Angel of Light Ministers in the LC

Indiana · 08-01-2012, 10:33 PM

Angel of Light Ministers

What a stark difference between the apostle Paul and the super-apostles he addressed in 2 Corinthians! (11:5) He was very much disturbed by their falsehood and drew the contrast between him and them. He was a genuine apostle; they were not. Concerning taking care of the ministry, he said, "we have renounced the hidden things of shame and did not walk in craftiness or adulterate the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth, commended themselves to every conscience of men before God." (5:11) The super-apostles could not do this.

Although Paul never campaigned for leadership in the churches, his apostleship was manifest to God, and he and those with him behaved in such a way that others would not be offended or stumbled by them. So Paul could say to the Corinthians, "for I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God, for I betrothed to one husband to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” (11:2) Paul could do this because he was pure (of God); and they were not.

The Falsehood of the Blending Brothers

Those today who feign purity in their roles of global authorities over the federation of churches they manage have problems today matching Paul in character and purpose. In outward appearance they seem to match; but they do not have the same heart. (5:12) When Paul says, “We gave no occasion of stumbling in anything that the ministry may not be faulted, he said this in purity; he was not covering up unrighteous matters to protect the ministry. Paul could say with a pure conscience, “in everything we commend ourselves as ministers of God in much endurance…” (3:4); “make room for us, we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. (7:2) Our mouth is opened to you Corinthians, our heart is enlarged…you also be enlarged (6:11)…be reconciled to God" (5:20). He had the ground to speak like this, with much entreaty to the Corinthians.

The blending brothers’ record of impurities are well-documented by several brothers and sisters. And the blending brothers' appeal for cooperation with them falls on many deaf ears as a result. These men, in essence, are false brothers, daring to mix the impure things with the New Testament ministry and pretend that there will be a pure result, as Paul betrothing saints as a pure virgin to Christ.

The Record

Their falsehood is found in their record of behavior Their actions have manifested their impurity toward God and toward men. They do not follow Paul’s footsteps in caring for the churches, which “cares” pressed upon him daily with a heart for "each one" and to present "every" member full-grown in Christ. The blending brothers' impurity is basely manifested in their endorsement and ongoing practice of the bearing of false witness against their brothers in Christ and also in cutting off, not caring for, a number of churches and saints around the world. Not recognizing their evil practice or caring about their wicked sin shows their lack of spiritual character and heart, and simplicity and purity toward Christ.

Ministers of Christ are they, said Paul. “I more so”. (11:23) Yet Paul would not be recognized by them today. And they would not be recognized by Paul. Paul’s line is pure according to New Testament revelation. Their line is impure, narrow, and divisive as their record sadly shows.

And they are super. Rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ, they would be rebuked by Paul and shamefully discounted by him in their super-Apostle, super-ministry orientation and ministry, which misleads the saints from the “simplicity and purity toward Christ” (11:3) to something different. (11:4)

“For such ones are deceitful workers transfiguring themselves into apostles of Christ.” (11: 15) To be genuine apostles they must be pure (of God). And pure they are not, as seen in their super-elevation of themselves as global authorities of the church of God without regard for genuine oneness in the Body.

(They themselves might not think of themselves as apostles, but many would think this way because of their outward appearance and assertion as authorities.)

The Most Evil Book

Where is the outrage over the most evil book published in the Local Churches? The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. This is a book of lies and impurity from start to finish, under the authorship of Witness Lee, with support from several of his co-workers. The sister books of evil from Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux, and Andrew Yu are likewise full of lies and misrepresentation of men and events. DCP (Defense and Confirmation Project) has numerous books produced by men appearing to be ministers of righteousness, but they lie. They do not always confirm and defend the truth. They deny it, as when the truth sheds light on their deceitful work in the name of Christ and of Witness Lee.

Agents of Satan

For those interested in how ministers of God can also become agents of Satan as apparent ministers of righteousness, please read on. It is very important to become aware of Satan’s work, for as Paul says, “Satan himself transfigures himself into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if also his ministers transfigure themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.” (11:15)

The Challenge and Boast in Christ

Of course, if anyone wants to challenge what I say, it will be the first time in 11 years of my writing. These blending brothers and DCP do not speak since what they might say would only further expose them and their falsehood, and show with each effort they make that they are not interested in the truth.

As Paul says, “the truthfulness of Christ is in me” and this boasting will not stop as it regards me in the regions of Achaia.” And also, my own boasting is present today because of the “simplicity and purity” I have toward Christ in these matters, even as Paul had in his writing to the Corinthians.

Witness Lee
http://www.twoturmoils.com/Deviating...dsRecovery.pdf

Andrew Yu
www.twoturmoils.com/AndrewYuDeputyAuthority.pdf

Ron Kangas
http://www.UnfaithfulWitness.org/Eig...considered.pdf

DCP
www.twoturmoils.com/SteveLinks.pdf

(In March this year, 2012 I was in Southern California and asked Bill Buntain of DCP to join me at a table of fellowship to discuss how to end much of the internet activity against them. There was no response from these men who still have not confirmed or denied the truth I represent. I also left a message with Ron Kangas to join me to discuss and explain his covert evil speaking against me in Ecuador, but he will not respond or take care of his outstanding sins against me made in public and recorded on tape. Cowards are they? Yes. And, they have proved it by their silent printing press and non-appearance on this public forum. They have no confidence in themselves that they hold the truth in this case, and no courage either to admit this.)

Ohio · 08-02-2012, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

(In March this year, 2012 I was in Southern California and asked Bill Buntain of DCP to join me at a table of fellowship to discuss how to end much of the internet activity against them. There was no response from these men who still have not confirmed or denied the truth I represent. I also left a message with Ron Kangas to join me to discuss and explain his covert evil speaking against me in Ecuador, but he will not respond or take care of his outstanding sins against me made in public and recorded on tape. Cowards are they? Yes. And, they have proved it by their silent printing press and non-appearance on this public forum. They have no confidence in themselves that they hold the truth in this case, and no courage either to admit this.)

Yet they spend more time teaching the so-called "ministry of reconciliation" than any others. They talk the talk of reconciliation, while they walk the walk of backstabbing, lawsuits, and quarantines.

Indiana · 08-02-2012, 06:37 PM

Paul actually had a testimony of his conscience that he could not be blamed in anything, in word or conduct. Former leader, Don Hardy said, on the other hand, he didn't know how some brothers could sleep at night for what they know.

"For our boasting is this, the testimony of our a conscience, that in singleness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and more abundantly toward you." (2 Cor. 1:12)

BROTHERS WERE INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY?

John Ingalls – “It is not our desire, nor has it ever been, to overthrow anyone’s work or ministry, neither have we desired to put anyone’s ministry aside, but rather to bring everything to the light and put everything in the proper context. A report has been circulated that we would not be satisfied until we brought a certain person down; this report was erroneously applied to us. We never had any such intention, nor have we ever conspired against anyone – the Lord knows this and can testify for us. The accusation of conspiracy made against us is an utter falsehood – our testimony as recorded in this account bears this out. Rather we have grieved over those in leadership who have swerved from the path they once proclaimed and espoused. We desperately hoped there would be some change to resolve the serious problems that had emerged, and we fellowshipped earnestly with Brother Lee to this end. We have lamented the damage inflicted and suffered by many saints through practices and attitudes that we too in some measure participated in… For my part, I humbly repent of this”. (Speaking the Truth In Love conclusion, 1990)

Al Knoch – “Anyone who knows John Ingalls knows that he is not ambitious; he is not that way. Who would want that responsibility [of taking over the recovery]. There was no conspiracy” (from an interview with Al, Nov 2000).

John So – In his Manila presentation, John So expressed surprise at the conspiracy charge: I would like to just go through Brother Lee’s outline concerning the rebellion. It says the rebellion began to ferment from Stuttgart in 1986. What I would like to do is just give you the chronological events of what took place. I will only deal briefly with things that I personally know quite well, concerning myself, Stuttgart, and Europe. I don’t know and I am not thoroughly familiar with what went on in Hong Kong. I really do not know and I cannot say anything in details. So, I cannot speak for brother Joseph Fung. And I didn’t know exactly what happened in Anaheim in the very beginning. So I cannot speak for brother John Ingalls. I really cannot. And when things happened in Rosemead, I really had no idea what was going on there until I read the literature that they had put out. I did not even know that we had ever formed together an “international conspiracy ring” until Witness Lee said so. I am quite surprised. None of the places I’ve mentioned involved me. Okay, Witness Lee claims that rebellion and conspiracy started to ferment in Stuttgart in 1986. I’m going to start at this point….(1990, John So’s testimony given in Manila by their invitation)

John Ingalls – John Ingalls speaks of having the same “heart’s burden” as others.

"Brother Lee mentioned then that Bill Mallon, John So, and myself all used the
same term – central control. He deduced that we must have consulted or
“conspired” together. The fact was that we all had the same realization
because of separate similar experiences without any consultation and
certainly without any “conspiring“ with each other. John So began to be
concerned in 1986, Bill Mallon in the spring of 1987, and myself in the fall of
1987. Eventually, as we had done for years, we had telephone contact with
each other, and our heart’s burden came out.

John Ingalls – John shares the following refutation of the conspiracy charge:

At this point we felt that it would be useful for the brothers we had contacted to come together to fellowship and pray in preparation for going to see Brother Lee, so that we would be clear concerning the issues we would present to him. Moreover, we believed it would be best not to create any stir among the saints or other elders by doing this openly; so we sought some place where we could all meet privately. This was by no means a conspiracy, as we are being charged. At no time did we ever meet with the purpose of plotting to overthrow Brother Lee and his ministry. That is utterly ridiculous. We never had such a thought – the Lord can testify for us. A private meeting or a secret meeting does not constitute a conspiracy. A conspiracy takes form from the content of the meeting. Is it a conspiracy to pray and fellowship together in preparation for visiting Brother Lee and opening our hearts in frank fellowship? Of course not. We were very concerned for the saints and sought for an extended period to cover the grave matters from them lest they be distraught and we suffer worse consequences. One of the brothers I sought to contact and confer with was Ray Graver, an elder in the church in Irving, Texas, and the manager of the LSM branch office there. I called him in Texas and proposed that I come to see him in Irving. It was thought, however, for us to meet in Irving would attract too much attention; so we settled on meeting midway in El Paso, Texas. This decision is being censured now as a plan for a secret meeting, as if that in itself is evil and a conspiracy. But I fail to see anything wrong with this. It was with a pure motive and desire and certainly was not a plot to draw him into a conspiracy to overthrow anyone’s ministry. Ray was quite willing to do this until Benson Phillips, another co-worker and elder in Irving, Texas, who was then in Taiwan, advised him against it. Had Benson been in Irving, I would have sought to speak with him also. I enjoyed a very good and close relationship with both Ray and Benson for many years.

John So - John So speaks straightforwardly to Brother Lee:
Originally, I did plan to go to Anaheim to have some personal fellowship with you [Witness Lee] as you requested by phone early December. (I must say at this time I was not too polite anymore. If you would consider that as maybe a rebellion, that’s fine with me. Consider it as a rebellion. Conspiracy, that is also fine with me.) In my last page, I told him, please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry. Neither do I have any desire to convince any brother. By the Lord’s grace, I like to be straightforward and follow my conscience, not to hide anything and not play politics, not to please anyone, or to offend anyone. May the Lord have mercy on all His churches. (I ended the letter that way.)

Bill Mallon - Bill Mallon was very concerned over serious developments in the Southeast churches and of course he opened to other brothers about his concerns, but he spurns the idea that there was ever a conspiracy to overthrow someone. He said this “would be funny if it were not so tragic” to be charged in this way. The brothers simply came together to discuss their serious concerns and desired to bring those concerns into fellowship with other brothers, including Brother Lee. John Ingalls approached Brother Lee sixteen times on behalf of the feeling of many brothers and the burden that many of them had at that time. Ken Unger went to Brother Lee twenty times. After a considerable amount of time had passed with little progress being made, certain brothers began to speak out according to their convictions, based on the Word of God, prior church ministry, and their conscience. This, however, was interpreted by some as speaking differently, and negatively, and being against the new way in the churches.

Indiana · 08-07-2012, 09:05 PM

Angel of light ministers claimed and still claim,after much warning to them, that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So were leaders of a rebellion. Since they still do not listen, and sin willfully, they graduate to the distinction of being called angel of light ministers. A lawsuit was actually filed against two angel of light ministers, Sherman Robertson and Ron Kangas, which was brought to the attention of all elders attending an international meeting Dec 2010. The lawsuit went on for four months, with neither one of these so-called leaders capitulating to the truth and fellowship with me, and others, over my writings that they condemn but no angel of light minister has yet refuted with intelligence or fact.

The Claim that the Dissenting Brothers Were Rebellious (p. 74-75, FPR)

John Ingalls – The following word from John Ingalls is taken from the conclusion of his book.

We are also widely and vociferously accused of being rebellious and of fermenting and fomenting rebellion. This also is an extremely serious charge, and one which I feel obliged to respond to and deny. Against whom, I would ask, are we rebelling. And what was our act of rebellion? For my part I have always sought to have a good conscience before God and man. To remain silent in a situation of departure and degradation, or to withdraw into “judicious obscurity”, as some have done, would have been for me unconscionable. Not to speak out or to refrain from warranted action would have been for me a form of rebellion against the Lord’s inner speaking and urging. My object was to follow the Lord, obey His Word, and practice the truth, fearing only Him. Perhaps I fell short in some particulars. Apart from that, however, “I am conscious of nothing against myself,yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord” (I Cor. 4:4). I therefore consider the charge of rebellion to be totally inappropriate and unfounded. Is it rebellious to voice one’s concerns, care for one’s conscience, obey the Lord’s Word, and follow the inner anointing? This is what I did and sought to do, as this account testifies. Was I ambitious for position or did I seek to raise a following for myself, as some say? The Lord knows that this is far from the truth. I can only consider the charges of rebellion and conspiracy to be a form of character assassination, and a means to cover one’s own track.

John So – John So describes the relationship that he was expected to have with LSM that he could not go along with. The course he then took was perceived as rebellion:

In my last page, I told Brother Lee, “Please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry”.

