My Experience in the Local Churches

Indiana · 09-21-2015, 09:18 AM

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/MyExperi...alChurches.pdf

"O home in the church, where we ended our search,
with the brothers rejoicing all day,
where Christ is our life and we're though with all strife,
now we're home, hallelujah, to stay!

Till strife came, and would not abate.

"God's home is the church....."

Steve Isitt
2015

Indiana · 09-21-2015, 12:28 PM

Dear saints,

I thought relationship problems with a brother could certainly be resolved in the church life by directly communicating with the offending person, as was talked about recently on another thread.

In the following letter I explain to a co-worker in Anaheim what happened to me when I did that; my life and my church life got turned upside down, and my concepts certainly were to change. This development eventually catapulted me onto a path of addressing leading ones further, and then coming to a forum to begin to share in earnest my experiences, observations, and also my serious concerns .

Chris Wilde worked closely with Dan Towle and Francis Ball at the time of this writing.

Dear Chris, (Aug 11, 2003)

I want to let you know in this letter what I have in mind to do. In my own experience I once went to a brother, an elder, according to Matthew 18 to settle a problem I had with him. I thought it would be a simple matter of explaining to him his offenses and there would be repentance by him and all would be well. The brother, though, ignored the first letter, and a second, and a third. I was quite surprised and very puzzled, as well as very unhappy with him. I would have even settled for his coming together with me and honestly denying that he had wronged me. We could have then prayed for our going on in oneness with each other and in the Body. I would have considered that somewhat honorable.

But when he ignored me over a several month period and when other brothers didn’t respond to my letters to them for their assistance, I was really perplexed and quite concerned. My only desire was for a proper resolving of offenses that had occurred, and for our relationship to be right in the Body of Christ. I was very bothered.

The brothers I asked to assist me either ignored me too or said I was “being negative”, that I was “attacking”, that I should just “bear the cross”, that I should be as Watchman Nee when he was “misunderstood”. I thought, “what is this?” No one wants to be accountable or bring someone to accountability.

Then a brother went to the elders six times on my behalf, becoming thoroughly frustrated with them for not responding to my letters and for not being accountable. The elder who had committed the alleged offenses told this brother that he, the elder did not have to “respond to Steve ever”, that Steve is “sending letters out to everyone”, and that “we shouldn’t have problems with persons, matters, or things”, quoting Ron Kangas and a Corinthians footnote. I was completely amazed and became distraught over what I was experiencing.

If a brother offends you, you should be able to go to him and in a spirit of love have the relationship with him restored. He wouldn’t do this and I was forced to just forgive him without a proper dealing between us. This was the beginning of what you may now hear to be “Steve’s divisiveness”.

I would have been glad to just let this ordeal go with the wondering, though, of just what the problem was in communicating with me and responding according to the word of God. But word went out that “Steve has a problem with the brothers”. And, “Steve has to get through with the brothers”. I thought, “what in the world are they talking about”? I had gone to the elder according to Matthew 18; he didn’t respond; I decided to write another letter and perhaps I said something wrong or had the wrong tone, but there was still no response. My attempts to have others assist me were taken as an “attack on the elder”. I just had no way to get through with this brother. He had protectors in front of him and all around him, and I was kept away from him and from restoring a relationship.

The brothers not only broke Scripture in their complete bias toward the elder, they exhibited a cruel spirit. One of them later repented, saying, “it was cruel of me not to respond to your letter and to your situation, I was just not sensitive to you”. He attempted then to bring up my situation with other elders, which fell on deaf ears. (He had only made such an apology to me after he, his wife, and their daughter had severe encounters with the same elder over a situation, the daughter leaving the sister's house and the church.)

This experience with these people served, just naturally, to distance me from them and led to a disillusioned state. It affected my home life and church life. This word that “Steve has to get right with the brothers bothered me greatly”. The main reason it bothered me is that others heard this and thought that I was not right with the brothers, rather than the other way around. Such speaking about me caused me to have an ongoing problem with the brothers, for I couldn’t be with others without them possibly having this misunderstanding that I was "not right with the elders", especially one.

