Whistleblower

[aron]

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

LEADING IN THE WORK

When God’s work started in several places in China in 1921, some truths were not clearly distinguished. For instance, grace and law were not clearly defined; nor were the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, grace and reward, or salvation and victory clearly differentiated. The understanding of truths in the Lord was neither deep nor rich enough. However, the understanding of the gospel of grace was comparatively clear, and it was being quite clearly preached at that time when Mr. Wang Ming-dao was in Teh-Chow, Sister Pearl Wang and Ruth Lee were in Nanking, and some other workers and I were in Foochow.

Look at any LSM history and it's rife with statements like this. Clearly women were instrumental in "Leading the Work" at one point. But they were railroaded when they were no longer expedient, and were a potential threat to those who held power. When the organisation-building process reached critical mass, suddenly they had to "know their place".

The Recovered Church aka Little Flock aka Local Church became another human institution, with all the attendant issues, not unlike the NCAA's Big Ten Sports programs (see, Penn State U. and Michigan State U. athletic departments).

People covered the crimes to protect the institution, and they protected the institution because it fed them power. They had power to abuse, control, manipulate. But no power to heal.

[Drake]

First, I have said it many times.... if there is criminal behavior it should be reported to the police.

Yet, this whole conversation begs the questions....

Why did John Ingalls, or Godfred who knew before John mentioned it to him, not report the criminal behavior to the police? Did John or Godfred not consider the behavior criminal but rather immoral?

If immoral then why was it so and not criminal?

If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?

This forum asks probing questions about why Witness Lee didnt take his son out back behind the barn and shoot him....in a manner of speaking. How about factoring in what Brother John actually said since he is being quoted extensively. What did he say that indicates he thought this was criminal behavior? You may think it was but did he?

Drake

[Ohio]

Why didn't Witness Lee call the police?

Was not he the spiritual leader? The Minister of the Age?

The one who claimed to be today's Paul, yet unlike Paul, he never exercised to have a good conscience void of offense.

Why did Witness Lee promise to take care of these matters, assuring the brothers around him, and then covered up criminal activity.

The elders and saints wanted to go to the police. It was Lee who stopped them.

[Nell]

Legally, the victims must file charges. Then the witnesses need to stand up and speak to the abuser or his enabler like John did. Hindsight is 20/20. We can't do anything about what happened 40 years ago. Every case is different, but just because no one called the police then doesn't mean they couldn't have or shouldn't have.

We can only expose the sin in the camp today. We can encourage and support those being abused today. Most important, we can listen to them and believe they are telling the truth. If they decide to report to the police, we can support them in this too because it is an option.

My post #44 suggests a course of action to those in the Local Church. You could go to your local leadership and expose the matter. What you cannot do is continue the cover up by making spurious arguments that mimimize the topic and those who may never recover from their experience with Witness Lee's "ministry".

Most of all we pray for the sisters. We pray that this gross sin in the Body of Christ will end.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

If immoral then why was it so and not criminal? If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?

Some of Phillip Lee's actions were immoral, and some criminal. Your post conflates the two.

When Max first confronted him, that event was immoral, and we know this because the sister confessed as much. Yet, it was still abuse because he used his power.

Since Phillip knew he could act with impunity, without accountability, and protected by his Daddy with his cadre of enforcers, his immoral actions became more aggressive. Eventually, the husband of one molested sister planned to shoot Philip.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

First, I have said it many times.... if there is criminal behavior it should be reported to the police.

Yet, this whole conversation begs the questions....

Why did John Ingalls, or Godfred who knew before John mentioned it to him, not report the criminal behavior to the police? Did John or Godfred not consider the behavior criminal but rather immoral?

If immoral then why was it so and not criminal?

If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?

This forum asks probing questions about why Witness Lee didnt take his son out back behind the barn and shoot him....in a manner of speaking. How about factoring in what Brother John actually said since he is being quoted extensively. What did he say that indicates he thought this was criminal behavior? You may think it was but did he?

Drake

Hey Drake, I think you are right ... if there's a crime committed, like rape.

But the goings-on in the LSM office wasn't a crime, that I know of. From what I understand, it was consenting adults. And adultery isn't a crime.

As usual, the cover up is as bad as the infraction. Why keep it hush-hush?

That's obvious. To protect the integrity and reputation of the church.

Take John Ingalls. Did he follow Matthew 18:15-17? Yes. But he didn't "tell it to the church." (He did write a book, however).

My question is then, were there crimes committed? If so, it/they should have been reported to the authorities.

I still support the 'MeToo' movement, and think those abused in the LC should be included in it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey Drake, I think you are right ... if there's a crime committed, like rape.

But the goings-on in the LSM office wasn't a crime, that I know of. From what I understand, it was consenting adults. And adultery isn't a crime.

As usual, the cover up is as bad as the infraction. Why keep it hush-hush?

That's obvious. To protect the integrity and reputation of the church.

Take John Ingalls. Did he follow Matthew 18:15-17? Yes. But he didn't "tell it to the church." (He did write a book, however).

My question is then, were there crimes committed? If so, it/they should have been reported to the authorities.

I still support the 'MeToo' movement, and think those abused in the LC should be included in it.

Right. That is how I read it too.

There was no crime so Brother John did not go to the police. What would the police do? Adultery is not a crime, it is a sin. They would have told Brother John the same thing Benson did. Brother John needed to deal with it.