At that time, I really meant what I said according to my understanding of the function of the ministry office; and I fully agreed with Witness Lee that if the LSM is only operating on the business side to print books and to distribute tapes, then we brothers should accept this, and cooperate with them.
Well, the question is this: I was accused here in Fermentation of pretending to be one with LSM, but that really I was against them [rebelling__ED]. Tonight let me say a word. I don’t want to vindicate, but I just like to share at least the way we look at it. Everything has two sides. I’m sorry to say, it is not that I am pretending. It is because the LSM office really has a double standard. There is a public declaration that the office is only for the business side to print books, to duplicate tapes, and to send them out to serve the churches. But to my realization, there is another aspect expected of us. During the visit of these five brothers to Stuttgart, two of them stayed with me in my home—two of them. And these brothers began to fellowship with me concerning the office, that it is really brother Philip Lee and that brother Philip Lee is the closest and most intimate co-worker of Witness Lee. And that I need to get into the fellowship with him, and that our brother, Witness Lee, needs his son. And after almost every meeting in Stuttgart, they made a long-distance call to the office to report everything that is happening. To the office! The report went to the office.

I was, in short, expected to do the same. I told the brothers in a very good way—we were not fighting—I said, “Brothers, I’m sorry, in short, I just cannot do that. You have the grace to do it, that’s fine, but I just cannot do that.” I told the brothers maybe some other German brothers, like Jorn Urlenbac could do it. I was told, No, no, no, you are the right person to do it. I said, Thank you, but I can’t do it. This is what I realized later was the cause of many problems that we in Stuttgart began to experience with the LSM. Report had gone back to Philip Lee that I refused to do what the brothers were doing. Looking back, this is what caused a serious problem with him.

In my view, however, what they were doing in reporting everything to the office had nothing to do with Witness Lee’s public declaration of what the office is. I didn’t feel there was a need for me to report to the office what we were doing. But these brothers who came to Stuttgart were telling me that Witness Lee’s son is his closest and most intimate co-worker. I have to say I had never heard such a thing before. But these two brothers who stayed with me assured me that this was true though Brother Lee doesn’t say this publicly. Well, I say, if I haven’t heard of this, I just haven’t heard of it. Anyway, a report went back to Anaheim, and somebody wasn’t happy with me. I was happy with everybody, but somebody wasn’t happy with me. I didn’t realize it at first, but as time went by I could see that we had problems with “the office” because we lacked cooperation with the manager of the office.

It is not right, therefore, to say that on one hand I declare that I am for the ministry office, but on the other hand, I don’t cooperate with it. I want to let you know that something more was expected of us at LSM that we could not cooperate with. And, someone was not happy with us about that. Witness Lee should know about our fluctuation. Why? My goodness, if he knows about the consideration of the whole earth, this is a little matter. He should know why there was a fluctuation. The fluctuation was due to the new expectation “the office” had for us, which we could not cooperate with. Of course this made it difficult for us to work together in one accord with LSM.

Bill Mallon – In the Southeast, Bill Mallon endeavored to be one with Brother Lee, the co-workers, and the new way, but ran into serious problems with LSM representatives, who avoided fellowship with him, and other elders, in order to establish LSM influence in the Southeast churches. His reaction to their usurpations and control of the churches was perceived as rebellion by brothers and sisters in the churches who didn’t know his circumstances.….

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.

Indiana · 08-13-2012, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Angel of Light Ministers

What a stark difference between the apostle Paul and the super-apostles he addressed in 2 Corinthians! (11:5) He was very much disturbed by their falsehood and drew the contrast between him and them. He was a genuine apostle; they were not genuine apostles. Concerning taking care of the ministry, he said, "we have renounced the hidden things of shame and did not walk in craftiness or adulterate the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth, commended themselves to every conscience of men before God." (5:11) The super-apostles could not do this.

The angel of light ministry appears most profoundly in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, where God's heart and mind is supposedly being represented by local church authorities in their condemnation of former elders and co-workers. Representing God, however, could not be further from the truth of what they were doing, as the book features the angel of light speaking on every page in his ministers, appearing as ministers of righteousness in the Local Churches.

from Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery

The story of Eli from the book of First Samuel:

Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel...
And he said to them, why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people. No, my sons: for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating.

Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the Lord..."Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at my offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me...
And the Lord said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the Lord. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli." (1 Samuel 1:12 - 3:21)

Although clear indications warranted it, Brother Lee complained of being “portrayed as the old Eli” from the Old Testament (p. 70, FPR). Instead of acknowledging his record of leniency with his two sons, he complained about the comparison, as he did about every legitimate complaint made about him.

Brother Lee had two sons who were reputed as sinful men and evildoers. Many saints knew this and had to live with this knowledge in the church. Both sons were placed in prominent positions in two different businesses of their father. One was made president of a secular, saints-supported business called Daystar, a builder of luxury motor homes. The other was made general manager of a church-related business, the Living Stream Ministry. Both brought corruption to the businesses and into the recovery and into saints’ lives. Both committed sins of sexual immorality at the “doors” of the church. Both the sons and the sins were tolerated.

The second son’s acts of immorality have been, in part, already represented in appendix 2,where two eye-witness accounts are given of his sexual improprieties.

The first son, Timothy, has his history also. It is said that he boasted to “have a woman in every major city in the world!” When work on the motor homes was taking place in Taiwan, rooms at a hotel were provided for the American workers. At the end of the hall from where one American worker stayed was a room where Timothy Lee resided. He frequently was visited by a “certain lady” or ladies and was caught and reported to Brother Lee. The brother, not Timothy, was dealt with, and sent back home to the U. S. This matter became known because of an elder’s wife (Don Hardy's wife) who knew Timothy’s wife and often had the “Lee clan” into her home where she learned many things. “Tim’s wife would phone my wife and pour her ‘guts’ out to her in anger. She had found out about Timothy’s escapades.”

This was the person who was put at the head of Daystar, Timothy Lee. Why would brothers with a conscience in the recovery not compare Brother Lee to the “old Eli”?

This same former elder, Don Hardy, reported: “Timothy had come into our bedroom [where his baby’s bassinet was] and he ended up trying to molest my wife, putting his arms around her. She ran him out of the house and went straight to Brother Lee and reported the incident to him. Witness Lee said, ‘Don’t tell your husband. I will handle it’. The way he handled it was to send my wife and I to San Francisco.” (This is also the way he handled the immoral problem with Philip Lee in the LSM office; he sent the woman and her husband and family away, not Philip.)

I am sorry to have to give such a report to the reader, but there are two sides to talk about concerning Brother Lee. The one side we have all enjoyed and appreciated, being the grateful recipients of the riches of Christ that he has dispensed into us through a heavenly ministry for many years; the other side is what we have not all seen, and we certainly cannot enjoy or appreciate, but, we can and should take into account its corrupting effect in the churches.

In Brother Lee’s final words of his dishonoring talk to the elders and co-workers in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, he said, “instead of excellent Christian virtues, what we see in the present rebellion are exaggerated criticisms…” (p. 75). Is the portraying of Brother Lee “as the old Eli” an exaggerated criticism? Actually not. It is a valid criticism, one that he should have humbly acknowledged.

Ohio · 08-13-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

I am sorry to have to give such a report to the reader, but there are two sides to talk about concerning Brother Lee. The one side we have all enjoyed and appreciated, being the grateful recipients of the riches of Christ that he has dispensed into us through a heavenly ministry for many years; the other side is what we have not all seen, and we certainly cannot enjoy or appreciate, but, we can and should take into account its corrupting effect in the churches.

Indiana, thank you much for your investigative reporting over the years.

Can you say more about Don Hardy? I know he was an early leader in Los Angeles during the early days of the Recovery in America. He and Samuel Chang, the brother-in-law of Watchman Nee, were very close together. Don personally knew all the leading brothers in the Recovery who originated in Southern CA. He was personally close to Witness Lee and his family while they lived in Los Angeles during the days of Elden Hall.

Don Hardy was an early elder, who was trusted with many responsibilities for the ministry, and later was appointed an officer of the Daystar business. He got to witness the behind the scenes operations of the ministry, formerly known as Stream Publishers. He was also supposed to keep his mouth shut about any "improprieties" as most of the other leaders had learned to do. As they say, "even when WL is wrong, he is right." That's because he was supposedly today's "Moses," who not only gave us the laws, but was himself above the law.

Don saw many precious saints who were "sacrificed" in order to maintain this bigger-than-life, pristine image of Witness Lee and his ministry. All brothers and sisters were expendable, and no one was exempt, as many precious ones would later learn. Only the Lee family was immune to accusations, whether true or false.

Ohio · 08-13-2012, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the Lord..."Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at my offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me...

And the Lord said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the Lord. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli." (1 Samuel 1:12 - 3:21)

In his Life-Study of First Samuel, Witness Lee ministered the following to the whole recovery ...

"The sons of Eli also committed fornication with the serving women. How terrible! History tells us that this kind of thing has happened repeatedly among God's servants...

The sons of Eli would not listen to the exhortation of their father. Eli attempted to say something to his sons, but it seems that he was somewhat loose and that his exhortation was not very strong, faithful, desperate, and absolute."

Our own history shows us how much destruction Witness Lee's own sons caused to the Recovery. Neither was considered by the ones with them to even be believers, yet they were continually placed in positions of tremendous charge. Timothy was president of Daystar and other business ventures, and Phillip was the LSM "Office Manager" who eventually ruled all the workers around the globe. The facts show how much they both loved their positions of power, yet held the teachings of their father and the Bible in disdain.

History also tells us that every "storm" and so-called "rebellion" in the Recovery, which regularly occurred in both Taiwan and the USA every decade or so, were never "rebellions" at all. They all started as failed business ventures, laden with ministry abuses, causing the God-fearing saints to cry out for reform, and or justice, which they never obtained. In every case on record, WL chose his own personal gains and those of his family over righteousness and the well-being of the children of God.

Sounds to me a lot like old Eli the high priest.

Truth · 08-13-2012, 09:09 AM

I have a question about WL's 2 sons. Why were those incidences not reported to the police? Were things different back then? Today, the law takes incidences like this very seriously. If I were to report to the police something of this nature and there were eye-witnesses, for sure the villain would be charged with some kind of crime (or at least misdemeanor).

I understand the sisters (victims) probably did not want to report it because of fear of shame from the publicity. Anyways, I wanted to see if there were other reasons why they didn't report to the police (ie. the police wouldn't have taken it seriously).

Ohio · 08-13-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

I have a question about WL's 2 sons. Why were those incidences not reported to the police? Were things different back then?

Because Witness Lee promised the saints that he would take care of the matter. Who would you trust more, dear old Brother Lee or some LA cop?

The same thing happens over and over, whether the Recovery or the Catholic Church or the Penn State University. Someone in charge, well-trusted and highly respected, whose credentials in your eyes are without reproach, says to you, "I'll take care of this matter."

Truth · 08-13-2012, 11:12 AM

I understand. However, because this was not brought to the proper authorities, this kind of behavior in the WL's sons perpetuated, and some others were wounded as well. This is what happens when you idolize someone above the law. No one is above the law (even human government laws), except God Himself.

One my favorite the books is Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, where the main character had a thought that he was above the law. He commits a serious crime (2 murders) and his conscience tortures him, until he gives himself in to the police. During this process, he receives the salvation of God.

It is sad that WL was not only saved but considered a spiritual giant, and yet he had no conscience in this matter (regarding his sons).

UntoHim · 08-13-2012, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

I am sorry to have to give such a report to the reader, but there are two sides to talk about concerning Brother Lee.

Compare and contrast with the living and abiding Word of God:
With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?

No wonder Witness Lee badmouthed James, it exposes him in a major way. The current leadership of The Local Church cannot afford to let the members know about this side of Lee and his family because it will call into question his so-called rich and heavenly ministry. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Thanks brother James for setting us all straight.

Truth · 08-13-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Compare and contrast with the living and abiding Word of God:
With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?

No wonder Witness Lee badmouthed James, it exposes him in a major way. The current leadership of The Local Church cannot afford to let the members know about this side of Lee and his family because it will call into question his so-called rich and heavenly ministry. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Thanks brother James for setting us all straight.

I'm not sure if I agree with your interpretation of this verse. I'm not saying I disagree with this verse. But it is a tricky verse.

Consider this: Peter was speaking words of revelation in minute and then in another minute, the Lord called him Satan because he was speaking words of Satan.

Also in the Old Testament, David was a man according to God's heart. However he committed 2 great sins (adultery and murder). His sins did not negate the fact that he still had a good heart for God. His sins did not invalidate his "ministry". So goes the same with David's son, Soloman.

I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior (lack of control over his sons, not apologizing to the saints, ex-communicating innocent saints, etc...). And also, I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because some parts of his ministry may be wrong.

The interpretation that James was a little off the New Testament track is not a new idea invented by WL. This has been pointed out previously by Christian scholars. Also there is a reason why the book of James almost did not make it as part of the cannon, but this is a completely separate discussion. The point I am trying to make is that even if WL was wrong in his interpretation of James, that does not invalidate the rest of his ministry.

WL is just one man. He has his thoughts and opinions which formed his ministry. Some of it is part of the genuine NT ministry and some of it isn't. I'm not here to debate what is and what isn't. But I want to point out that there are probably no ministers who have it 100% right. If we all understood the bible 100%, we would be God. This is why we need to constantly seek the Lord for more revelation and not assume anything.

Lastly, the problem I have with Lee is not the verse you pointed out. But the fact that he did not confess to any of the problems he caused among the saints due to his sons. Instead he kept his image and his sons' images pristine and sacrificed the others. David confessed, so did Peter. Maybe WL confessed too, but he did not do it publicly (especially to clear it with those whom he offended).

Ohio · 08-13-2012, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior (lack of control over his sons, not apologizing to the saints, ex-communicating innocent saints, etc...). And also, I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because some parts of his ministry may be wrong.

I agree with this.

On the other hand, I have been removed from my steady and intense diet of only WL for a good number of years. Now when I read his ministry, things tend to jump out and trouble me. Lots of this is related to his general condemnation of all things Christian, and his exclusive claims concerning God's blessing upon the Recovery. I now consider these to be "leaven."

Concerning the teachings of the Pharisees, the Lord Jesus did tell us to "do what they say, but not what they do," thus exposing their continual hypocrisy in action. The Lord Jesus did not condemn their teachings categorically, but did warn the disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Hence, due to all we now know of WL and his teachings, we must read his books with a heightened level of discernment.

UntoHim · 08-13-2012, 01:45 PM

Thanks for your participation Truth, your point of view is sorely needed around this place.