This is the background to where I am today. From January 1996 to August 2000, I was greatly hampered by this non-relationship with the elders and their attitude toward me, and by what the saints were believing about me. On the 4th of that August I sat down and began to write, not only according to the experience I described but according to other experiences of mine, and others, in the church life. By this time, I was forced also to consider what happened to those who left the recovery by the scores in the late eighties. And, I found out; therefore, the writing I began to engage in was full of feeling for the saints and their experiences of disillusionment in the church life. I sought to explain the facts and the factors that drove many of them away and that had disheartened many of them that remained. A “book” was the result of my writing, which I presented to Dan Towle “for fellowship”. It was called In the Wake of the New Way.

That “book” was honest and from my heart and with a deep burden for the oneness that was broken in the new way, and I was for building a bridge of communication to those brothers and sisters who were lost in the wake of the new way in the recovery. I was completely shocked when that “book”, written in all sincerity and presented first to an elder and leader in the recovery, Dan Towle who encouraged the elders in my locality to set me aside in the church life and be disciplined. Then, with other superficial and bogus “information” coming to the fore about me being a "divisive one", the disciplining hand from the brothers became even stronger against me.

During this time of discipline, beginning in February 2001, I sovereignly received quite an education as to what the other side of the story was in the division that occurred among us in the late 1980s. It is a strong, very compelling, and spiritually and morally convicting side of the story. A story which I am poised to tell.

Any attempts I’ve made for fellowship, restoration, and participation over the last three years have been blocked, the concept being that I am negative, divisive, etc. This is a complete falsehood when looking at the facts of my history and experience.

The brothers have indeed made a mountain out of a mole hill.

…I have given you this brief amount of information to let you know that I myself have been misrepresented. Not only have I been mishandled and negatively treated, former leading ones have been outrageously treated and even lied about among us. And, it is time these unrighteous matters of miscommunications, false representations, and ill-advised evil speakings stop. Righteousness among us should prevail.

Toward that end I have a website ready that will certainly tell the story of our own case of defamation and libel. We have been defaming others for years, and we should turn our time, energy, and interest to this matter and indeed find a way to drop the other.

I am stirred, I admit, over abuses in the church that have gone unchecked for many years, causing much suffering among the saints and much damage to the Lord’s testimony and to the oneness of the Body of Christ. Men should become accountable for the abuses, so before the Lord, and with much exercise over the last three years, I want to give us that opportunity. If my need and situation cannot be addressed soon, I will begin to speak about the local church in quite another way, according to the truth of its history…The abuse and misunderstandings are enough now. It is time to speak the truth!

Your brother in Christ,

Steve I.

Ohio · 09-21-2015, 12:56 PM

Brother Steve,

You have cited Matthew 18 repeatedly in your attempts to reconcile with other brothers in the LC's. Unfortunately these instructions from the Lord himself in scripture can only operate when the Head of every man is Christ. (I Cor 11.3)

Once brothers in Christ (especially church leaders) take other fallen men as their "head," then these scriptures concerning reconciliation become altogether meaningless. This is exactly what has happened to many leaders in the Recovery. They no longer allow their conscience, indwelt by the Spirit of God, to be ruled by the peace of Christ. Instead they have allowed themselves to be brought under subjection by those at LSM, much the same way as the Galatian believers were brought under subjection by the Judaizers.

Indiana · 09-21-2015, 01:25 PM

This letter was written in response to issues in "the local churches" that I addressed.

Dear Brother Steve,

Thank you for your letters. I especially appreciated reading the letter you
wrote to Joel. I want to commend you for your forthrightness, honesty,
boldness, uprightness, maintaining a right spirit. I felt that the way you
addressed all the issues with Joel hit the mark. Their consciences should be touched; if not, there is something seriously wrong. We have been praying for you and also for the brothers you are confronting. We have prayed the Lord would have mercy on them. I want to encourage you, brother, to pursue the burden the Lord has placed upon you.

There is no way at the present time for brothers like Bill Mallon and myself
to do anything directly to reach out to these brothers. Perhaps the Lord
will use you to open the door or create a breach in the wall. May His will
be done. There is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to
penetrate. I agree with your perception that it is in one sense not human.
That does not mean, of course, that it is divine.

To have fellowship with brothers in Christ in the Spirit and in brotherly
love is a priceless heritage of ours. It is a pity that this could be
obstructed and rendered not only inoperative but impossible to activate.

We pray that the Lord will lead you.

In His grace, John.

Freedom · 09-21-2015, 10:02 PM

Quote:

The brothers have indeed made a mountain out of a mole hill.

