Reflecting on John Ingalls' Actions

[Davis]

Originally Posted by Nell

My point in reminding him about his statement in that conference was this: he was true to his word. Witness Lee was not faithful to the vision he brought to all of us. John had seen something from the Lord, and he was faithful to the Lord...not Witness Lee. Witness Lee had changed, or maybe, Witness Lee was never faithful to his own ministry. Maybe he had the family business and his sons as priorities.

That said, you're right. John had been with Lee for at least 20+ years. I'm sure John loved Witness Lee like a brother and the personal ties they shared were very real.

Thanks for another thoughtful reply Nell! This is an important piece of STTIL that I hadn't mentioned so far. It wasn't simply Philip's misconduct that John was concerned about, he saw changes in the ministry and in the LR as a whole that didn't match his vision from the Lord. I have to commend him for holding to that, when like you said, Witness Lee did not.

Originally Posted by Nell

I don't think John "covered" the situation. He took it up the chain of command as he should. The problem was Witness Lee allowing his reprobate son to manage "the office" for LSM. (If you have a problem with a brother...go to the brother.) He gave Lee a chance to handle it properly so the church could go on. When Lee failed, and the church found out, the band-aid was ripped off and the Church in Anaheim came unglued. If I had been there, I think I would have been right there with them to excommunicate Phillip. Eventually John went on the record. This is also scriptural. Every word was established from John's position.

On the "negative/harsh" scale, from 1 to 10, for this forum, you get a .5!

I remember a conversation I had with Ray Graver when I was a newbie. He asked me if "whoever" was "negative". I said "No. They weren't negative. The situation was negative." I think we can put STTIL in that category.

I agree! The situation John was put in was very negative, so it's easy to suggest a different course of action in retrospect, not so easy to have actually done it. Even when he was a careful as he could, he was branded as being "negative"