Actually one thing I really appreciate about James is that he is pretty straight forward...not a lot of "interpretation" is needed. The context is very clear at the end of James 3 - the context is hypocrisy, which is why I quoted the two verses before the one that says "Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?"

I did not say, nor would I ever say, that Witness Lee's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior. I hope you can understand that there is some kind of middle ground between the two extremes - of Lee being the one minister with the one ministry of the age and the other that he was some maniacal cult leader. After about 37 years of close association (both in and out of the LC Movement) I know for a fact that neither one of these two extremes are accurate.

To say that Witness Lee’s “interpretation that James was a little off the New Testament track” is a gross understatement. Here is an exact quote: "Today's Christianity, just like James, is devoid of divine revelation. James was a sincere, god-fearing man, but was lacking spiritual discernment and revelation.""The Uniqueness of the Lord's Recovery" HWMR It is this kind of asinine and absurd statement that has gotten Witness Lee in trouble, and it also explains why many of his followers seem to treat his words as equal to or even above the Word of God.

Anyway, getting back to the passage I quoted from James, I think the point is that hypocrisy can “pollute” one’s ministry, and we know for a fact that Witness Lee’s hypocrisy extends as far back as his earlier days in Taiwan, probably even before. And what makes matters worse is that his ministry is the only “fountain” in the Local Church/LSM Movement, and the Blended Brothers have made sure that it remains as the only fountain.

I don’t think using the example of the failures of any of the Old Testament figures is applicable. The standard is much higher today. God has given us more, and he expects more from us, especially Christian leadership. Just ask Jim Bakker, just ask Jimmy Swaggart, just ask Ted Haggard. And it was not just sin that brought them down – it was HYPOCRISY. Their ministries were very helpful to many people, but their ministries were also polluted by their sin AND by their hypocrisy.

OBW · 08-14-2012, 12:53 PM

I have a handful of comments (hopefully short this time), but I will start with this comment by Truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior (lack of control over his sons, not apologizing to the saints, ex-communicating innocent saints, etc...). And also, I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because some parts of his ministry may be wrong.

You are at least partly correct. WL's sons do not disqualify him. Neither do some kinds of errors in teaching. I would presume that, given our general lack of certainty concerning at least some parts of scripture, no one's teaching is entirely correct. But most are materially correct.

And when I say materially correct, I mean that the core components of the faith are correctly included.

So, for me, to dismiss Lee as a teacher is more about the overall quality of his emphasis than on some kind of weighing of good v bad teaching. He included the sound, orthodox core of the teaching of scripture. But the things that he majored on were too often questionable, at best. He majored on teachings that created a divide between the LRC and the rest of Christianity. He drilled this divide into his followers and then chastised Christianity for lack of oneness or unity. At this point, it would seem that completely separate denominations get along much better than some portions of the LRC, yet they claim to be imbued with special blessing by God for their unifying stand on the basis of political boundaries arbitrarily created by man.

Lee did not need to control his sons. He needed to expel them from contact with his ministry or with the churches. He was guilty of the very thing that Eli was condemned for in 1 Samuel.

As for the book of James, this little letter never contradicts justification by faith. It simply questions whether claims of faith are legitimate where there is no evidence that the supposed believers are actually obeying the one that they claim to have come to believe and follow. The evidence does not save you. But lack of evidence seriously suggests that claims of belief are nothing more than rhetoric . . . agreeing with terms and phrases but not having a real belief that changes you.

As for the suggestion that the police be called on Lee's sons, I am not aware of any situation in which the activity was criminally forced. The "law" that takes these things "very seriously" is civil law, not criminal law. You do want to make an account of the events, but the police are not necessarily the best choice, and have no responsibility to arrest anyone unless there is reasonable suspicion of physical force being applied to gain compliance.

In the corporate realm, what is now called sexual harassment generally is not something that you call the police about, but you call a lawyer. It is not a crime for which incarceration can be imposed. But there can be monetary penalties awarded in a lawsuit, as well as loss of employment for the perpetrator (assuming that the employer is righteous). And a stigma that will follow you.

It is interesting that one of the women who was involved was the wife of an Anaheim police officer who had to be talked-down from simply going and doing some kind of bodily harm to PL when he found out. The problem there is that the only one that would potentially go to jail for such an act would have been the policeman.

Ohio · 08-14-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It is interesting that one of the women who was involved was the wife of an Anaheim police officer who had to be talked-down from simply going and doing some kind of bodily harm to PL when he found out. The problem there is that the only one that would potentially go to jail for such an act would have been the policeman.

What ............... ?!? Never heard that before.

Is that the brother who was bent on shooting PL for molesting his wife, but was talked out of it by John Ingalls?

John Ingalls saves PL's life (and the officer too) and then gets publicly shamed and quarantined for his actions!

These kinds of stories convince me that LSM leaders have become nothing more than today's Pharisees. Look at how much good Jesus did for Israel in those 3-1/2 years, but all He got was a public "quarantine" by the Pharisees, who then convinced Pilate to scourge and crucify Him.

TLFisher · 08-14-2012, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because Witness Lee promised the saints that he would take care of the matter. Who would you trust more, dear old Brother Lee or some LA cop?

The same thing happens over and over, whether the Recovery or the Catholic Church or the Penn State University. Someone in charge, well-trusted and highly respected, whose credentials in your eyes are without reproach, says to you, "I'll take care of this matter."

If you pay any attention to sports news, it is well-known how the US public has reacted to the Penn State situation. The reaction involves something that occurred more than 10 years ago. As for the recovery, this is how their Public Relations spokesperson responded to a concerned brother:

"As to the issues you have raised related to the events of the distant past, the brothers here just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago. After considering your manuscript, it just didn’t seem that anything new was there, so it’s hard to see what good could come of it. "

There is a comparison between Joe Paterno and Witness Lee. Both were highly respected men of their respective organizations. Each choose a path of controversy in handling a sensitive situation.
Difference being Penn State had Joe Paterno's statue torn down. In the recovery, history becomes selective to preserve an image.

Truth · 08-14-2012, 03:35 PM

I don't think Penn State had a choice. The whole nation now knows. And those who were involved by being silent are now being investigated.

Everything is still hush hush in the LC. Criminal charges need to be pressed before all this can be public and images are torn down.

That is the difference.

TLFisher · 08-14-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

[B]
He was also supposed to keep his mouth shut about any "improprieties" as most of the other leaders had learned to do. As they say, "even when WL is wrong, he is right." That's because he was supposedly today's "Moses," who not only gave us the laws, but was himself above the law.

I'll say this much about brother Don. Even into his 80's, an extremely active servant of the Lord all over the earth.
The fact he did not keep his mouth shut over improprieties as current LSM co-workers did, meant he was one who "overturned the apple cart" and could not be counted one to go along with the "group think" apparatus.

Ohio · 08-14-2012, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

Everything is still hush hush in the LC. Criminal charges need to be pressed before all this can be public and images are torn down.

I struggle with Paul's word to Corinth about not going to law (I Cor. 6.1-8) because in the hands of abusive leaders it can become a license for them to continue without outside intervention, especially when the "wisest" brother around, who was considered by many to be their "spiritual father," was the one under discussion.

Truth · 08-14-2012, 07:34 PM

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history. However, the person who caused the problem, WL, has passed away. Also, the last group of people (the current BB) who witnessed some of the horrible things that happened in the LCs will also pass away. It is sad that no one will take responsibility for what happened. Yet the Lord will judge. We are not the judge. He is the judge.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

There is another thread that says "What about the present?" Maybe I should post there. Slowly, the part of WL's ministry where he condemns Christianity will fade away. The LCs will no longer use that part of the ministry. It is just impossible to gain and keep new members with that kind of condemnation. I'm already seeing it right now, even with the "kosher" radio program that LSM produces (yes, I know some of you think it is hypocrisy...still this indicates that there is already a shift). Also we rarely speak of these items in WL's ministry in our meetings anymore (only in big conferences that LSM hosts). Believe it or not, many of the current (younger) LCs are no longer as exclusive as many of you think (at least relatively to their past).

Indiana · 08-14-2012, 08:52 PM

The Claim that it was said the Manager of LSM Should Be Fired

On page 51, FPR, John Ingalls is charged with suggesting that the manager of Living Stream should be fired, as if this was an attack and not a legitimate suggestion. The LSM manager was responsible for immoral behavior and for division in the churches, which Brother Lee was well aware of before he released The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Yet he indicts John Ingalls for suggesting that his son, Philip Lee, should be fired! As was shared earlier, Paul Kerr, a promising younger brother in Anaheim during the turmoil, wrote: “In the real business world, where I operate, Philip Lee would have been fired, legally charged by the abused plaintiff, forced to settle for millions of dollars and he and the LSM would have been reported to the California labor board”.

Brothers like John Ingalls and Paul Kerr should be commended for their integrity when there was none in the political handling of Philip Lee by others during the late eighties turmoil.

Ohio · 08-15-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history. However, the person who caused the problem, WL, has passed away. Also, the last group of people (the current BB) who witnessed some of the horrible things that happened in the LCs will also pass away. It is sad that no one will take responsibility for what happened. Yet the Lord will judge. We are not the judge. He is the judge.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

There is another thread that says "What about the present?" Maybe I should post there. Slowly, the part of WL's ministry where he condemns Christianity will fade away. The LCs will no longer use that part of the ministry. It is just impossible to gain and keep new members with that kind of condemnation. I'm already seeing it right now, even with the "kosher" radio program that LSM produces (yes, I know some of you think it is hypocrisy...still this indicates that there is already a shift). Also we rarely speak of these items in WL's ministry in our meetings anymore (only in big conferences that LSM hosts). Believe it or not, many of the current (younger) LCs are no longer as exclusive as many of you think (at least relatively to their past).

Thanks Truth, I'm not sure if anyone has yet to express this view of the Recovery.

Looking back on our history, it just seems impossible to separate exclusivism from hypocrisy. Once the unending claims were made that the Recovery was God's Move on Earth, that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age, and that the rest of the body of Christ was hopelessly and pitifully degraded, then the entire leadership was forced to play the hypocrite to maintain some false image to the rank and file.

If today's generation has dropped those exclusive claims, then they can be liberated from the many entanglements of the current leadership, including lawsuits and quarantines, and that's good news! It's so much better just to be who you are in Christ, and not be forced to maintain some old pretension.

Truth · 08-15-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If today's generation has dropped those exclusive claims, then they can be liberated from the many entanglements of the current leadership, including lawsuits and quarantines, and that's good news! It's so much better just to be who you are in Christ, and not be forced to maintain some old pretension.

This is exactly what I'm hoping...that the next generation will have a new start. I don't sense that the younger are judgmental at all. And many who are deeply involved with the LCs, though they don't criticize Witness Lee's condemning part of his ministry, don't really emphasize either, if at all. They seem to just ignore that part. If this trend continue, it is a positive thing, even if the LCs still only use WL's ministry (at least it is the good part of his ministry).

OBW · 08-15-2012, 03:15 PM

If the LRC drops its exclusivity, what is left? The only things that are not mired in exclusivism are the common faith.

The ground separates. It is the core of the exclusiveness of the LRC. It is heralded as the means by which all can be one. Yet it stands as the means by which they become, as Ohio called it, the ministry of condemnation. And not condemnation of sin, but of churches and Christians. This is just another in a long line of remnant theology sects. And rather than somehow being in the center of anything, they become the most marginal.

The special lexicon isolates. It creates a false elevation of self-worth. How does claiming to know about the so-called sevenfold intensified Spirit give you an upper hand on anything. Either the Spirit is sevenfold and intensified or He is not. Doesn't really matter if you know it — or think you know it. Making declarations about God, Christ, the Spirit, and the church in a manner that involves multiples of modifiers does not change the reality of anything. If it is strictly for the purpose of worship, how is this different from trying to engineer a bigger and better sacrifice (something that is secondary to obedience)?

Nee's origins were a combination of Brethren teachings and inner-life theology. The Brethren may have brought about a more focused view of the end times, but they were also, in part, another exclusivist group. And there are many inner-life ministries that have similar lop-sided views of spirituality. Views that replace practical obedience with lofty-sounding faux spirituality. I do not simply say that they entirely dismiss practical righteousness and obedience, but they do tend to downplay it.

No matter how much they read from the gospels, the strongest portions of their theology is Paul. And it isn't even the "whole Paul." It is just the lofty declarations about "life," crucifixion, the church, etc., and not the practical issues that were being addressed when Paul said those things.

What is left to gather around?

Now I do not suggest that they ignore the fact that they have gathered together for years and just disband. But what is left will not be the thing that has the peculiar marks of Nee and/or Lee on it. Surely it will be different from other Evangelical groups. But so are those other Evangelical groups in some ways different from each other.

So maybe they can actually gather around Christ like so many other groups do. Groups that their leaders have declared don't gather around Christ, but something else. Say what you want about differences in doctrine. The reason that some are with certain groups may be to avoid doctrinal controversy. But the gathering is not about the doctrine, but Christ. They sing to and about Christ, not the doctrinal differences. They declare Christ, not doctrines. They participate in the Lord's table, communion, the eucharist, or whatever you want to call it, not in the doctrine. Just like the LRC, they practice in certain ways that they believe to be reasonably sound, or that are relevant, meaningful, and not contrary to their understanding.

What more can you want? Take away the rotten core of leadership and the exclusivist mentality, and the LRC is no more or less different from any other group than those groups are of each other.

The problem is in separating the group from the rotten core of leadership and exclusivist mentality.

Ohio · 08-15-2012, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

This is exactly what I'm hoping...that the next generation will have a new start. I don't sense that the younger are judgmental at all. And many who are deeply involved with the LCs, though they don't criticize Witness Lee's condemning part of his ministry, don't really emphasize either, if at all. They seem to just ignore that part. If this trend continue, it is a positive thing, even if the LCs still only use WL's ministry (at least it is the good part of his ministry).

It's nice to hear about "new starts," but honestly what kind of new start would it be? Yes, they may be innocent of past crimes, and freed from the "ministry of condemnation," but how can they emerge from all the other hindrances? They for sure have heard about the young people in Ohio being contaminated by contemporary Christian music. They were informed that the incestuous offspring of Lot were a type of mainstream Christians today. How could they ever embrace these ones with such an pedigree?

We have also had recent posters on this forum relate how good things were "in the beginning," only to see things deteriorate after they had "seen the vision," and become regular members. NeitherfirstNorLast was one such brother. His story started here ...