1 John 4:20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

It is sad how some LC leaders have chosen to interact with and treat their fellow brothers and sisters. As leaders, they have the responsibility to set an example. What kind of example are they setting? To completely ignore requests for fellowship, and at the same time spreading word that a person is "divisive" or "negative" is unbecoming of Christian leaders.

A mountain out of a mole hill sums up very well what happened. It's amazing how elders can think that ignoring and even slandering a brother instead of hearing him out is a reasonable way to deal with a difficult situation. Do they not realize that such an approach will backfire? Of course for them, there are reputations on the line, so they believe that the best approach is to simply ignore concerns.

I've seen these same tactics used on others who have brought up concerns, and were subsequently ignored. I've been in situations where I knew that there would be no way to address what I was concerned about. Most will just let things slide, even time and time again.

There comes a point in time where situations need to be addressed whether or not LC leaders like it. Since LC leaders can't lead by example, there is the example the Apostle Paul set:
2 Cor 4:2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

TLFisher · 09-22-2015, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

1 John 4:20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

It is sad how some LC leaders have chosen to interact with and treat their fellow brothers and sisters. As leaders, they have the responsibility to set an example. What kind of example are they setting? To completely ignore requests for fellowship, and at the same time spreading word that a person is "divisive" or "negative" is unbecoming of Christian leaders.

I have had two such leaders in my living room express love for Steve, but has that love ever been manifested in anything more like a phone call or an email?

HERn · 09-22-2015, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Dear saints,

I thought relationship problems with a brother could certainly be resolved in the church life by directly communicating with the offending person, as was talked about recently on another thread.

In the following letter I explain to a co-worker in Anaheim what happened to me when I did that; my life and my church life got turned upside down, and my concepts certainly were to change. This development eventually catapulted me onto a path of addressing leading ones further, and then coming to a forum to begin to share in earnest my experiences, observations, and also my serious concerns .

Chris Wilde worked closely with Dan Towle and Francis Ball at the time of this writing.

Dear Chris, (Aug 11, 2003)

I want to let you know in this letter what I have in mind to do. In my own experience I once went to a brother, an elder, according to Matthew 18 to settle a problem I had with him. I thought it would be a simple matter of explaining to him his offenses and there would be repentance by him and all would be well. The brother, though, ignored the first letter, and a second, and a third. I was quite surprised and very puzzled, as well as very unhappy with him. I would have even settled for his coming together with me and honestly denying that he had wronged me. We could have then prayed for our going on in oneness with each other and in the Body. I would have considered that somewhat honorable.

But when he ignored me over a several month period and when other brothers didn’t respond to my letters to them for their assistance, I was really perplexed and quite concerned. My only desire was for a proper resolving of offenses that had occurred, and for our relationship to be right in the Body of Christ. I was very bothered.

The brothers I asked to assist me either ignored me too or said I was “being negative”, that I was “attacking”, that I should just “bear the cross”, that I should be as Watchman Nee when he was “misunderstood”. I thought, “what is this?” No one wants to be accountable or bring someone to accountability.

Then a brother went to the elders six times on my behalf, becoming thoroughly frustrated with them for not responding to my letters and for not being accountable. The elder who had committed the alleged offenses told this brother that he, the elder did not have to “respond to Steve ever”, that Steve is “sending letters out to everyone”, and that “we shouldn’t have problems with persons, matters, or things”, quoting Ron Kangas and a Corinthians footnote. I was completely amazed and became distraught over what I was experiencing.

If a brother offends you, you should be able to go to him and in a spirit of love have the relationship with him restored. He wouldn’t do this and I was forced to just forgive him without a proper dealing between us. This was the beginning of what you may now hear to be “Steve’s divisiveness”.

I would have been glad to just let this ordeal go with the wondering, though, of just what the problem was in communicating with me and responding according to the word of God. But word went out that “Steve has a problem with the brothers”. And, “Steve has to get through with the brothers”. I thought, “what in the world are they talking about”? I had gone to the elder according to Matthew 18; he didn’t respond; I decided to write another letter and perhaps I said something wrong or had the wrong tone, but there was still no response. My attempts to have others assist me were taken as an “attack on the elder”. I just had no way to get through with this brother. He had protectors in front of him and all around him, and I was kept away from him and from restoring a relationship.

The brothers not only broke Scripture in their complete bias toward the elder, they exhibited a cruel spirit. One of them later repented, saying, “it was cruel of me not to respond to your letter and to your situation, I was just not sensitive to you”. He attempted then to bring up my situation with other elders, which fell on deaf ears. (He had only made such an apology to me after he, his wife, and their daughter had severe encounters with the same elder over a situation, the daughter leaving the sister's house and the church.)