Therefore, the allegations of rape are false. As terrible as the sin was it was not a crime. There is nothing to report to the police. By every account presented it was consensual. Yet, why did Brother John and Godfred wait so long to take action and only then after a near insurrection in the meeting hall?

Drake

[OBW]

Consensual? Do you really believe that? This kind of position would not be tolerated today in the world, and you expect the church to ignore it?

Harvey would be smiling at you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Consensual? Do you really believe that? This kind of position would not be tolerated today in the world, and you expect the church to ignore it?

Harvey would be smiling at you.

Bro OBW are you saying because of the power factor it was rape?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Consensual? Do you really believe that? This kind of position would not be tolerated today in the world, and you expect the church to ignore it?

Harvey would be smiling at you.

OBW,

Exactly. And why would a sister talk to John and Godfred about a consentual "relationship" with Philip Lee??? Does this sound like "consent"?

From Speaking the Truth in Love...
Wednesday, Sept. 30th, I received a telephone call from a sister who had a prominent position in the Living Stream Ministry Office, asking if she could see me that night. I consented. That evening she sat in my living room and with tears opened her heart to me. She had served sacrificially and faithfully for many years in the LSM office, and now she said she could not tolerate anymore the gross misconduct that was being perpetrated upon some and especially upon her.

...

In the morning of December 19, just before Ken and I were to leave for Texas that afternoon, the sister from the LSM office who had spoken to me on September 30th (see page 10) called and asked to speak to Godfred and me. We met with her and were utterly amazed at what we heard. She began to relate to us in detail some of the things she suffered while in the service of the LSM office. She wanted us to realize how grave the problem was. We were revulsed to the depths of our being, and when the conversation ended and we parted, we so full of abhorrent feelings that we were literally in a daze. ...

Godfred drove me to the airport to meet Ken. We were in a state of shock and utter disgust. All this had taken place in what we called the Lord’s recovery!

...

[Drake]

Brother John was right.. it was repulsive.

So, if it was a crime, why didn't Brother John go to the police... and why not that very same morning?

"...when they began to engage in mutually compromising immoral physical contact. "
Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

OBW,

Exactly. And why would a sister talk to John and Godfred about a consentual "relationship" with Philip Lee??? Does this sound like "consent"?

From Speaking the Truth in Love...
Wednesday, Sept. 30th, I received a telephone call from a sister who had a prominent position in the Living Stream Ministry Office, asking if she could see me that night. I consented. That evening she sat in my living room and with tears opened her heart to me. She had served sacrificially and faithfully for many years in the LSM office, and now she said she could not tolerate anymore the gross misconduct that was being perpetrated upon some and especially upon her.
...
In the morning of December 19, just before Ken and I were to leave for Texas that afternoon, the sister from the LSM office who had spoken to me on September 30th (see page 10) called and asked to speak to Godfred and me. We met with her and were utterly amazed at what we heard. She began to relate to us in detail some of the things she suffered while in the service of the LSM office. She wanted us to realize how grave the problem was. We were revulsed to the depths of our being, and when the conversation ended and we parted, we so full of abhorrent feelings that we were literally in a daze. ...

Godfred drove me to the airport to meet Ken. We were in a state of shock and utter disgust. All this had taken place in what we called the Lord’s recovery!

...

So sister Nell, are you saying it was rape?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Right. That is how I read it too.

There was no crime so Brother John did not go to the police. What would the police do? Adultery is not a crime, it is a sin. They would have told Brother John the same thing Benson did. Brother John needed to deal with it.

Therefore, the allegations of rape are false. As terrible as the sin was it was not a crime. There is nothing to report to the police. By every account presented it was consensual. Yet, why did Brother John and Godfred wait so long to take action and only then after a near insurrection in the meeting hall?

Drake

Work place sexual abuse is not a crime?

Using your position to disadvantage the staff, often volunteers, is just a sin? Is that a mortal sin or just a venial sin, Drake?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Work place sexual abuse is not a crime?

Using your position to disadvantage the staff, often volunteers, is just a sin? Is that a mortal sin or just a venial sin, Drake?

Ohio,

Of course, sexual abuse is a crime. Anywhere.

What’s your point?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio, Of course, sexual abuse is a crime. Anywhere. What’s your point?

Your post #54 implied it was merely an affair.

You quickly rush to judge Ingalls, but never place responsibility on your MOTA.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?

This forum asks probing questions about why Witness Lee didnt take his son out back behind the barn and shoot him....in a manner of speaking. How about factoring in what Brother John actually said since he is being quoted extensively. What did he say that indicates he thought this was criminal behavior? You may think it was but did he?

Drake

How many times did the brothers go to Witness Lee? 12? 13? In my opinion they were looking to Witness Lee to do what was right and just. Longer it went on, the less patience many meeting as the Church in Anaheim had.
Speaking of John in particular when it came to the "fake news" of John being ambitious and "wanting to take over the recovery", by that time he had been a co-worker for more than 25 years. having served alongside him for all those years certainly there was a measure of respecting Witness Lee as a fellow brother and knowing the love a father has for his children. That he would defer to Witness Lee to do the right thing.
Regarding Witness lee, many viewed him as my serving ones taught me that Witness Lee is a modern day apostle Paul.
When you place a brother on such a pedestal, certainly you expect his actions to be in accord to his ministry.