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...33&postcount=1

How can they follow the Lord in fresh new directions? They still have to go back to WL's writings for guidance. Just the other day I listened to a recent clip concerning the Boston Training center. The speaker cited WL's "fellowship" 35 years ago about Boston being the springboard to Europe. It seems none of the rank and file will listen or respond to fellowship unless WL's name is attached to it.

What concerns me most is that they have to overcome history. They have followed all the exclusive ways that the Darby Brethren have gone, and then somehow we hope that they will not end up exactly as they did. As they say, "hope for the best, but expect the worst."

alwayslearning · 08-15-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

Ignorance of their history does not change it which is a fundamental flaw of your argument. The younger generation of leaders have to squarely face the history of their church and take measures so it is not repeated when the next Witness Lee comes along. (And there's at least one in every crowd!)

As OBW as indicated a couple of other things would be necessary: a dismal of the ground of locality doctrine and a lexicon that makes sense to average people.

I would add the following:

1. The removal of LSM as having any special place or status above other publishers as far the LC system is concerned i.e. the LCs not a captured audience for LSM. (No we don't have to buy your books, no we don't have to announce your events, no we don't have to sell your books, no we don't have to attend your events, no we don't have to use your material. And if you don't like it too bad - we don't care what you think about us not doing it.)
2. The disbanding of the Anaheim Politburo.
3. "The work" being put in it's proper place without any influence or control of the LCs.

These are structural changes that reach into the core of how the LC really operates. If that doesn't change nothing substantial ever will. IMHO relying on the ignorance of the next generation is a poor substitute for real change.

Cal · 08-15-2012, 09:50 PM

Truth, I would say as long as you are afraid to confront LSM about their abuses of God's children, there is something unhealthy about your relationship with them. Even you should admit that.

Truth · 08-15-2012, 09:53 PM

Izgy, why would I want to confront them? They haven't done anything to me personally. I have nothing to do with them. I use their material - that's all, just like I read other publishers' as well. I don't agree with every word they say, neither do I agree to 100% with any other publishers. But this doesn't prompt me to confront all the publishers I disagree with. However, I'm not afraid to confront LSM if I have a reason to. If I was abused or if I know of someone I am close to abused by them, I am definitely not afraid to confront.

I cannot confront LSM and judge them for what happened in the 80's. I wasn't even there. Don't get me wrong, I believe in John Ingalls' story. But I cannot fight for him. I wasn't there. I can only believe his story and be sympathetic for John. But I cannot confront LSM based on some material I read on the internet. Before the Lord, I don't feel that this is my responsibility. However, if some of you feel strongly that you need to confront LSM for what happened in the 80's because the Lord has called you to do so, go ahead. I am not stopping you.

Truth · 08-15-2012, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Ignorance of their history does not change it which is a fundamental flaw of your argument.

I'm not suggesting ignorance of history changes history. But I am suggesting that if you are pure and innocent and you become the leader then there is a good chance for change.

Corruption, not wrong teaching (I'm not saying WL doesn't have wrong teaching), was what brought down the recovery in the 80's. This is very obvious to me. This was what caused the LCs to lose its blessings. Once corruption is gone, then the blessing will come again.

By the way, I don't consider it corrupt to follow a ministry exclusively. But I do consider it wrong to force others to do the same.

From the other point of view: just as it is wrong to condemn someone who does not follow WL's ministry, it is just as wrong to condemn someone who does (even if they do it exclusively). We have the freedom in Christ to follow the ministry/ministries that helps us the most. Please do not tell me which ministry I should read or not read. You may make suggestions but not condemnations. You must be fair on both sides. I understand some of you are against WL's ministry because you find that it doesn't help you. I respect that. But please also respect those who are helped by WL's ministry.

Lastly, I don't know if any of you still participate as an active member in the LCs. I am still one. From my observation, regardless of what you all say, I have not seen the kind of corruption in the young people that you describe with the BB. I don't doubt that what some of you say about the BB is true. However it is unfair to say that the young ones are just the same. Again this is just my observation. True enough, I have not observed EVERY young person in the LCs. But I have observed enough to make a fair statement.

We don't know the future. Only time will tell. But as of right now, I have not observed the exclusivity in the newer generation as I have observed in the old. This is just my observation of all the young people I've seen. I feel it is unfair to say today's new generation is guilty of their predecessors' past. However, if the new generation become corrupt, then we will not see the changes in the LCs that I hope for in the future.

Indiana · 08-16-2012, 04:43 AM

The Claim that Mallon Convinced Ingalls to Dissent

Listen to the logic in the angel of light ministry. And compare it to the common sense reasoning of brothers desiring truth.

On pages 43-44 of FPR , Witness Lee says,

"The fermentation eventually developed into a conspiracy in the fall of 1987. Brothers from different parts of the country began working together in an
undermining way to exert influence on other leading ones. All this was done privately. Around that time, John Ingalls visited Bill Mallon in Atlanta. Bill brought him out to the countryside and spent a few days with him and eventually convinced him of his dissenting views and thus gained him. Up until that time, according to my knowledge, John had not spoken anything negative or critical about me…However, when John Ingalls came back to Orange County from Atlanta, there was a definite change in his attitude. He began to play an active role in this conspiracy."

John and Bill talked about the trouble that was arising in the recovery – and they were right about it. It was the trouble arising in the recovery that stumbled John Ingalls. It wasn’t Bill Mallon.

John Ingalls in talks with Bill in Atlanta mountains – “In the following month, September 1987, due to my health, and also due to a burden to fellowship with Bill Mallon, a co-worker with whom I had an intimate relationship for twenty-four years, I decided to go to Atlanta, Georgia, for a two-week period of rest and fellowship. Bill had recently passed through sore trials and sufferings [with LSM--ED], and I hoped that our fellowship could render comfort and encouragement to him. We drove up to the nearby mountains and had a number of days opening to one another.

At that time I was entirely supportive to Brother Witness Lee and his ministry and work related to the “new way” that was being promoted. I therefore did my utmost to persuade Bill to visit Taiwan and participate in the full-time training. I felt that this might be the answer to his need. On four separate occasions during those days I attempted to convince Bill to take this step, but he steadfastly refused, affirming that he was not free or clear to do that.

During that time Bill explained to me how he had suffered in various ways by events that had transpired in recent months in the churches and in the work in the Southeast. I came away from our talks with one deep impression: Philip Lee was becoming increasingly involved in spiritual things concerning the Lord’s work, the churches, the elders, and the co-workers. I had already noticed this in Irving, Texas the preceding month. This, I felt, was completely untenable, incompatible with his position and person, and intolerable.

Philip Lee was employed by his father, Witness Lee, to be the business manager of his office and was reportedly instructed to deal only with business affairs. He was totally unqualified both in position and character to touch spiritual matters related to the work of the Lord and the churches. I became alarmed and began to fear for the Lord’s testimony.

With this burden I determined upon my return to Anaheim to fellowship with Godfrey Otuteye, who then was involved in coordinating with Philip Lee in the Living Stream Office. I wanted to frankly ask him about Philip’s role, expressing my alarm and concern”.

Philip’s increased involvement in the work and the discovery of Philip Lee’s moral misconduct at LSM were the initial factors that began to change John Ingalls.

Ohio · 08-16-2012, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Truth, I would say as long as you are afraid to confront LSM about their abuses of God's children, there is something unhealthy about your relationship with them. Even you should admit that.

It's hard for me to agree with this requirement for good health.

That would be like me requesting my Catholic family members in Cleveland to go to the Vatican and confront them about abuses which occurred in Philadelphia.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's nice to hear about "new starts," but honestly what kind of new start would it be? Yes, they may be innocent of past crimes, and freed from the "ministry of condemnation," but how can they emerge from all the other hindrances? They for sure have heard about the young people in Ohio being contaminated by contemporary Christian music. They were informed that the incestuous offspring of Lot were a type of mainstream Christians today. How could they ever embrace these ones with such an pedigree?

We have also had recent posters on this forum relate how good things were "in the beginning," only to see things deteriorate after they had "seen the vision," and become regular members. NeitherfirstNorLast was one such brother. His story started here ...

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...33&postcount=1

How can they follow the Lord in fresh new directions? They still have to go back to WL's writings for guidance. Just the other day I listened to a recent clip concerning the Boston Training center. The speaker cited WL's "fellowship" 35 years ago about Boston being the springboard to Europe. It seems none of the rank and file will listen or respond to fellowship unless WL's name is attached to it.

What concerns me most is that they have to overcome history. They have followed all the exclusive ways that the Darby Brethren have gone, and then somehow we hope that they will not end up exactly as they did. As they say, "hope for the best, but expect the worst."

Yes, the new generation will go to WL's writing for guidance, but it doesn't mean they have to follow every thing WL's says to the teeth. I read WL's writing a lot, but I don't agree with everything he says (especially his ministry of condemnation and exclusivity).

Regarding using worldly music in the meetings, I'm not sure if the young people today agree with this interpretation of Lot. From the some I've spoken to, they have a hard time receiving this kind of word. They love music. Music draws us closer to the Lord in many ways. Whether a particular type of music is too worldly for the church life is very subjective. For example, if you look at our hymnal and some of the young people's song book, there are a few songs that came from the Beatles. Now we know the LCs sang those songs in the 70s. The Beatles were still pretty popular then. Yet LSM didn't consider that worldly. I think the BB just used this whole worldly music as another "weapon" to carry out their fight against Titus. Just another reason they used to get rid of him. But I don't think the young people today buy it. They may be silent because they are not in the lead. But it doesn't mean they agree with everything that goes on in the Recovery. The young today are much smarter than we are when we were young. They are not stupid. With the internet, they will figure out everything very soon. We don't live in China where information is censored. Also they know what abusive authoritarianism is. Once they are in the position of leadership, they will have to make a decision on how to lead the Recovery on. The current BB will be in the grave by then. If all this doesn't happen as I predict, then the Recovery will only get smaller and smaller and suffer the same fate as the Brethren.

OBW · 08-16-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's hard for me to agree with this requirement for good health.

That would be like me requesting my Catholic family members in Cleveland to go to the Vatican and confront them about abuses which occurred in Philadelphia.

Actually a very good point. And it is not the position of the RCC leadership in Cleveland to make declarative statements about the events, facts, etc., of other places. They are responsible for what happens in Cleveland.

In this regard, I do not think that every LRC assembly that continues to follow the LSM is complicit in what went down in Anaheim many years ago or in Cleveland, Toronto, etc., in more recent years.

The thing that does bother me, though, is that to the extent that they know of the duplicity in other ways — insistence that certain amounts of LSM materials be purchased, and that the churches abandon some of their meetings in favor of "ministry station meetings" in which everything about it is not local, but externally directed, etc., — and yet remain silent.

I suspect that the average LRC member has no idea about these things. They accept that if it is what is done, then it must be OK. They don't hear about that much of the GLA fiasco. The truth about John Ingalls. They actually believe that they are incapable of resisting the poison of those internet sites.

(This is actually quite funny when you think about it. A people imbued with the ministry of the age that provides a guaranteed blessing from God greater than any others have ever received are so mentally weak that they must put on blinders, ear plugs, and make strange, loud noises so that they cannot hear or see anything that might contradict what they have been told.)

I know this is not what Ohio meant in his comment, but to take Igzy at full value, then we would have a world of people reading their Bibles, finding whatever they think they see in it, and arguing with everyone that their interpretation is correct. We would surely see the end of the mega-churches. Small home groups would have trouble staying together in that environment.

Don't misunderstand me, but it is interesting that until Gutenberg, scripture was not generally in the hands of everyone. It was found in scrolls, then handwritten books, in libraries and churches. It was opened and proclaimed in a way in which the one proclaiming it gave it meaning and interpretation. Yes, scholars, monks, etc., did pour over it and discuss. But that was generally done with a view of finding consensus. We had the Protestant reformation because someone working within that framework would not be taken seriously. And after that, more and more got into the act and wouldn't take each other seriously, with the result that we splintered into a number of major schisms. Now we are virtually all educated, and Bibles are printed in almost every language. And they are cheap. So we have all become experts (not!).

At some level, giving ultimate interpretation back to the group is important. But the group does need to address dissent or question in a manner other than excommunication and censure. And at this point, it would seem that the LRC has done more of this than anyone else — to their detriment. They gave up private thought and questioning and gave control to a despot of sorts. The balance is (or should be) that there is authority, but that it is not above question.

OBW · 08-16-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

For example, if you look at our hymnal and some of the young people's song book, there are a few songs that came from the Beatles. Now we know the LCs sang those songs in the 70s. The Beatles were still pretty popular then. Yet LSM didn't consider that worldly.

Actually, they did. Not at first, but eventually they stopped using those songs. I recall a "word" about those songs while I was still in Dallas. Before I was married (in 79). Since then they slowly found alternate tunes in most cases.

It is possible that over the 25 year since I left, they may have brought some of them back. Or is this only in the GLA or other marginal or non-LSM groups? I have no idea.

In any case, I'm sure that the Budweiser jingle always raised eyebrows. I liked it, but I also had a kind of uncertainty about it.

Yet, it is interesting that some of the great "hymns of the faith" were words put to what were then bar songs. Since we don't know those songs as anything but hymns, we have no problem with them. But we can't tolerate more modern tunes with worldly origins. I recall that some years ago we went through the old supplement and dug up all the old pop songs from the 50s through the early 70s that were used for tunes. Beatles, Elvis, Tony Orlando, Simon and Garfunkel, Danny O'Keefe (Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues), Debbie Reynolds, the Carpenters, the Eagles, and so on.

I understand using restraint where there is a shadow of currently popular words with negative overtones (or worse). But even that restraint can be stifling. In these kinds of things, a true sense of the "temperature" of the group might be meaningful. (Not a unilaterally declared "taste of the body" without any real idea of its "tastes.")

Truth · 08-16-2012, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It is possible that over the 25 year since I left, they may have brought some of them back. Or is this only in the GLA or other marginal or non-LSM groups? I have no idea.

They have brought back some of the songs not just in GLA, but in many of the LSM LCs.

Like I said, it is hard to say what is worldly or not. It is very subjective. Some people may like to separate worldy music from "church" music not because of what WL says. But to them, they feel just don't feel right when singing hymns using rock music. Others may like to sing rapp songs to God. Let's not judge one another in how we worship God. What is important is that we worship in spirit and truthfulness. Whether we use an electric guitar, a piano, drums, or a banjo is not important.