This experience with these people served, just naturally, to distance me from them and led to a disillusioned state. It affected my home life and church life. This word that “Steve has to get right with the brothers bothered me greatly”. The main reason it bothered me is that others heard this and thought that I was not right with the brothers, rather than the other way around. Such speaking about me caused me to have an ongoing problem with the brothers, for I couldn’t be with others without them possibly having this misunderstanding that I was "not right with the elders", especially one.

This is the background to where I am today. From January 1996 to August 2000, I was greatly hampered by this non-relationship with the elders and their attitude toward me, and by what the saints were believing about me. On the 4th of that August I sat down and began to write, not only according to the experience I described but according to other experiences of mine, and others, in the church life. By this time, I was forced also to consider what happened to those who left the recovery by the scores in the late eighties. And, I found out; therefore, the writing I began to engage in was full of feeling for the saints and their experiences of disillusionment in the church life. I sought to explain the facts and the factors that drove many of them away and that had disheartened many of them that remained. A “book” was the result of my writing, which I presented to Dan Towle “for fellowship”. It was called In the Wake of the New Way.

That “book” was honest and from my heart and with a deep burden for the oneness that was broken in the new way, and I was for building a bridge of communication to those brothers and sisters who were lost in the wake of the new way in the recovery. I was completely shocked when that “book”, written in all sincerity and presented first to an elder and leader in the recovery, Dan Towle who encouraged the elders in my locality to set me aside in the church life and be disciplined. Then, with other superficial and bogus “information” coming to the fore about me being a "divisive one", the disciplining hand from the brothers became even stronger against me.

During this time of discipline, beginning in February 2001, I sovereignly received quite an education as to what the other side of the story was in the division that occurred among us in the late 1980s. It is a strong, very compelling, and spiritually and morally convicting side of the story. A story which I am poised to tell.

Any attempts I’ve made for fellowship, restoration, and participation over the last three years have been blocked, the concept being that I am negative, divisive, etc. This is a complete falsehood when looking at the facts of my history and experience.

The brothers have indeed made a mountain out of a mole hill.

…I have given you this brief amount of information to let you know that I myself have been misrepresented. Not only have I been mishandled and negatively treated, former leading ones have been outrageously treated and even lied about among us. And, it is time these unrighteous matters of miscommunications, false representations, and ill-advised evil speakings stop. Righteousness among us should prevail.

Toward that end I have a website ready that will certainly tell the story of our own case of defamation and libel. We have been defaming others for years, and we should turn our time, energy, and interest to this matter and indeed find a way to drop the other.

I am stirred, I admit, over abuses in the church that have gone unchecked for many years, causing much suffering among the saints and much damage to the Lord’s testimony and to the oneness of the Body of Christ. Men should become accountable for the abuses, so before the Lord, and with much exercise over the last three years, I want to give us that opportunity. If my need and situation cannot be addressed soon, I will begin to speak about the local church in quite another way, according to the truth of its history…The abuse and misunderstandings are enough now. It is time to speak the truth!

Your brother in Christ,

Steve I.

Dear bro Steve, I want to say that I honor and respect you for the faith and trust you have in obeying God's word. It is obvious to me that every elder you have approached and been refused by has placed the words of our Christ way below the teachings of Witness Lee. Why else would they disobey the teaching of scripture and then with a burned-out conscience follow the teachings of a man. They care more for the praise of the blinded-blended-brothers than for the sweet peace and speaking of the Spirit. Even if they would accept you back, why in the world would you want to be associated with them? I'm afraid that what you call the recovery is nothing more than a wart on the body of Christ...yes it may be part of His body, but it is hellaciously ugly, rude, and self-centered, exclusive, divisive, and Christ dishonoring by obeying the teachings of a man over our Lord's commands. Run from it brother and get yourself free!

Indiana · 09-23-2015, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I have had two such leaders in my living room express love for Steve, but has that love ever been manifested in anything more like a phone call or an email?

These brothers Terry mentioned are good brothers. However, they had also turned down my suggestion that we meet together and get into the word and ministry together, and go to contact people in their homes together who need our shepherding. But they would not, because as one told me, "you would sooner or later cause trouble again". There was no way, because....

