the concept of the work began.Few of the saints realize the magnitude of effect this meeting had on the churches. With charts and statistics, Witness Lee and Max Rapoport came forth to launch the movement. It was boldly declared that the churches would use Witness Lee as the exclusive source of teaching and Max would serve as the coordinator to bring the various churches, with their elders, into a unified movement. Two life-study messages a week were going to be given in Anaheim and ministry stations were set up in various cities to repeat the messages through designated brothers. Some smaller churches consolidated to the larger localities where there was a ministry station. The official list of twelve men who could give conferences was announced. Bi-annual trainings began that year. From that time on, the individual churches would be called to account if they were moving “independently.” In addition to coordinating the elders to act in a single direction, Max was charged to assist the various churches to be more effective with gospel preaching and outreach.

“He began to travel and, in particular, to meet with the elders. Those who would not be good movement men were pushed aside, if possible, or moved somewhere to be out of the way. On several occasions, Max told me that he was working to bring the elders and churches into one coordination for the purpose of carrying out the burden of Witness Lee. He told me several times that only he could ‘put the whole thing together’.

“I am not attempting to call into question the motive of Witness Lee or Max. During this time, Witness Lee did some very good teaching and Max did some very good gospel work. But what did happen was that 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. Some were saying the time of blessing has passed; or we changed our vision; or the moving of the Spirit left the churches; or teaching, doctrine, and methods replaced life. The movement looked nothing like the early days of Elden Hall, Ohio, the Northwest or Texas or other places.” D. R.

“Follow the Vision” – Don Rutledge with Brother Lee – year 1975

“One evening I was walking with Brother Lee. He stopped, turned to me, then put his arm around my shoulder. I realized that he was about to tell me something very serious. He told me that he made a terrible mistake with Daystar (luxury motor home business he introduced to the churches that failed the year before). He said that if he saw Brother Nee he would not know what to say since Brother Nee had warned him not to mix the church with financial matters or business.

“He then told me that he had once told Watchman Nee that he was not following him, but rather was following the truth and vision that Brother Nee taught. Furthermore, that he would not follow Watchman Nee if Watchman Nee left the vision, but that he, Brother Lee, would continue to follow the vision. He then looked me straight in the eye and charged me, “Brother Don, if I leave the vision, do not follow me but follow the vision.” I was a little speechless, but I did manage to return the embrace and assure Brother Lee that I would remain true to the vision and the truth.” _DFR

When Witness Lee gave his Final Message he reflected on the past and mistakes that were made. Although he would not be specific, he charged others to come together to learn from our past.

“This is a lesson for us all. The co-workers in different places need to learn; all responsible brothers in all localities need to learn. The eyes of the brothers and sisters all need to be opened. Too many things we need to learn. We have acted wrongly in the past, including me, I have to admit. I have had very painful repentance before the Lord. I am very sorry! I am sorry for the Body of Christ - not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also for the ones in the denominations. You have to bring this message back and read it over and over again in mutual fellowship. Then you will see we were wrong before. To understand and analyze this needs a fair bit of effort. Again I say, a few of you must come together through pray-reading, studying, reciting, and prophesying. We must learn from our past mistakes to receive people according to God's Son...undeviating... not deviating a bit from the path.” (Chinese New Year Conference, 1997, W. Lee)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Indiana

When Witness Lee gave his Final Message he reflected on the past and mistakes that were made.
Although he would not be specific, he charged others to come together to learn from our past.

“This is a lesson for us all. The co-workers in different places need to learn; all responsible brothers in all localities need to learn. The eyes of the brothers and sisters all need to be opened. Too many things we need to learn. We have acted wrongly in the past, including me, I have to admit. I have had very painful repentance before the Lord. I am very sorry! I am sorry for the Body of Christ - not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also for the ones in the denominations. You have to bring this message back and read it over and over again in mutual fellowship. Then you will see we were wrong before. To understand and analyze this needs a fair bit of effort. Again I say, a few of you must come together through pray-reading, studying, reciting, and prophesying. We must learn from our past mistakes to receive people according to God's Son...undeviating... not deviating a bit from the path.” (Chinese New Year Conference, 1997, W. Lee)

I wonder if he should have been specific, and maybe that would have not been so easily dismissed - it may have been more of a healing/correcting word if he had done that. But that did not seem to be his MO . . .

We do leadership classes and there's a case study where the leader clearly makes a mistake which causes several serious issues. One question we ask participants is whether the leader should apologize for their mistake, and the responses are often fairly divided. People saying they shouldn't apologize, frequently state their reasoning is that it would make the leader look weak and undermine their authority. It's actually the opposite for a variety of reasons.

[calvinnme]

"Don Rutledge:
“The turn away from the local church life began in January 1974 at the very first special elders and co-workers conference. This is when the concept of the work began.Few of the saints realize the magnitude of effect this meeting had on the churches. With charts and statistics, Witness Lee and Max Rapoport came forth to launch the movement. It was boldly declared that the churches would use Witness Lee as the exclusive source of teaching and Max would serve as the coordinator to bring the various churches, with their elders, into a unified movement. Two life-study messages a week were going to be given in Anaheim and ministry stations were set up in various cities to repeat the messages through designated brothers."

If Don Rutledge figured this out in 1974, why was he leading a Bible study at the University of Texas in Arlington and espousing all of what he now recants at least through 1980? I came into the church in 1977 partially as a result of those Bible studies. Perhaps if he had said something sooner I wouldn't have spent the last 40 years wondering if I did the right thing by leaving.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by calvinnme

"Don Rutledge:
“The turn away from the local church life began in January 1974 at the very first special elders and co-workers conference. This is when the concept of the work began.Few of the saints realize the magnitude of effect this meeting had on the churches. With charts and statistics, Witness Lee and Max Rapoport came forth to launch the movement. It was boldly declared that the churches would use Witness Lee as the exclusive source of teaching and Max would serve as the coordinator to bring the various churches, with their elders, into a unified movement. Two life-study messages a week were going to be given in Anaheim and ministry stations were set up in various cities to repeat the messages through designated brothers."

If Don Rutledge figured this out in 1974, why was he leading a Bible study at the University of Texas in Arlington and espousing all of what he now recants at least through 1980? I came into the church in 1977 partially as a result of those Bible studies. Perhaps if he had said something sooner I wouldn't have spent the last 40 years wondering if I did the right thing by leaving.

As with the rest of us, "hindsight is always 20-20."

And, since many of us were led to the LC's by the Lord, we needed the Lord's leading in order to leave.