Personally, I wouldn't want to sing certain modern tunes with God's word because it distracts me. But I don't judge others who do like to sing to God with such tunes. We are all different. That is what makes life so wonderful. What if we are all the same? This would be a boring world.

Ohio · 08-16-2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

Like I said, it is hard to say what is worldly or not. It is very subjective. Some people may like to separate worldy music from "church" music not because of what WL says. But to them, they feel just don't feel right when singing hymns using rock music. Others may like to sing rapp songs to God. Let's not judge one another in how we worship God. What is important is that we worship in spirit and truthfulness. Whether we use an electric guitar, a piano, drums, or a banjo is not important.

What?!? Are you sure you still meet in the Local Churches?

Just kidding.

Actually, when WL first came to the USA, he spoke like this often. One such book was the Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. It spoke about clinging only to crucial things, giving one another needed liberties, and letting go of meany things which frustrate the believers' fellowship. WL spoke this to visiting Christians, desiring to find a richer ministry than what was provided by the old denominations which seemed to dominate the Christian world of the early 60's.

Sorry to say, but it did not take too long for WL to return to his Brethren and Chinese roots of overbearing control on all member churches. In this regard, there are like two WL's -- one that the Blendeds knew, and one that the GLA found in the old books, one that was combative and controlling, and one that was big-hearted and liberal towards all. WL was definitely both. When I came to these forums I wondered who was the real WL?

When I researched the Plymouth Brethren split, I discovered John Darby was the same way. Gentle as a dove to new believers and guests, and ferocious as a tiger to any and all potential rivals. These things, brothers, ought not to be so!

Truth · 08-16-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What?!? Are you sure you still meet in the Local Churches?

Just kidding.

Actually, when WL first came to the USA, he spoke like this often. One such book was the Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. It spoke about clinging only to crucial things, giving one another needed liberties, and letting go of meany things which frustrate the believers' fellowship. WL spoke this to visiting Christians, desiring to find a richer ministry than what was provided by the old denominations which seemed to dominate the Christian world of the early 60's.

Sorry to say, but it not take too long for WL to return to his Brethren and Chinese roots of overbearing control on all member churches. In this regard, there are like two WL's -- one that the Blendeds knew, and one that the GLA found in the old books, one that was combative and controlling, and one that was big-hearted and liberal towards all. WL was definitely both. When I came to these forums I wondered who was the real WL?

When I researched the Plymouth Brethren split, I discovered John Darby was the same way. Gentle as a dove to new believers and guests, and ferocious as a tiger to any and all potential rivals. These things, brothers, ought not to be so!

Yes, I treasure this book very much: Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. It had great influence on how I view other Christians. Growing up in the LCs, I used to be much more judgmental of other christians...until I read this book.

It is too bad we don't practice what is in this book (as a whole organization) because of the leadership. But I have seen individuals in the LCs who practice this. And it is wonderful. I try to practice this myself and encourage those around me to practice the same.

Cal · 08-16-2012, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

Izgy, why would I want to confront them? They haven't done anything to me personally. I have nothing to do with them. I use their material - that's all, just like I read other publishers' as well. I don't agree with every word they say, neither do I agree to 100% with any other publishers. But this doesn't prompt me to confront all the publishers I disagree with. However, I'm not afraid to confront LSM if I have a reason to. If I was abused or if I know of someone I am close to abused by them, I am definitely not afraid to confront.

I cannot confront LSM and judge them for what happened in the 80's. I wasn't even there. Don't get me wrong, I believe in John Ingalls' story. But I cannot fight for him. I wasn't there. I can only believe his story and be sympathetic for John. But I cannot confront LSM based on some material I read on the internet. Before the Lord, I don't feel that this is my responsibility. However, if some of you feel strongly that you need to confront LSM for what happened in the 80's because the Lord has called you to do so, go ahead. I am not stopping you.

In the first place, they are more than just publishers. They are leaders of the movement you identify with.

In the second place, it isn't just about what went on in the 80s. It's what has gone on this decade and is still going on. I'm not talking about a little doctrinal error or attitudinal problem. I'm talking about seriously damaging lives.

As long as you identify with the movement that LSM and the BBs lead, your silence is consent. Now, you might say you have no other way. But that doesn't change the fact that your are implicitly giving consent. It's just a fact your are going to have to deal with. Right now it just seems you are compartmentalizing it.

I sympathize. I'm not trying to condemn you. But I wouldn't be honest if I didn't tell you there is some inconsistency there.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

In the first place, they are more than just publishers. They are leaders of the movement you identify with.

In the second place, it isn't just about what went on in the 80s. It's what has gone on this decade and is still going on.

As long as you identify with the movement that LSM and the BBs lead, your silence is consent. Now, you might say you have no other way. But that doesn't change the fact that your are implicitly giving consent. It's just a fact your are going to have to deal with. Right now it just seems you are compartmentalizing it.

I sympathize. I'm not trying to condemn you. But I wouldn't be honest if I didn't tell you there is some inconsistency there.

This is faulty logic. I absolutely disagree that silence is consent in this case. By the way, I am not silent. I have express many times to my fellow brothers and sisters and I don't believe everything that WL wrote. But why do I need to call up LSM and tell them that? It is none of their business. Who says I identify with them?

I enjoy Witness Lee's writings so I decided to join/stay in this church. But this does NOT require me to agree with everything in the church. I buy Proctor and Gamble's product. But it does NOT require that I believe in everything that PG does. I like to eat at a particular restaurant (for example, Red Lobster). But it does NOT require I agree with everything the manager of that restaurant do.

Does it mean that I consent with everything that the restaurant manager does just because I'm silent? Are you suggesting I should confront the Red Lobster manager just because 10 years ago he cheated on his wife? And by eating at his restaurant and being silent I am consenting to his behavior? This is ridiculous.

Are you saying all the current members of the Roman Catholic Church, who have never confronted the Pope, consent to the its dark history? They all consent to the murder of many innocent christians 1000 years ago? They all consent to the recent sexual scandals of the Bishops?

alwayslearning · 08-16-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

By the way, I don't consider it corrupt to follow a ministry exclusively. But I do consider it wrong to force others to do the same.

From the other point of view: just as it is wrong to condemn someone who does not follow WL's ministry, it is just as wrong to condemn someone who does (even if they do it exclusively). We have the freedom in Christ to follow the ministry/ministries that helps us the most. Please do not tell me which ministry I should read or not read. You may make suggestions but not condemnations. You must be fair on both sides.

We don't know the future. Only time will tell. But as of right now, I have not observed the exclusivity in the newer generation as I have observed in the old.

This brings us the suggestion that you made previously (perhaps in another thread): that for the sake of honesty and clarity the LCs should call themselves the LSM churches. I agree with this. And by definition that is exclusivity.

So if the young leaders coming up are more open and less condemning of other Christians what they are really saying is: "We are open for your to come and fellowship with us in our LSM churches. Here you will have a steady diet of Witness Lee materials and LSM sponsored events. If you are not comfortable with that you will eventually not feel welcome. If you speak out against such exclusivity we will send you on your way."

Cal · 08-16-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

This is faulty logic. I absolutely disagree that silence is consent in this case. By the way, I am not silent. I have express many times to my fellow brothers and sisters and I don't believe everything that WL wrote. But why do I need to call up LSM and tell them that? It is none of their business.

I enjoy Witness Lee's writings so I decided to join/stay in this church. But this does NOT require me to agree with everything in the church. I buy Proctor and Gamble's product. But it does NOT require that I believe in everything that PG does. I like to eat at a particular restaurant (for example, Red Lobster). But it does NOT require I agree with everything the manager of that restaurant do.

Does it mean that I consent with everything that the restaurant manager does just because I'm silent? Are you suggesting I should confront the Red Lobster manager just because 10 years ago he cheated on his wife? And by eating at his restaurant and being silent I am consenting to his behavior? This is ridiculous.

Instead of playing the false-analogy-faulty-logic game back and forth, how about I just ask you this:

What would LSM have to do for you to feel compelled to challenge them?

Apparently their claiming to represent the unique and only legitimate ministry of the age, committing character assassination on rival ministers, seizing real estate, rewriting history, driving wedges between church members and families, and all the other damage they have done isn't enough to get your dander up. What would be?

(Don't forget they think they have authority over you, they think they are your unique leaders, and they expect you to only say nice things about them. And if you don't, you'll be the next target just like all the others they've taken out. And I have a hard time believing you don't realize that and it isn't at least part of the reason you just "absolutely disagreed" with me.

How do you feel about following a ministry which would not hesitate to trash your reputation if they decided you were too opinionated?)

Truth · 08-16-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

This brings us the suggestion that you made previously (perhaps in another thread): that for the sake of honesty and clarity the LCs should call themselves the LSM churches. I agree with this. And by definition that is exclusivity.

So if the young leaders coming up are more open and less condemning of other Christians what they are really saying is: "We are open for your to come and fellowship with us in our LSM churches. Here you will have a steady diet of Witness Lee materials and LSM sponsored events. If you are not comfortable with that you will eventually not feel welcome. If you speak out against such exclusivity we will send you on your way."

Like I have pointed out in another post, this is not the ideal church as presented in the New Testament. However, this is much more honest. You are telling people that this is the main material you will cover - WL/WN's ministry. If someone speak something from another ministry in the meetings, you should not condemn them. They can still be part of the church. But if someone wants to cover other materials in a serious way, that person will need to do it on his/her own time. Otherwise, maybe that person should either start their own church or join another church.

Look, there is nothing wrong with this. I'm just being practical. In every denomination, they have their own material to cover. Try going to a Baptist church and suggest WL's material. They'll throw you out! Does that mean they are bad and exclusive? Of course not!

Idealy, it is best to be non-denominational and not be *for* a particular ministry. But it is hard to do in practice. I'm not saying it is not possible, but difficult. It will require a very special group of leadership. I have not seen such a church yet. Everyone has their opinions. Let's say we do form such a church. Well, who gets to say what material we should use? Everyone will have a different opinion. We try to be non-divisive by being non-denominational. But sometimes this kind of hard-trying brings us deeper into division as we have seen with the LCs. It is better to admit that we are a particular denomination. At least we are honest with ourselves, with the Lord, with one another, and with outsiders.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

How do you feel about following a ministry which would not hesitate to trash your reputation if they decided you were too opinionated?)

Again, like I've said many many times. I do not agree with everything LSM publishes. I am NOT following the ENTIRE ministry. I follow the PART of the ministry that helps me. What don't you get about this? What does it have to do with trashing my reputation?

Truth · 08-16-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I sympathize. I'm not trying to condemn you. But I wouldn't be honest if I didn't tell you there is some inconsistency there.

You are not trying to condemn me. But you are falsely accusing me of consenting with LSM in everything they do.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Apparently their claiming to represent the unique and only legitimate ministry of the age, committing character assassination on rival ministers, seizing real estate, rewriting history, driving wedges between church members and families, and all the other damage they have done isn't enough to get your dander up. What would be?

Of course I'm not happy with what they did. Yes, I'm reading from a ministry that was involved in this. But this doesn't mean I consent.

If you are part the Catholic Church, you are also part of a ministry that was involved in mass murders of many innocent people. Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church killed more people than the Roman Empire? I don't hold the current members of the Catholic Church responsible. So why are you holding me responsible for deeds I did not do?

alwayslearning · 08-16-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

But if someone wants to cover other materials in a serious way, that person will need to do it on his/her own time. Otherwise, maybe that person should either start their own church or join another church.

Look, there is nothing wrong with this. I'm just being practical. In every denomination, they have their own material to cover. Try going to a Baptist church and suggest WL's material. They'll throw you out! Does that mean they are bad and exclusive? Of course not!

Idealy, it is best to be non-denominational and not be *for* a particular ministry. But it is hard to do in practice. I'm not saying it is not possible, but difficult. It will require a very special group of leadership. I have not seen such a church yet.

I think you'll find the idea of having one man's ministry materials coming from one publishing house being exclusively used in a denomination or most churches to be quite a foreign idea. If the leaders at the church I go to started using materials by one man and selling materials and promoting events by one select publishing company we would think that to be very very strange indeed! And it would be openly questioned and challenged and I'm quite certain rejected.

What I think is more common are materials and guest speakers being invited from the same theological tradition regardless of what their "home church" might be. So although I don't attend a Baptist church it would not be unusual to find a book by a Baptist author in the on-site bookstore or to have a speaker who attends a Baptist church come and give a talk or for us to support a mission who's leadership attended a Baptist church or any other denomination with the same core theological tradition.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I think you'll find the idea of having one man's ministry materials coming from one publishing house being exclusively used in a denomination or most churches to be quite a foreign idea. If the leaders at the church I go to started using materials by one man and selling materials and promoting events by one select publishing company we would think that to be very very strange indeed! And it would be openly questioned and challenged and I'm quite certain rejected.

What I think is more common are materials and guest speakers being invited from the same theological tradition regardless of what their "home church" might be. So although I don't attend a Baptist church it would not be unusual to find a book by a Baptist author in the on-site bookstore or to have a speaker who attends a Baptist church come and give a talk or for us to support a mission who's leadership attended a Baptist church or any other denomination with the same core theological tradition.

You have a good point there. But even if you use more than one ministry, you still have to choose from a hosts of materials available. Who gets to decide?

Like I said before, we all have the freedom in Christ to choose the ministry we want to follow. If WL/WN's material is not for you, that is fine. I respect that. But please also respect those who want to pursue WL/WN's ministry.

Cal · 08-16-2012, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

Of course I'm not happy with what they did. Yes, I'm reading from a ministry that was involved in this. But this doesn't mean I consent.

If you are part the Catholic Church, you are also part of a ministry that was involved in mass murders of many innocent people. Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church killed more people than the Roman Empire? I don't hold the current members of the Catholic Church responsible. So why are you holding me responsible for deeds I did not do?

The difference is the RCC hasn't done those things for centuries and they have renounced them and apologized for them many times. The LSM/BBs are still acting badly and have renounced and apologized for nothing.

Surely you see this difference.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The difference is the RCC hasn't done those things for centuries and they have renounced them and apologized for them many times. The LSM/BBs are still acting badly and have renounced and apologized for nothing.

Surely you see this difference.

I'm sure not *everything* that happened in the RCC church has been apologized for. By the way, I'm not defending the BB or LSM here. They definitely need to apologize. But I don't agree that as a member of the LC, I am responsible for the BB or LSM actions...just like I am not responsible for P&G actions. I only use their products. They have no control over my life as you claim.