"there is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate." - John Ingalls 2001

The brothers I have mentioned on this thread are good brothers, but, certainly with them

"there is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate."

Ron Kangas is a good brother but in an international leaders' conference, he recklessly called me a "man of death" and "one of the most evil speakers on the internet", and avoided talking directly to me when I confronted him by phone and by letter. This is because, assuredly, he is a prime example that

"there is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate."

The brother who wrote this email loves the Lord and the church life, but he had a rash response when he was told by yet another good brother the following,

Steve,

I asked Sherman about you and your history in the church in this area. I was appalled to find out that you have not only written one book (which I knew about but never read), but also that you maintain two websites full of slander regarding the Lord’s Recovery, and specifically regarding at least eight coworkers and several elders.

Hearing about evidence such as a nearly two inch stack of emails that you wrote regarding Joel Kennon, and the fact that you maintain much contact with ones who oppose the Lord’s Recovery such as John Ingalls, leaves me no alternative but to discontinue my contact with you.

Regardless of what new ones you want to introduce to me, there is no way I can have fellowship with you. Your behavior is divisive, and you have not shown any willingness to repent. If you reply that these facts are not true, then I’ll only believe that after you’ve taken down your slanderous web sites and come face to face with Sherman and Joel and the other elders in Seattle and Bellevue and retract the materials you have written.

You told me that you want to be allowed to fellowship with the church in Bellevue, yet your actions tell another story. I am have given the Lord and His Recovery thirty seven years of my life, and there is no other life I desire to live. Don’t bother sending me any more emails. I’m just going to delete them anyways.

Jerry Mueckl

Why do these two brothers talk like this, in a foolish way, without looking into the matter of who is actually doing the slandering? It is because, they, and the brothers referred to on my websites cannot hear the truth, when

"there is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate."

HERn · 09-23-2015, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

These brothers Terry mentioned are good brothers. However, they had also turned down my suggestion that we meet together and get into the word and ministry together, and go to contact people in their homes together who need our shepherding. But they would not, because as one told me, "you would sooner or later cause trouble again". There was no way, because....

"there is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate." - John Ingalls 2001

The brothers I have mentioned on this thread are good brothers, but, certainly with them

"there is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate."

Ron Kangas is a good brother but in an international leaders' conference, he recklessly called me a "man of death" and "one of the most evil speakers on the internet", and avoided talking directly to me when I confronted him by phone and by letter. This is because, assuredly, he is a prime example that

"there is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate."

The brother who wrote this email loves the Lord and the church life, but he had a rash response when he was told by yet another good brother the following,

Steve,

I asked Sherman about you and your history in the church in this area. I was appalled to find out that you have not only written one book (which I knew about but never read), but also that you maintain two websites full of slander regarding the Lord’s Recovery, and specifically regarding at least eight coworkers and several elders.

Hearing about evidence such as a nearly two inch stack of emails that you wrote regarding Joel Kennon, and the fact that you maintain much contact with ones who oppose the Lord’s Recovery such as John Ingalls, leaves me no alternative but to discontinue my contact with you.

Regardless of what new ones you want to introduce to me, there is no way I can have fellowship with you. Your behavior is divisive, and you have not shown any willingness to repent. If you reply that these facts are not true, then I’ll only believe that after you’ve taken down your slanderous web sites and come face to face with Sherman and Joel and the other elders in Seattle and Bellevue and retract the materials you have written.

You told me that you want to be allowed to fellowship with the church in Bellevue, yet your actions tell another story. I am have given the Lord and His Recovery thirty seven years of my life, and there is no other life I desire to live. Don’t bother sending me any more emails. I’m just going to delete them anyways.

Jerry Mueckl

Why do these two brothers talk like this, in a foolish way, without looking into the matter of who is actually doing the slandering? It is because, they, and the brothers referred to on my websites cannot hear the truth, when

"there is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate."

Here's what I think. When you are dealing with regular simple saints you are dealing with men. When you are dealing with brothers whose spiritual father is Witness Lee, and whose spiritual mother is the narrow sect known as The Lord's Recovery, and whose brotherly affections extend to only those who are more absolute for the ministry of Witness Lee than for Christ...well then now you are dealing with non-human spiritual powers in high places. How else can you explain the hate, evil speaking, lies, treachery, put downs, critique of everything from Christianity, and affirmation of only the things from Witness Lee's ministry that foams from the mouths of the blendeds and some of the elders? I'm afraid that if a brother receives WL as his spiritual father, the narrow sect of the recovery as his mother, and gives compassion only to those who are absolute for a man's ministry, then he may be receiving dark non-human spiritual beings.

