Angel of Light Ministers in the LC

Indiana · 08-09-2012, 09:20 PM

The Claim that the Brothers Were Against the New Way

On page 51 in Fermentation is a claim indicating that the brothers were not for the new way to build up the churches. In reading the accounts of these consecrated brothers to the Lord’s recovery, it is easy to understand why they became alarmed over serious developments in “the Lord’s new move” and why they began to meet together to discuss those developments and, eventually, to speak out concerning them.

Their main concern was for the real situation and condition of the churches, and they endeavored to minister to the saints accordingly. It was said that they were not for the new way in the churches and that they were ambitious. Yet, their own accounts tell otherwise, that they were indeed for the new way and that they were also for the building up of the church and the churches. The following excerpts show their supportive position for the new way before the disturbing elements from LSM began to arise in the implementation process of the new way that forced them into a different and unpopular stance.

John Ingalls – “That afternoon I went to Brother Lee’s apartment according to our appointment. My desire was to assure him that I was not opposing his burden as set forth in the main points of the “new way” (as it was defined in those days). He had indicated that we were indeed opposing. I told him that I was absolutely not against the preaching of the gospel by door-knocking or by any way; that I was absolutely not against the practice of home meetings; and that I was not against any other matter he emphasized.

Rather, I was for these things. Brother Lee received my fellowship and remarked that he had never had any problem with me; he only felt that I should have stayed in Anaheim more and not traveled so much. Our talk ended peacefully, but I was not encouraged.”

Bill Mallon Letter to Witness Lee, “You mentioned about what Watchman Nee saw in 1937 and 1949, how he saw the new way of practice for the church life, and now is the time for us to fulfill his vision. I truly want to be a part of this also and give my absolute and overwhelming support… While we need to fulfill Watchman Nee’s and your burden, yet at the same time we must also beware of another side element subtlely creeping in.

"Brother Lee I have drunk of your spirit, and I absolutely followed spiritual authority and the intrinsic element in the flow of the river, which brought in the mutual life and love of the local churches. But I fear that another thing is coming in … May it be exposed before there is a total collapse.”

“Is it too much for me to make this honest assumption: Is the one accord which the office promotes the one accord of fellowship, or is it the one accord of lining up with the office?

"Let me strongly declare that the brothers in the South are committed to do anything and everything in their power to cooperate with any burden you, Brother Lee, may have, but why this harangue?”

“I know that this is a big recovery, and I feel very happy that we are trying to return to the scriptural way, and God forbid that I should try to hinder what has been gained already. For me to take the attitude and action that I have taken, however, indicates that I am desperately concerned …lest the subtle enemy sneaks some leavening corruption into the fine flour. We must be warned of certain danger-signs and beware of our vulnerability for being baited into a snare”.

John So - Letter from John So and 63 leading ones to Witness Lee - …“In these days, through the fellowship of the brothers you have sent, the vision of God’s New Testament economy and the new move in His recovery has been renewed and strengthened in us.
Furthermore, through the sweet fellowship with the brothers a deep desire for fellowship with all the brothers in the Lord’s recovery has been awakened in our hearts.”

“We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in the new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to get every member used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers…” [1986]

John Ingalls – “On the weekend of January 27-29, 1989, Brother Lee had a conference in San Diego. He believed he had discerned the reason why some of the older elders and co-workers had some concerns regarding his work and the local churches, and he enunciated his feelings in one of the conference meetings. He spoke as follows:

Witness Lee – “So today, let me tell you, the problem among us is this: there is a kind of consideration among the older co-workers -- not all, but some. There was a kind of consideration -- Where shall they be? Brother Lee was the one who brought the recovery to this country and was the one who through the Lord’s ministry brought many, many of the older co-workers into the recovery. But now this one who brought the recovery to this country is seemingly deviating. Deviating from what? Into what? That’s right, deviating from the old into the new. Now some of the co-workers have to consider where they should be. Shall they remain in the old, or shall they go forth into the new? Go forth? To say this is easy. You have to pay a price, especially the older ones. They have made a success in the recovery according to the old way, but now the old way was annulled. Then what shall we do? If you were them, surely you would consider. I must tell you, this is the root of all the troubles among us today. All the other things are on the surface; the root is here. Now you know.”

John Ingalls - “This analysis absolutely missed the mark. I was surprised when I read the transcript that he could judge so superficially by saying that the root of all the problems is that the older co-workers would not leave the old way and take the new. At the present time he has revised his explanation, yet still misjudges.”

TLFisher · 08-10-2012, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

“We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in the new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to get every member used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers…” [1986]

Taking this quote to the present time in 2012. If the intent in practice is for every member to function, what is the functioning based on?
Could a brother or sister be encouraged to function through the Bible if they did not want to use The Holy Word for Morning Revival?

Truth · 08-10-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Taking this quote to the present time in 2012. If the intent in practice is for every member to function, what is the functioning based on?
Could a brother or sister be encouraged to function through the Bible if they did not want to use The Holy Word for Morning Revival?

This quote is precious. I love WN/WL's ministry. Many points, such as this, are insightful. However, the problem within the recovery as a whole is not necessarily that their ministry is bad (I understand that there are parts of their ministry that are questionable and disagreeable, but I'm not talking about those parts right now). The problem is the interpretation and practice of the ministry. If every member function means that we must all repeat the same thing and use the same material, then that is not what 1 Corinthians means. "Each one has" means each one has something that the Lord has given to that member (it may be through WL/WN, it may not be through their ministry). It doesn't mean we must all regurgitate what WL said. However if WL said something that helped you, and that becomes your portion, then that's fine. But to force others to speak the same and accuse them of not being one with the ministry if they don't speak the exact same language, is not what "Each one has" means.