By the way probably most of the products you use/touch daily are made in somewhere a 3rd world country where labor-rights are not observed. There may even be slave-labor going on. Maybe you should boycott all those products and live in the boonies. Don't shop at Walmart, otherwise you are guilty by association.

alwayslearning · 08-16-2012, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

You have a good point there. But even if you use more than one ministry, you still have to choose from a hosts of materials available. Who gets to decide?

Like I said before, we all have the freedom in Christ to choose the ministry we want to follow. If WL/WN's material is not for you, that is fine. I respect that. But please also respect those who want to pursue WL/WN's ministry.

The material used the most is the Bible! Who decides is based on the context. At a Bible study the people who attend decide together what to cover if anything other than the Bible is used as a text, etc.

People are free to follow any ministry they want. Of course! And if the LC system wants to use Witness Lee's materials and promote LSM events exclusively they are free to do so. But that's exclusivity. Others are welcome based on their acceptance of this reality. Like you said: they can accept it or leave.

So unless the young leaders coming up in the LC system change this (among other things) any claims to them being more open to other Christians rings hollow. Being ignorant of their church's sordid history just means they're ignorant of it that's all. I think leaders should know their history lessons if they want to be learned and gain wisdom on how to avoid such things in the future. But regardless of the ignorance level what the LC systems needs are structural and substantial changes not wishful thinking that a new generation will "bring back" the blessing.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Instead of playing the false-analogy-faulty-logic game back and forth, how about I just ask you this:

What would LSM have to do for you to feel compelled to challenge them?

They would have to directly touch me, one of my close brothers/sisters, or my home meetings that I am a part of.

I am not under their control in any way. There is nothing for me to confront. Currently, the BB are not involved in my life in any way. I have no contact with them whatsoever.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

The material used the most is the Bible! Who decides is based on the context. At a Bible study the people who attend decide together what to cover if anything other than the Bible is used as a text, etc.

People are free to follow any ministry they want. Of course! And if the LC system wants to use Witness Lee's materials and promote LSM events exclusively they are free to do so. But that's exclusivity. Others are welcome based on their acceptance of this reality. Like you said: they can accept it or leave.

So unless the young leaders coming up in the LC system change this (among other things) any claims to them being more open to other Christians rings hollow. Being ignorant of their church's sordid history just means they're ignorant of it that's all. I think leaders should know their history lessons if they want to be learned and gain wisdom on how to avoid such things in the future. But regardless of the ignorance level what the LC systems needs are structural and substantial changes not wishful thinking that a new generation will "bring back" the blessing.

There is no wishful thinking here. I am just giving you my observation of the current new generation. If they have a pure heart toward the Lord, then blessings will come. Whether this will happen or not, that is to be seen. No one knows. There is no point arguing about the future. I am just tell you my observation as a current member.

OBW · 08-16-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The difference is the RCC hasn't done those things for centuries and they have renounced them and apologized for them many times. The LSM/BBs are still acting badly and have renounced and apologized for nothing.

Let me add to this.

Virtually the whole history of Lee/LSM/BBs/LRC is current events, not ancient history. Most of the perpetrators and victims are still alive. The lack of repentance is still an open issue needing action under Matthew 18. Yet they just thumb their noses at it and go on in unrighteousness.

Jimmy Swaggert was caught with a prostitute. The fact that he thumbed his nose at the Assemblies of God (the denomination within which he originally operated) was a black mark on any claim to a continuing ministry. While I cannot say I was ever a Swaggert follower, he became worthy of open contempt after that.

Same for some of the other televangelists that denied everything then even went to jail in a couple of cases.

Lee, his sons, the BBs are all complicit in unrighteousness that we believe is worthy of expulsion from the assembly until repentance is made. And I say the BBs as a whole because even though the errors may be only on the part of some of them, they stand together in lock-step to refute all charges using Lee's deputy authority mumbo jumbo.

There is nothing clean coming out of that cesspool. I don't care if the words are technically scriptural. The LSM is using claims of spiritual superiority to dismiss evidence of moral inferiority. And for too many, it seems to be working.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Let me add to this.

Virtually the whole history of Lee/LSM/BBs/LRC is current events, not ancient history. Most of the perpetrators and victims are still alive. The lack of repentance is still an open issue needing action under Matthew 18. Yet they just thumb their noses at it and go on in unrighteousness.

Jimmy Swaggert was caught with a prostitute. The fact that he thumbed his nose at the Assemblies of God (the denomination within which he originally operated) was a black mark on any claim to a continuing ministry. While I cannot say I was ever a Swaggert follower, he became worthy of open contempt after that.

Same for some of the other televangelists that denied everything then even went to jail in a couple of cases.

Lee, his sons, the BBs are all complicit in unrighteousness that we believe is worthy of expulsion from the assembly until repentance is made. And I say the BBs as a whole because even though the errors may be only on the part of some of them, they stand together in lock-step to refute all charges using Lee's deputy authority mumbo jumbo.

There is nothing clean coming out of that cesspool. I don't care if the words are technically scriptural. The LSM is using claims of spiritual superiority to dismiss evidence of moral inferiority. And for too many, it seems to be working.

I agree. As long as the offending parties are alive, there is opportunity to repent.

Cal · 08-16-2012, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

I'm sure not *everything* that happened in the RCC church has been apologized for. By the way, I'm not defending the BB or LSM here. They definitely need to apologize. But I don't agree that as a member of the LC, I am responsible for the BB or LSM actions...just like I am not responsible for P&G actions. I only use their products. They have no control over my life as you claim.

By the way probably most of the products you use/touch daily are made in somewhere a 3rd world country where labor-rights are not observed. There may even be slave-labor going on. Maybe you should boycott all those products and live in the boonies. Don't shop at Walmart, otherwise you are guilty by association.

Finding life-essential products which one can determine are absolutely not tainted is very difficult. Choosing to do without LSM's products on the other hand is quite easy.

You don't have to buy what LSM peddles. In fact, if you already have about three of their books you've gotten about all they have to offer because most of the stuff just repeats itself. Why give them more of your hard-earned cash? Why not support a ministry that doesn't destroy people's lives? There are a lot of them.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Finding life-essential products which one can determine are absolutely not tainted is very difficult. Choosing to do without LSM's products on the other hand is quite easy.

You don't have to buy what LSM peddles. In fact, if you already have about three of their books you've gotten about all they have to offer because most of the stuff just repeats itself. Why give them more of your hard-earned cash? Why not support a ministry that doesn't destroy people's lives? There are a lot of them.

Igzy, that is unfair to say that this ministry destroys people's lives. That is only half the truth. The other half is that it has helped many people. I know many who where helped. Many who would be lost today without it. Even one told me that she would have committed suicide if it weren't for members of the LC helping. So your comments about "choosing to do without LSM's products on the other hand is quite easy" is not exactly accurate.

Everything is a 2-edged sword. It depends on how you use it. The bible can also destroy people's lives if used in the wrong way.

This is why it is hard for current members to come to this forum. This kind of unwarranted bashing is just unfair and is tiring to respond to. I agree with many negative things said about LSM and BB. But to trash WL/WN's ministry and the LCs altogether and say that there is nothing positive in them is unrighteous.

The integrity of this forum depends on how you present the facts. If people begin to see that this forum is all about WL/WN bashing, then they will not believe your talk about the LSM & BB abusiveness and corruption. If they see that you are balanced and unbiased, then people will hear what you have to say because you will have some credibility. This was what attracted me to this forum. There are some members on this forum with a very balanced view and I really appreciate it.

Don't we want more current LC members to see the corruption behind the leadership (especailly what happened in the 80's)? Then it will help if you don't unfairly trash what they a part of. People are generally fair. If they see that you are fair and balanced in your presentation, they will believe what you have to say.

Cal · 08-16-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

Igzy, that is unfair to say that this ministry destroys people's lives. That is only half the truth. The other half is that it has helped many people. I know many who where helped. Many who would be lost today without it. Even one told me that she would have committed suicide if it weren't for members of the LC helping.

Everything is a 2-edged sword. It depends on how you use it. The bible can also destroy people's lives if used in the wrong way.

This is why it is hard for current members to come to this forum. This kind of unwarranted bashing is just unfair and is tiring to respond to. I agree with many negative things said about LSM and BB. But to trash WL/WN's ministry and the LCs altogether and say that there is nothing positive in them is unrighteous.

I don't think pressing a point is the same thing as bashing. I wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers. I was just trying understand you. I still don't, but that's my problem, I guess.

I never said there wasn't anything good in Lee's ministry. My point was that organization of men has, out of pursuit of their selfish delusion, destroyed lives. There's no excuse for that.

My point boils down to this: Please pray about your commitment to LSM. Ask the Lord how far he wants you to go in your support of that organization and in your speaking out about it. You sound like your mind is already made up about this. But I've learned that when my mind is made up it's often a mind that hasn't prayed. I pray a lot about my support of this board. Believe me, it helps.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think pressing a point is the same thing as bashing. I wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers. I was just trying understand you. I still don't, but that's my problem, I guess.

My point boils down to this: Please pray about your commitment to LSM. Ask the Lord how far he wants you to go in your support of that organization and in your speaking out about it. You sound like your mind is already made up about this. But I've learned that when my mind is made up it's often a mind that hasn't prayed. I pray a lot about my support of this board. Believe me, it helps.

Thanks, Igzy. I appreciate your concern. I will pray more about this.

Cal · 08-16-2012, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

Thanks, Igzy. I appreciate your concern. I will pray more about this.

That's really all I can ask. I do appreciate you and what you are doing here. So thanks for your contribution.

Truth · 08-16-2012, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think pressing a point is the same thing as bashing. I wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers. I was just trying understand you. I still don't, but that's my problem, I guess.

I have responsibilities. I feel responsible for those under my care, in my home meetings. However, I don't feel responsible to the BB or LSM. Lastly, I still enjoy WL's ministry (the positive parts). I also enjoy other ministries. But I find WL's ministry still helpful to my Christian life. And I really enjoy the fellowship in my LC and with my home meeting.

What I'm trying to get at is that I can still meet with the LCs and not be bothered by the BB. If I cannot, then it is time for me to leave.

TLFisher · 08-16-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

I follow the PART of the ministry that helps me.

That's where early Lee comes in (pre-1974).

TLFisher · 08-16-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Let me add to this.

Virtually the whole history of Lee/LSM/BBs/LRC is current events, not ancient history. Most of the perpetrators and victims are still alive. The lack of repentance is still an open issue needing action under Matthew 18. Yet they just thumb their noses at it and go on in unrighteousness.

Just to add where the mindset is of recent history (past 25 years at least), the following is a quote from an email I received.

"Please do not contact me again in any way about any matter. Thank you"

In other words, just read afaithfulword.org and you'll see a clear word how LSM/DCP can go on the offensive, but when put on the defensive (encouraged to reach out to those who had left or challenged based on commentary made at conferences/trainings), there is an unwillingness to speak.

Cal · 08-17-2012, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

That's where early Lee comes in (pre-1974).

I thought that, too. However, the books "The Experience of Life" and "The Knowledge of Life" were actually taken from conferences in the 1950s. I used to think they were great books, and I held onto them for a long time because they meant a lot to me when I was young.

More recently I came to realize that they were so subjective and opinionated that they were actually very misleading. In them Lee basically tries to reduce the experience of God to a science of sensations and arbitrary categories.

Finally I just threw those books away.

Truth · 08-17-2012, 10:19 AM

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" ?

UntoHim · 08-17-2012, 12:16 PM

Truth,
I have an electronical version (MS Word format).
I'll try to email you a copy to the email address we have on file for you.

daveagain · 08-17-2012, 07:42 PM

Would you be able to send me a copy of "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" as well? In so many posts it is referenced and it would be nice to have it available to follow along. Very interesting information. I had trainings under John Ingalls and Bill Mallon back in the early 70s. Subsequently I had spoken with Bill Mallon several times. I knew of Titus Chu but never met him. One of the brothers who migrated to Detroit from Akron in 1971 spoke very well of him (I migrated from Santa Cruz to Detroit). One brother (Don O'Born) told me of all the problems but I just didn't realize how extensive it was. Thanks.

UntoHim · 08-17-2012, 07:54 PM

Welcome to the forum daveagain.
You should have your copy in just a bit.
Please feel free to go to the introduction board and tell us a little bit about yourself.

Hey you Truth, when you get a chance, will you do the same?

Thanks.

TLFisher · 08-25-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveagain

Would you be able to send me a copy of "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" as well? In so many posts it is referenced and it would be nice to have it available to follow along. Very interesting information. I had trainings under John Ingalls and Bill Mallon back in the early 70s. Subsequently I had spoken with Bill Mallon several times. I knew of Titus Chu but never met him. One of the brothers who migrated to Detroit from Akron in 1971 spoke very well of him (I migrated from Santa Cruz to Detroit). One brother (Don O'Born) told me of all the problems but I just didn't realize how extensive it was. Thanks.

daveagain and truth, when you have read through Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, I would like to know what you thought of the content? Objectively or subjectively.
I had read it while in college (90-92) and within the last several years re-read it.
Thanks,
Terry

TLFisher · 07-12-2016, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

There is a comparison between Joe Paterno and Witness Lee. Both were highly respected men of their respective organizations. Each choose a path of controversy in handling a sensitive situation.

Witness Lee had a ministry to preserve and Joe Paterno had a football program to preserve.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...sky-abuse-1976

"Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, I don't want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?"

Reinsert football season with ministry and that's the consensus not wanting to hear about "persons, matters, and things".

Ohio · 07-12-2016, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Witness Lee had a ministry to preserve and Joe Paterno had a football program to preserve.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...sky-abuse-1976

"Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, I don't want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?"

Reinsert football season with ministry and that's the consensus not wanting to hear about "persons, matters, and things".

The way people feel about Joe Paterno, after learning how he enabled Jerry Sandusky to molest boys for decades, is exactly how I feel about Witness Lee, who enabled his own son Phillip to do similar atrocities as the ministry "Office."