TLFisher · 09-23-2015, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Steve,

I asked Sherman about you and your history in the church in this area. I was appalled to find out that you have not only written one book (which I knew about but never read), but also that you maintain two websites full of slander regarding the Lord’s Recovery, and specifically regarding at least eight coworkers and several elders.

Hearing about evidence such as a nearly two inch stack of emails that you wrote regarding Joel Kennon, and the fact that you maintain much contact with ones who oppose the Lord’s Recovery such as John Ingalls, leaves me no alternative but to discontinue my contact with you.

Regardless of what new ones you want to introduce to me, there is no way I can have fellowship with you. Your behavior is divisive, and you have not shown any willingness to repent. If you reply that these facts are not true, then I’ll only believe that after you’ve taken down your slanderous web sites and come face to face with Sherman and Joel and the other elders in Seattle and Bellevue and retract the materials you have written.

You told me that you want to be allowed to fellowship with the church in Bellevue, yet your actions tell another story. I am have given the Lord and His Recovery thirty seven years of my life, and there is no other life I desire to live. Don’t bother sending me any more emails. I’m just going to delete them anyways.

This is a classic example of receiving false accusations and accepting them as being accurate.
What happened to this dear brother whose home I once lived in, he's bought into the misrepresentations of a brother like John.
If Steve's websites are slanderous, how come there haven't been lawsuits or at least a threat of a lawsuit from DCP? They may not put the recovery in a positive light, but not slanderous.

Indiana · 09-23-2015, 06:33 PM

The Most Outrageous Claim

Witness Lee
"The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but its content was edited afterward by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes. In addition to an account of the beginning and development of the whole period of the rebellion, the content of that book includes personal testimonies from over thirty brothers. Therefore, concerning this storm, I have spoken the clarifying and concluding word that I needed to speak. I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here."
(from The Mysteries of God's New Testament Economy)

That doesn't work for me. That book throughout its pages is a disgrace.

Deviations From the Path (from Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery, pp 18-19)

One morning as I was enjoying The Holy Word for Morning Revival on the oneness, I had different impressions: the first is the incredibly rich life-supply in this ministry that I have been receiving for over thirty years. The second is the clear and wonderful word on the oneness that is presented in the local churches. The third impression is that we still mislead the saints regarding the “rebellious ones” without any conscience about the facts that led to their so-called “rebellion”. The fourth impression is the willingness among elders to condemn their brothers based on limited and one-sided information about them. A fifth impression is the unwillingness of our leaders to learn our actual history, based on facts available to them, and a sixth impression is an unwilling attitude in our leaders to publicly admit and correct mistakes we have made.

Among us in the local churches over the last fifteen years, there has been much speaking about the “rebellious ones”. However, the formerly beloved leading ones who were collared with the rebel tag have not been given a place in our writings to speak for themselves, to tell the other side of the story of the “rebellion” they purportedly started.

A transparent, unbiased recording of our history has not been made available to the churches, which precludes the receiving of proper understanding in the churches on this great matter. In this way, though, a purpose has been served—to protect leaders and their reputations, and to maintain a “one accord”.

An American Heritage article called Hiding History describes in principle our experience in the Lord’s recovery. The author states:

"I have been plowing through presidential history for fifteen years and I
think I have some insight into the thinking of those with power over
this kind of information. They do not subscribe to the idea that what
people don’t know can indeed hurt them."

The article went on to say, Since Eisenhower, American Presidents have copied Winston Churchill whose credo was: “Make the history and then write it yourself before anyone else can….” No matter what archival system is used, families and former aides will try to protect Presidents and their reputations. They will try to create and write their own history and block outsiders from challenging the official version.

The Protection of Reputations
The official version of events and concerns of 1985-1989 was given by the leaders in the recovery in 1990 and printed in a book called, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Their word was readily accepted in the churches as true and reliable, beyond need for analysis. However, upon analysis, and upon “plowing through” documents and findings and interviews, the real history is uncovered. We have surely created and written our own history, protected leaders and reputations, and blocked outsiders from challenging the official version. We have done so at the expense of others’ reputation and genuine one accord.

The Real Source of Problems
The true source of the turmoil that occurred in the churches was embodied in Living Stream Ministry, a business entity that grew in stature and function beyond its bounds.