TLFisher · 08-10-2012, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

This quote is precious. I love WN/WL's ministry. Many points, such as this, are insightful. However, the problem within the recovery as a whole is not necessarily that their ministry is bad (I understand that there are parts of their ministry that are questionable and disagreeable, but I'm not talking about those parts right now). The problem is the interpretation and practice of the ministry. If every member function means that we must all repeat the same thing and use the same material, then that is not what 1 Corinthians means. "Each one has" means each one has something that the Lord has given to that member (it may be through WL/WN, it may not be through their ministry). It doesn't mean we must all regurgitate what WL said. However if WL said something that helped you, and that becomes your portion, then that's fine. But to force others to speak the same and accuse them of not being one with the ministry if they don't speak the exact same language, is not what "Each one has" means.

I liked your post. Some Christians I have been in fellowship with have appreciation for ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. While others have never heard of them. Yet we are all members of the Body. My approach towards specific ministries in respect to home meetings is this, we may have appreciation of certain ministers (Witness Lee, Bill Freeman, Art Katz, or Stephen Kaung to name of few), but when we gather to meet in homes, we do not impose our appreciation upon other members coming together. Paul has already warned us in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

08-09-2012, 09:20 PM	#1
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 718	Re:Angel of Light ministry on the Rebellion The Claim that the Brothers Were Against the New Way On page 51 in Fermentation is a claim indicating that the brothers were not for the new way to build up the churches. In reading the accounts of these consecrated brothers to the Lord’s recovery, it is easy to understand why they became alarmed over serious developments in “the Lord’s new move” and why they began to meet together to discuss those developments and, eventually, to speak out concerning them. Their main concern was for the real situation and condition of the churches, and they endeavored to minister to the saints accordingly. It was said that they were not for the new way in the churches and that they were ambitious. Yet, their own accounts tell otherwise, that they were indeed for the new way and that they were also for the building up of the church and the churches. The following excerpts show their supportive position for the new way before the disturbing elements from LSM began to arise in the implementation process of the new way that forced them into a different and unpopular stance. John Ingalls – “That afternoon I went to Brother Lee’s apartment according to our appointment. My desire was to assure him that I was not opposing his burden as set forth in the main points of the “new way” (as it was defined in those days). He had indicated that we were indeed opposing. I told him that I was absolutely not against the preaching of the gospel by door-knocking or by any way; that I was absolutely not against the practice of home meetings; and that I was not against any other matter he emphasized. Rather, I was for these things. Brother Lee received my fellowship and remarked that he had never had any problem with me; he only felt that I should have stayed in Anaheim more and not traveled so much. Our talk ended peacefully, but I was not encouraged.” Bill Mallon Letter to Witness Lee, “You mentioned about what Watchman Nee saw in 1937 and 1949, how he saw the new way of practice for the church life, and now is the time for us to fulfill his vision. I truly want to be a part of this also and give my absolute and overwhelming support… While we need to fulfill Watchman Nee’s and your burden, yet at the same time we must also beware of another side element subtlely creeping in. "Brother Lee I have drunk of your spirit, and I absolutely followed spiritual authority and the intrinsic element in the flow of the river, which brought in the mutual life and love of the local churches. But I fear that another thing is coming in … May it be exposed before there is a total collapse.” “Is it too much for me to make this honest assumption: Is the one accord which the office promotes the one accord of fellowship, or is it the one accord of lining up with the office? "Let me strongly declare that the brothers in the South are committed to do anything and everything in their power to cooperate with any burden you, Brother Lee, may have, but why this harangue?” “I know that this is a big recovery, and I feel very happy that we are trying to return to the scriptural way, and God forbid that I should try to hinder what has been gained already. For me to take the attitude and action that I have taken, however, indicates that I am desperately concerned …lest the subtle enemy sneaks some leavening corruption into the fine flour. We must be warned of certain danger-signs and beware of our vulnerability for being baited into a snare”. John So - Letter from John So and 63 leading ones to Witness Lee - …“In these days, through the fellowship of the brothers you have sent, the vision of God’s New Testament economy and the new move in His recovery has been renewed and strengthened in us. Furthermore, through the sweet fellowship with the brothers a deep desire for fellowship with all the brothers in the Lord’s recovery has been awakened in our hearts.” “We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in the new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to get every member used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers…” [1986] John Ingalls – “On the weekend of January 27-29, 1989, Brother Lee had a conference in San Diego. He believed he had discerned the reason why some of the older elders and co-workers had some concerns regarding his work and the local churches, and he enunciated his feelings in one of the conference meetings. He spoke as follows: Witness Lee – “So today, let me tell you, the problem among us is this: there is a kind of consideration among the older co-workers -- not all, but some. There was a kind of consideration -- Where shall they be? Brother Lee was the one who brought the recovery to this country and was the one who through the Lord’s ministry brought many, many of the older co-workers into the recovery. But now this one who brought the recovery to this country is seemingly deviating. Deviating from what? Into what? That’s right, deviating from the old into the new. Now some of the co-workers have to consider where they should be. Shall they remain in the old, or shall they go forth into the new? Go forth? To say this is easy. You have to pay a price, especially the older ones. They have made a success in the recovery according to the old way, but now the old way was annulled. Then what shall we do? If you were them, surely you would consider. I must tell you, this is the root of all the troubles among us today. All the other things are on the surface; the root is here. Now you know.” John Ingalls - “This analysis absolutely missed the mark. I was surprised when I read the transcript that he could judge so superficially by saying that the root of all the problems is that the older co-workers would not leave the old way and take the new. At the present time he has revised his explanation, yet still misjudges.”