08-01-2012, 10:33 PM	#1
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Angel of Light Ministers What a stark difference between the apostle Paul and the super-apostles he addressed in 2 Corinthians! (11:5) He was very much disturbed by their falsehood and drew the contrast between him and them. He was a genuine apostle; they were not. Concerning taking care of the ministry, he said, "we have renounced the hidden things of shame and did not walk in craftiness or adulterate the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth, commended themselves to every conscience of men before God." (5:11) The super-apostles could not do this. Although Paul never campaigned for leadership in the churches, his apostleship was manifest to God, and he and those with him behaved in such a way that others would not be offended or stumbled by them. So Paul could say to the Corinthians, "for I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God, for I betrothed to one husband to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” (11:2) Paul could do this because he was pure (of God); and they were not. The Falsehood of the Blending Brothers Those today who feign purity in their roles of global authorities over the federation of churches they manage have problems today matching Paul in character and purpose. In outward appearance they seem to match; but they do not have the same heart. (5:12) When Paul says, “We gave no occasion of stumbling in anything that the ministry may not be faulted, he said this in purity; he was not covering up unrighteous matters to protect the ministry. Paul could say with a pure conscience, “in everything we commend ourselves as ministers of God in much endurance…” (3:4); “make room for us, we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. (7:2) Our mouth is opened to you Corinthians, our heart is enlarged…you also be enlarged (6:11)…be reconciled to God" (5:20). He had the ground to speak like this, with much entreaty to the Corinthians. The blending brothers’ record of impurities are well-documented by several brothers and sisters. And the blending brothers' appeal for cooperation with them falls on many deaf ears as a result. These men, in essence, are false brothers, daring to mix the impure things with the New Testament ministry and pretend that there will be a pure result, as Paul betrothing saints as a pure virgin to Christ. The Record Their falsehood is found in their record of behavior Their actions have manifested their impurity toward God and toward men. They do not follow Paul’s footsteps in caring for the churches, which “cares” pressed upon him daily with a heart for "each one" and to present "every" member full-grown in Christ. The blending brothers' impurity is basely manifested in their endorsement and ongoing practice of the bearing of false witness against their brothers in Christ and also in cutting off, not caring for, a number of churches and saints around the world. Not recognizing their evil practice or caring about their wicked sin shows their lack of spiritual character and heart, and simplicity and purity toward Christ. Ministers of Christ are they, said Paul. “I more so”. (11:23) Yet Paul would not be recognized by them today. And they would not be recognized by Paul. Paul’s line is pure according to New Testament revelation. Their line is impure, narrow, and divisive as their record sadly shows. And they are super. Rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ, they would be rebuked by Paul and shamefully discounted by him in their super-Apostle, super-ministry orientation and ministry, which misleads the saints from the “simplicity and purity toward Christ” (11:3) to something different. (11:4) “For such ones are deceitful workers transfiguring themselves into apostles of Christ.” (11: 15) To be genuine apostles they must be pure (of God). And pure they are not, as seen in their super-elevation of themselves as global authorities of the church of God without regard for genuine oneness in the Body. (They themselves might not think of themselves as apostles, but many would think this way because of their outward appearance and assertion as authorities.) The Most Evil Book Where is the outrage over the most evil book published in the Local Churches? The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. This is a book of lies and impurity from start to finish, under the authorship of Witness Lee, with support from several of his co-workers. The sister books of evil from Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux, and Andrew Yu are likewise full of lies and misrepresentation of men and events. DCP (Defense and Confirmation Project) has numerous books produced by men appearing to be ministers of righteousness, but they lie. They do not always confirm and defend the truth. They deny it, as when the truth sheds light on their deceitful work in the name of Christ and of Witness Lee. Agents of Satan For those interested in how ministers of God can also become agents of Satan as apparent ministers of righteousness, please read on. It is very important to become aware of Satan’s work, for as Paul says, “Satan himself transfigures himself into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if also his ministers transfigure themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.” (11:15) The Challenge and Boast in Christ Of course, if anyone wants to challenge what I say, it will be the first time in 11 years of my writing. These blending brothers and DCP do not speak since what they might say would only further expose them and their falsehood, and show with each effort they make that they are not interested in the truth. As Paul says, “the truthfulness of Christ is in me” and this boasting will not stop as it regards me in the regions of Achaia.” And also, my own boasting is present today because of the “simplicity and purity” I have toward Christ in these matters, even as Paul had in his writing to the Corinthians. Witness Lee http://www.twoturmoils.com/Deviating...dsRecovery.pdf Andrew Yu www.twoturmoils.com/AndrewYuDeputyAuthority.pdf Ron Kangas http://www.UnfaithfulWitness.org/Eig...considered.pdf DCP www.twoturmoils.com/SteveLinks.pdf (In March this year, 2012 I was in Southern California and asked Bill Buntain of DCP to join me at a table of fellowship to discuss how to end much of the internet activity against them. There was no response from these men who still have not confirmed or denied the truth I represent. I also left a message with Ron Kangas to join me to discuss and explain his covert evil speaking against me in Ecuador, but he will not respond or take care of his outstanding sins against me made in public and recorded on tape. Cowards are they? Yes. And, they have proved it by their silent printing press and non-appearance on this public forum. They have no confidence in themselves that they hold the truth in this case, and no courage either to admit this.)

08-02-2012, 06:37 PM	#3
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: testimony of our conscience Paul actually had a testimony of his conscience that he could not be blamed in anything, in word or conduct. Former leader, Don Hardy said, on the other hand, he didn't know how some brothers could sleep at night for what they know. "For our boasting is this, the testimony of our a conscience, that in singleness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and more abundantly toward you." (2 Cor. 1:12) BROTHERS WERE INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY? John Ingalls – “It is not our desire, nor has it ever been, to overthrow anyone’s work or ministry, neither have we desired to put anyone’s ministry aside, but rather to bring everything to the light and put everything in the proper context. A report has been circulated that we would not be satisfied until we brought a certain person down; this report was erroneously applied to us. We never had any such intention, nor have we ever conspired against anyone – the Lord knows this and can testify for us. The accusation of conspiracy made against us is an utter falsehood – our testimony as recorded in this account bears this out. Rather we have grieved over those in leadership who have swerved from the path they once proclaimed and espoused. We desperately hoped there would be some change to resolve the serious problems that had emerged, and we fellowshipped earnestly with Brother Lee to this end. We have lamented the damage inflicted and suffered by many saints through practices and attitudes that we too in some measure participated in… For my part, I humbly repent of this”. (Speaking the Truth In Love conclusion, 1990) Al Knoch – “Anyone who knows John Ingalls knows that he is not ambitious; he is not that way. Who would want that responsibility [of taking over the recovery]. There was no conspiracy” (from an interview with Al, Nov 2000). John So – In his Manila presentation, John So expressed surprise at the conspiracy charge: I would like to just go through Brother Lee’s outline concerning the rebellion. It says the rebellion began to ferment from Stuttgart in 1986. What I would like to do is just give you the chronological events of what took place. I will only deal briefly with things that I personally know quite well, concerning myself, Stuttgart, and Europe. I don’t know and I am not thoroughly familiar with what went on in Hong Kong. I really do not know and I cannot say anything in details. So, I cannot speak for brother Joseph Fung. And I didn’t know exactly what happened in Anaheim in the very beginning. So I cannot speak for brother John Ingalls. I really cannot. And when things happened in Rosemead, I really had no idea what was going on there until I read the literature that they had put out. I did not even know that we had ever formed together an “international conspiracy ring” until Witness Lee said so. I am quite surprised. None of the places I’ve mentioned involved me. Okay, Witness Lee claims that rebellion and conspiracy started to ferment in Stuttgart in 1986. I’m going to start at this point….(1990, John So’s testimony given in Manila by their invitation) John Ingalls – John Ingalls speaks of having the same “heart’s burden” as others. "Brother Lee mentioned then that Bill Mallon, John So, and myself all used the same term – central control. He deduced that we must have consulted or “conspired” together. The fact was that we all had the same realization because of separate similar experiences without any consultation and certainly without any “conspiring“ with each other. John So began to be concerned in 1986, Bill Mallon in the spring of 1987, and myself in the fall of 1987. Eventually, as we had done for years, we had telephone contact with each other, and our heart’s burden came out. John Ingalls – John shares the following refutation of the conspiracy charge: At this point we felt that it would be useful for the brothers we had contacted to come together to fellowship and pray in preparation for going to see Brother Lee, so that we would be clear concerning the issues we would present to him. Moreover, we believed it would be best not to create any stir among the saints or other elders by doing this openly; so we sought some place where we could all meet privately. This was by no means a conspiracy, as we are being charged. At no time did we ever meet with the purpose of plotting to overthrow Brother Lee and his ministry. That is utterly ridiculous. We never had such a thought – the Lord can testify for us. A private meeting or a secret meeting does not constitute a conspiracy. A conspiracy takes form from the content of the meeting. Is it a conspiracy to pray and fellowship together in preparation for visiting Brother Lee and opening our hearts in frank fellowship? Of course not. We were very concerned for the saints and sought for an extended period to cover the grave matters from them lest they be distraught and we suffer worse consequences. One of the brothers I sought to contact and confer with was Ray Graver, an elder in the church in Irving, Texas, and the manager of the LSM branch office there. I called him in Texas and proposed that I come to see him in Irving. It was thought, however, for us to meet in Irving would attract too much attention; so we settled on meeting midway in El Paso, Texas. This decision is being censured now as a plan for a secret meeting, as if that in itself is evil and a conspiracy. But I fail to see anything wrong with this. It was with a pure motive and desire and certainly was not a plot to draw him into a conspiracy to overthrow anyone’s ministry. Ray was quite willing to do this until Benson Phillips, another co-worker and elder in Irving, Texas, who was then in Taiwan, advised him against it. Had Benson been in Irving, I would have sought to speak with him also. I enjoyed a very good and close relationship with both Ray and Benson for many years. John So - John So speaks straightforwardly to Brother Lee: Originally, I did plan to go to Anaheim to have some personal fellowship with you [Witness Lee] as you requested by phone early December. (I must say at this time I was not too polite anymore. If you would consider that as maybe a rebellion, that’s fine with me. Consider it as a rebellion. Conspiracy, that is also fine with me.) In my last page, I told him, please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry. Neither do I have any desire to convince any brother. By the Lord’s grace, I like to be straightforward and follow my conscience, not to hide anything and not play politics, not to please anyone, or to offend anyone. May the Lord have mercy on all His churches. (I ended the letter that way.) Bill Mallon - Bill Mallon was very concerned over serious developments in the Southeast churches and of course he opened to other brothers about his concerns, but he spurns the idea that there was ever a conspiracy to overthrow someone. He said this “would be funny if it were not so tragic” to be charged in this way. The brothers simply came together to discuss their serious concerns and desired to bring those concerns into fellowship with other brothers, including Brother Lee. John Ingalls approached Brother Lee sixteen times on behalf of the feeling of many brothers and the burden that many of them had at that time. Ken Unger went to Brother Lee twenty times. After a considerable amount of time had passed with little progress being made, certain brothers began to speak out according to their convictions, based on the Word of God, prior church ministry, and their conscience. This, however, was interpreted by some as speaking differently, and negatively, and being against the new way in the churches. Last edited by Indiana; 08-02-2012 at 06:45 PM. Reason: testimony of our conscience

08-07-2012, 09:05 PM	#4
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: Dissenting Brothers Were Rebellious? Angel of light ministers claimed and still claim,after much warning to them, that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So were leaders of a rebellion. Since they still do not listen, and sin willfully, they graduate to the distinction of being called angel of light ministers. A lawsuit was actually filed against two angel of light ministers, Sherman Robertson and Ron Kangas, which was brought to the attention of all elders attending an international meeting Dec 2010. The lawsuit went on for four months, with neither one of these so-called leaders capitulating to the truth and fellowship with me, and others, over my writings that they condemn but no angel of light minister has yet refuted with intelligence or fact. The Claim that the Dissenting Brothers Were Rebellious (p. 74-75, FPR) John Ingalls – The following word from John Ingalls is taken from the conclusion of his book. We are also widely and vociferously accused of being rebellious and of fermenting and fomenting rebellion. This also is an extremely serious charge, and one which I feel obliged to respond to and deny. Against whom, I would ask, are we rebelling. And what was our act of rebellion? For my part I have always sought to have a good conscience before God and man. To remain silent in a situation of departure and degradation, or to withdraw into “judicious obscurity”, as some have done, would have been for me unconscionable. Not to speak out or to refrain from warranted action would have been for me a form of rebellion against the Lord’s inner speaking and urging. My object was to follow the Lord, obey His Word, and practice the truth, fearing only Him. Perhaps I fell short in some particulars. Apart from that, however, “I am conscious of nothing against myself,yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord” (I Cor. 4:4). I therefore consider the charge of rebellion to be totally inappropriate and unfounded. Is it rebellious to voice one’s concerns, care for one’s conscience, obey the Lord’s Word, and follow the inner anointing? This is what I did and sought to do, as this account testifies. Was I ambitious for position or did I seek to raise a following for myself, as some say? The Lord knows that this is far from the truth. I can only consider the charges of rebellion and conspiracy to be a form of character assassination, and a means to cover one’s own track. John So – John So describes the relationship that he was expected to have with LSM that he could not go along with. The course he then took was perceived as rebellion: In my last page, I told Brother Lee, “Please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry”. At that time, I really meant what I said according to my understanding of the function of the ministry office; and I fully agreed with Witness Lee that if the LSM is only operating on the business side to print books and to distribute tapes, then we brothers should accept this, and cooperate with them. Well, the question is this: I was accused here in Fermentation of pretending to be one with LSM, but that really I was against them [rebelling__ED]. Tonight let me say a word. I don’t want to vindicate, but I just like to share at least the way we look at it. Everything has two sides. I’m sorry to say, it is not that I am pretending. It is because the LSM office really has a double standard. There is a public declaration that the office is only for the business side to print books, to duplicate tapes, and to send them out to serve the churches. But to my realization, there is another aspect expected of us. During the visit of these five brothers to Stuttgart, two of them stayed with me in my home—two of them. And these brothers began to fellowship with me concerning the office, that it is really brother Philip Lee and that brother Philip Lee is the closest and most intimate co-worker of Witness Lee. And that I need to get into the fellowship with him, and that our brother, Witness Lee, needs his son. And after almost every meeting in Stuttgart, they made a long-distance call to the office to report everything that is happening. To the office! The report went to the office. I was, in short, expected to do the same. I told the brothers in a very good way—we were not fighting—I said, “Brothers, I’m sorry, in short, I just cannot do that. You have the grace to do it, that’s fine, but I just cannot do that.” I told the brothers maybe some other German brothers, like Jorn Urlenbac could do it. I was told, No, no, no, you are the right person to do it. I said, Thank you, but I can’t do it. This is what I realized later was the cause of many problems that we in Stuttgart began to experience with the LSM. Report had gone back to Philip Lee that I refused to do what the brothers were doing. Looking back, this is what caused a serious problem with him. In my view, however, what they were doing in reporting everything to the office had nothing to do with Witness Lee’s public declaration of what the office is. I didn’t feel there was a need for me to report to the office what we were doing. But these brothers who came to Stuttgart were telling me that Witness Lee’s son is his closest and most intimate co-worker. I have to say I had never heard such a thing before. But these two brothers who stayed with me assured me that this was true though Brother Lee doesn’t say this publicly. Well, I say, if I haven’t heard of this, I just haven’t heard of it. Anyway, a report went back to Anaheim, and somebody wasn’t happy with me. I was happy with everybody, but somebody wasn’t happy with me. I didn’t realize it at first, but as time went by I could see that we had problems with “the office” because we lacked cooperation with the manager of the office. It is not right, therefore, to say that on one hand I declare that I am for the ministry office, but on the other hand, I don’t cooperate with it. I want to let you know that something more was expected of us at LSM that we could not cooperate with. And, someone was not happy with us about that. Witness Lee should know about our fluctuation. Why? My goodness, if he knows about the consideration of the whole earth, this is a little matter. He should know why there was a fluctuation. The fluctuation was due to the new expectation “the office” had for us, which we could not cooperate with. Of course this made it difficult for us to work together in one accord with LSM. Bill Mallon – In the Southeast, Bill Mallon endeavored to be one with Brother Lee, the co-workers, and the new way, but ran into serious problems with LSM representatives, who avoided fellowship with him, and other elders, in order to establish LSM influence in the Southeast churches. His reaction to their usurpations and control of the churches was perceived as rebellion by brothers and sisters in the churches who didn’t know his circumstances.….