While those who represented LSM have had their names protected for many years regarding their major roles in the division, blame has been displaced onto others. This sin is shared by nearly all the churches against former leading brothers, especially John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So, who were “quarantined” in the local churches in 1990.

Overcoming Our Sin
In order to overcome this sin we first must gain an understanding of it. I will present in this account numerous misrepresentations of former leading ones that exist in our writings and that are prevalent in our speakings, both publicly and privately. Our concepts must change to match the truth about these former leading ones, while abandoning our tradition of condemning them.

Steve Isitt

Freedom · 09-23-2015, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

The Most Outlandish Claim

Witness Lee
"The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but its content was edited afterward by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes. In addition to an account of the beginning and development of the whole period of the rebellion, the content of that book includes personal testimonies from over thirty brothers. Therefore, concerning this storm, I have spoken the clarifying and concluding word that I needed to speak. I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here."
(from The Mysteries of God's New Testament Economy)

W. Lee states that he “carefully checked all the facts”, but why is it only he who got to give the official narrative, and also be the one to check the facts as part of editing his messages to publish? Under normal circumstances, a neutral third party should have been utilized to verify the facts. With a book accusing others of “rebellion”, “ambition”, etc., he would have been wise to have a legal team as well to ensure no libelous material made it into print.

Furthermore, the last part of what he says is quite troubling. Lee presumes to have spoken what was needed to be spoken, and proclaims that the “matter now stops here.” Why is it that he got to decide when the situation was “resolved”? For starters, that determination would have been much better made by a mutual consensus. By the way, given that Lee continued to talk about the so-called rebellion through use of innuendos, he never had a mind to quit talking about it. He just didn’t want others bringing it up.

UntoHim · 09-24-2015, 06:56 AM

Witness Lee was the "judge, jury and executioner" in the Local Church. This is a big reason why the Movement has been known by many outsiders as "The Local Church of Witness Lee". Now the LC members have nothing more (or less) than the "Paper Pope" of Lee's teachings and established practices. In essence, the Blended Brothers are nothing more than a "College of Cardinals", who function mainly as a corporate rubber stamp for the person and work of Witness Lee.

All that the Blendeds are missing are those impressive red vestments.

awareness · 09-24-2015, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Witness Lee was the "judge, jury and executioner" in the Local Church. This is a big reason why the Movement has been known by many outsiders as "The Local Church of Witness Lee". Now the LC members have nothing more (or less) than the "Paper Pope" of Lee's teachings and established practices. In essence, the Blended Brothers are nothing more than a "College of Cardinals", who function mainly as a corporate rubber stamp for the person and work of Witness Lee.

All that the Blendeds are missing are those impressive red vestments.

And funny hats ....

TLFisher · 09-24-2015, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

W. Lee states that he “carefully checked all the facts”, but why is it only he who got to give the official narrative, and also be the one to check the facts as part of editing his messages to publish? Under normal circumstances, a neutral third party should have been utilized to verify the facts. With a book accusing others of “rebellion”, “ambition”, etc., he would have been wise to have a legal team as well to ensure no libelous material made it into print.

Furthermore, the last part of what he says is quite troubling. Lee presumes to have spoken what was needed to be spoken, and proclaims that the “matter now stops here.” Why is it that he got to decide when the situation was “resolved”? For starters, that determination would have been much better made by a mutual consensus. By the way, given that Lee continued to talk about the so-called rebellion through use of innuendos, he never had a mind to quit talking about it. He just didn’t want others bringing it up.

Witness Lee has been gone for over 18 years, but the blendeds still abide by the matter is closed and there is nothing new.
Even in the late 90's innuendos were nothing new. The thing to consider is if you accept the LSM version without question, you're on the Tree of Life. If you question or accept a version that contradicts LSM's version you're on the Tree of Knowledge.

Indiana · 09-24-2015, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

W. Lee states that he “carefully checked all the facts”, but why is it only he who got to give the official narrative, and also be the one to check the facts as part of editing his messages to publish? Under normal circumstances, a neutral third party should have been utilized to verify the facts. With a book accusing others of “rebellion”, “ambition”, etc., he would have been wise to have a legal team as well to ensure no libelous material made it into print.