08-09-2012, 09:20 PM	#5
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	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.”

08-13-2012, 09:09 AM	#12
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC I have a question about WL's 2 sons. Why were those incidences not reported to the police? Were things different back then? Today, the law takes incidences like this very seriously. If I were to report to the police something of this nature and there were eye-witnesses, for sure the villain would be charged with some kind of crime (or at least misdemeanor). I understand the sisters (victims) probably did not want to report it because of fear of shame from the publicity. Anyways, I wanted to see if there were other reasons why they didn't report to the police (ie. the police wouldn't have taken it seriously).

08-13-2012, 11:12 AM	#14
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC I understand. However, because this was not brought to the proper authorities, this kind of behavior in the WL's sons perpetuated, and some others were wounded as well. This is what happens when you idolize someone above the law. No one is above the law (even human government laws), except God Himself. One my favorite the books is Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, where the main character had a thought that he was above the law. He commits a serious crime (2 murders) and his conscience tortures him, until he gives himself in to the police. During this process, he receives the salvation of God. It is sad that WL was not only saved but considered a spiritual giant, and yet he had no conscience in this matter (regarding his sons).

08-13-2012, 01:45 PM	#18
UntoHim ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς - - For To Me To Live Is Christ! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,791	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Thanks for your participation Truth, your point of view is sorely needed around this place. Actually one thing I really appreciate about James is that he is pretty straight forward...not a lot of "interpretation" is needed. The context is very clear at the end of James 3 - the context is hypocrisy, which is why I quoted the two verses before the one that says "Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" I did not say, nor would I ever say, that Witness Lee's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior. I hope you can understand that there is some kind of middle ground between the two extremes - of Lee being the one minister with the one ministry of the age and the other that he was some maniacal cult leader. After about 37 years of close association (both in and out of the LC Movement) I know for a fact that neither one of these two extremes are accurate. To say that Witness Lee’s “interpretation that James was a little off the New Testament track” is a gross understatement. Here is an exact quote: "Today's Christianity, just like James, is devoid of divine revelation. James was a sincere, god-fearing man, but was lacking spiritual discernment and revelation.""The Uniqueness of the Lord's Recovery" HWMR It is this kind of asinine and absurd statement that has gotten Witness Lee in trouble, and it also explains why many of his followers seem to treat his words as equal to or even above the Word of God. Anyway, getting back to the passage I quoted from James, I think the point is that hypocrisy can “pollute” one’s ministry, and we know for a fact that Witness Lee’s hypocrisy extends as far back as his earlier days in Taiwan, probably even before. And what makes matters worse is that his ministry is the only “fountain” in the Local Church/LSM Movement, and the Blended Brothers have made sure that it remains as the only fountain. I don’t think using the example of the failures of any of the Old Testament figures is applicable. The standard is much higher today. God has given us more, and he expects more from us, especially Christian leadership. Just ask Jim Bakker, just ask Jimmy Swaggart, just ask Ted Haggard. And it was not just sin that brought them down – it was HYPOCRISY. Their ministries were very helpful to many people, but their ministries were also polluted by their sin AND by their hypocrisy. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

08-14-2012, 03:35 PM	#22
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC I don't think Penn State had a choice. The whole nation now knows. And those who were involved by being silent are now being investigated. Everything is still hush hush in the LC. Criminal charges need to be pressed before all this can be public and images are torn down. That is the difference.

08-14-2012, 07:34 PM	#25
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history. However, the person who caused the problem, WL, has passed away. Also, the last group of people (the current BB) who witnessed some of the horrible things that happened in the LCs will also pass away. It is sad that no one will take responsibility for what happened. Yet the Lord will judge. We are not the judge. He is the judge. The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past. There is another thread that says "What about the present?" Maybe I should post there. Slowly, the part of WL's ministry where he condemns Christianity will fade away. The LCs will no longer use that part of the ministry. It is just impossible to gain and keep new members with that kind of condemnation. I'm already seeing it right now, even with the "kosher" radio program that LSM produces (yes, I know some of you think it is hypocrisy...still this indicates that there is already a shift). Also we rarely speak of these items in WL's ministry in our meetings anymore (only in big conferences that LSM hosts). Believe it or not, many of the current (younger) LCs are no longer as exclusive as many of you think (at least relatively to their past).

08-14-2012, 08:52 PM	#26
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: Angel of Light Ministry in FPR The Claim that it was said the Manager of LSM Should Be Fired On page 51, FPR, John Ingalls is charged with suggesting that the manager of Living Stream should be fired, as if this was an attack and not a legitimate suggestion. The LSM manager was responsible for immoral behavior and for division in the churches, which Brother Lee was well aware of before he released The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Yet he indicts John Ingalls for suggesting that his son, Philip Lee, should be fired! As was shared earlier, Paul Kerr, a promising younger brother in Anaheim during the turmoil, wrote: “In the real business world, where I operate, Philip Lee would have been fired, legally charged by the abused plaintiff, forced to settle for millions of dollars and he and the LSM would have been reported to the California labor board”. Brothers like John Ingalls and Paul Kerr should be commended for their integrity when there was none in the political handling of Philip Lee by others during the late eighties turmoil.

08-15-2012, 03:15 PM	#29
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC If the LRC drops its exclusivity, what is left? The only things that are not mired in exclusivism are the common faith. The ground separates. It is the core of the exclusiveness of the LRC. It is heralded as the means by which all can be one. Yet it stands as the means by which they become, as Ohio called it, the ministry of condemnation. And not condemnation of sin, but of churches and Christians. This is just another in a long line of remnant theology sects. And rather than somehow being in the center of anything, they become the most marginal. The special lexicon isolates. It creates a false elevation of self-worth. How does claiming to know about the so-called sevenfold intensified Spirit give you an upper hand on anything. Either the Spirit is sevenfold and intensified or He is not. Doesn't really matter if you know it — or think you know it. Making declarations about God, Christ, the Spirit, and the church in a manner that involves multiples of modifiers does not change the reality of anything. If it is strictly for the purpose of worship, how is this different from trying to engineer a bigger and better sacrifice (something that is secondary to obedience)? Nee's origins were a combination of Brethren teachings and inner-life theology. The Brethren may have brought about a more focused view of the end times, but they were also, in part, another exclusivist group. And there are many inner-life ministries that have similar lop-sided views of spirituality. Views that replace practical obedience with lofty-sounding faux spirituality. I do not simply say that they entirely dismiss practical righteousness and obedience, but they do tend to downplay it. No matter how much they read from the gospels, the strongest portions of their theology is Paul. And it isn't even the "whole Paul." It is just the lofty declarations about "life," crucifixion, the church, etc., and not the practical issues that were being addressed when Paul said those things. What is left to gather around? Now I do not suggest that they ignore the fact that they have gathered together for years and just disband. But what is left will not be the thing that has the peculiar marks of Nee and/or Lee on it. Surely it will be different from other Evangelical groups. But so are those other Evangelical groups in some ways different from each other. So maybe they can actually gather around Christ like so many other groups do. Groups that their leaders have declared don't gather around Christ, but something else. Say what you want about differences in doctrine. The reason that some are with certain groups may be to avoid doctrinal controversy. But the gathering is not about the doctrine, but Christ. They sing to and about Christ, not the doctrinal differences. They declare Christ, not doctrines. They participate in the Lord's table, communion, the eucharist, or whatever you want to call it, not in the doctrine. Just like the LRC, they practice in certain ways that they believe to be reasonably sound, or that are relevant, meaningful, and not contrary to their understanding. What more can you want? Take away the rotten core of leadership and the exclusivist mentality, and the LRC is no more or less different from any other group than those groups are of each other. The problem is in separating the group from the rotten core of leadership and exclusivist mentality. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

08-15-2012, 09:50 PM	#32
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Truth, I would say as long as you are afraid to confront LSM about their abuses of God's children, there is something unhealthy about your relationship with them. Even you should admit that.

08-15-2012, 09:53 PM	#33
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Izgy, why would I want to confront them? They haven't done anything to me personally. I have nothing to do with them. I use their material - that's all, just like I read other publishers' as well. I don't agree with every word they say, neither do I agree to 100% with any other publishers. But this doesn't prompt me to confront all the publishers I disagree with. However, I'm not afraid to confront LSM if I have a reason to. If I was abused or if I know of someone I am close to abused by them, I am definitely not afraid to confront. I cannot confront LSM and judge them for what happened in the 80's. I wasn't even there. Don't get me wrong, I believe in John Ingalls' story. But I cannot fight for him. I wasn't there. I can only believe his story and be sympathetic for John. But I cannot confront LSM based on some material I read on the internet. Before the Lord, I don't feel that this is my responsibility. However, if some of you feel strongly that you need to confront LSM for what happened in the 80's because the Lord has called you to do so, go ahead. I am not stopping you.

08-16-2012, 04:43 AM	#35
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: Angel of Light Ministry, continued The Claim that Mallon Convinced Ingalls to Dissent Listen to the logic in the angel of light ministry. And compare it to the common sense reasoning of brothers desiring truth. On pages 43-44 of FPR , Witness Lee says, "The fermentation eventually developed into a conspiracy in the fall of 1987. Brothers from different parts of the country began working together in an undermining way to exert influence on other leading ones. All this was done privately. Around that time, John Ingalls visited Bill Mallon in Atlanta. Bill brought him out to the countryside and spent a few days with him and eventually convinced him of his dissenting views and thus gained him. Up until that time, according to my knowledge, John had not spoken anything negative or critical about me…However, when John Ingalls came back to Orange County from Atlanta, there was a definite change in his attitude. He began to play an active role in this conspiracy." John and Bill talked about the trouble that was arising in the recovery – and they were right about it. It was the trouble arising in the recovery that stumbled John Ingalls. It wasn’t Bill Mallon. John Ingalls in talks with Bill in Atlanta mountains – “In the following month, September 1987, due to my health, and also due to a burden to fellowship with Bill Mallon, a co-worker with whom I had an intimate relationship for twenty-four years, I decided to go to Atlanta, Georgia, for a two-week period of rest and fellowship. Bill had recently passed through sore trials and sufferings [with LSM--ED], and I hoped that our fellowship could render comfort and encouragement to him. We drove up to the nearby mountains and had a number of days opening to one another. At that time I was entirely supportive to Brother Witness Lee and his ministry and work related to the “new way” that was being promoted. I therefore did my utmost to persuade Bill to visit Taiwan and participate in the full-time training. I felt that this might be the answer to his need. On four separate occasions during those days I attempted to convince Bill to take this step, but he steadfastly refused, affirming that he was not free or clear to do that. During that time Bill explained to me how he had suffered in various ways by events that had transpired in recent months in the churches and in the work in the Southeast. I came away from our talks with one deep impression: Philip Lee was becoming increasingly involved in spiritual things concerning the Lord’s work, the churches, the elders, and the co-workers. I had already noticed this in Irving, Texas the preceding month. This, I felt, was completely untenable, incompatible with his position and person, and intolerable. Philip Lee was employed by his father, Witness Lee, to be the business manager of his office and was reportedly instructed to deal only with business affairs. He was totally unqualified both in position and character to touch spiritual matters related to the work of the Lord and the churches. I became alarmed and began to fear for the Lord’s testimony. With this burden I determined upon my return to Anaheim to fellowship with Godfrey Otuteye, who then was involved in coordinating with Philip Lee in the Living Stream Office. I wanted to frankly ask him about Philip’s role, expressing my alarm and concern”. Philip’s increased involvement in the work and the discovery of Philip Lee’s moral misconduct at LSM were the initial factors that began to change John Ingalls.

08-17-2012, 10:19 AM	#69
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Does anyone know where I can get a copy of "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" ?

08-17-2012, 12:16 PM	#70
UntoHim ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς - - For To Me To Live Is Christ! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,791	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Truth, I have an electronical version (MS Word format). I'll try to email you a copy to the email address we have on file for you. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

08-17-2012, 07:42 PM	#71
daveagain Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Would you be able to send me a copy of "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" as well? In so many posts it is referenced and it would be nice to have it available to follow along. Very interesting information. I had trainings under John Ingalls and Bill Mallon back in the early 70s. Subsequently I had spoken with Bill Mallon several times. I knew of Titus Chu but never met him. One of the brothers who migrated to Detroit from Akron in 1971 spoke very well of him (I migrated from Santa Cruz to Detroit). One brother (Don O'Born) told me of all the problems but I just didn't realize how extensive it was. Thanks.

08-17-2012, 07:54 PM	#72
UntoHim ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς - - For To Me To Live Is Christ! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,791	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Welcome to the forum daveagain. You should have your copy in just a bit. Please feel free to go to the introduction board and tell us a little bit about yourself. Hey you Truth, when you get a chance, will you do the same? Thanks. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11