Furthermore, the last part of what he says is quite troubling. Lee presumes to have spoken what was needed to be spoken, and proclaims that the “matter now stops here.” Why is it that he got to decide when the situation was “resolved”? For starters, that determination would have been much better made by a mutual consensus. By the way, given that Lee continued to talk about the so-called rebellion through use of innuendos, he never had a mind to quit talking about it. He just didn’t want others bringing it up.

Dear Chris,

"I want to let you know in this letter what I have in mind to do...." (from post #2)

Dear Brother Steve,

I know that you have been wondering if we were receiving your messages. I was glad that your latest message, received this morning, did not contain the threats that your previous notes did. It’s not that we are unwilling to respond to you, but trying to force fellowship by threatening to post your critical website won’t help create an atmosphere where brotherly love and fellowship can exist.

I am sorry that attorneys from Harvest House have contacted you. That was one of the reasons that I urged you not to get involved earlier. At this point, it would be inappropriate for us to give you any input related to the possible questions. I hope you understand. We are praying for you during this time.

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.

I am very encouraged that you are meeting with the brothers in the Northwest. I hope and pray that all of you could be fully reconciled and that the Lord makes a way for you to go on in the church life.

Please give my love to Jared and Rachel.

Chris

Chris was new to Anaheim (as the radio host for LSM radio) and mild in his contact with me, unlike some of the encounters I had with 10 other brothers who were quite the opposite.

Freedom · 09-24-2015, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

I know that you have been wondering if we were receiving your messages. I was glad that your latest message, received this morning, did not contain the threats that your previous notes did. It’s not that we are unwilling to respond to you, but trying to force fellowship by threatening to post your critical website won’t help create an atmosphere where brotherly love and fellowship can exist.

I find it interesting that at the very beginning of Chris’ email, there is the acknowledgment that they purposely hadn’t been responding to multiple emails. With that in mind, how is it that they would consider the utilization of alternative means to get through to them as “threats”? They made it clear that everything had to be on their terms, thus creating the need to go about things differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

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.

Similar to what Lee was quoted as saying, the attitude with Chris is the same – certain matters were resolve years ago, end of story. Why do such brothers think they get the final word? The only reason that LC members might think these matters are “resolved” is because Lee controlled the flow of information. How many have actually read John Ingall’s book? How many know both sides of the story? Unless everyone in the LC can provide an affirmative answer to both those questions, then I would label such matters as among the biggest unresolved matters within the LC.

Ohio · 09-24-2015, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Similar to what Lee was quoted as saying, the attitude with Chris is the same – certain matters were resolve years ago, end of story. Why do such brothers think they get the final word? The only reason that LC members might think these matters are “resolved” is because Lee controlled the flow of information. How many have actually read John Ingall’s book? How many know both sides of the story? Unless everyone in the LC can provide an affirmative answer to both those questions, then I would label such matters as among the biggest unresolved matters within the LC.

Funny thing is that these old matters were basically “resolved” by Lee in the early 90's, but then got exhumed and resuscitated with the quarantines in the GLA and Brazil. I doubt that the Blendeds ever expected John Ingall’s book would come back and haunt them with the advent of the internet.

Indiana · 09-25-2015, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Funny thing is that these old matters were basically “resolved” by Lee in the early 90's, but then got exhumed and resuscitated with the quarantines in the GLA and Brazil. I doubt that the Blendeds ever expected John Ingall’s book would come back and haunt them with the advent of the internet.

And, I took full advantage of the internet to let the truth be known, since fellowship was not possible.

Bill Mallon email

"I would like to make one point clear. I had never left the recovery, and had never intended to do so. But in 1990, after receiving notice of the “excommunication”, after receiving the "Fermentation" book, and after the brothers in Miami served me notice of no longer supporting me and my housing, I was forced to leave. We went to Fort Lauderdale for refuge, because Barbara, fortunately, had an Aunt who lived there. My intention was to remain until the storm blew over, and then in a period of calm try to have further fellowship. But this could not occur. Everywhere throughout the country, I was not welcome. Of course, thick clouds of confusion covered the whole situation in the churches."

Brother Chris, (not Wilde)

"Thank you for your thoughtful fellowship. It is fair to consider the examples of David and Ham. It is also right to consider our spiritual father and grandfather, Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. But what overrides these considerations for me are 1) the hidden things which are undealt with and 2) the leading of God's people on a path of deviation. What Noah did was minor; if this type of thing was the extent of Witness Lee's error, I would have covered him as far as letting everybody know about this through writing. There would be no reason to broadcast this matter, since it didn't effect the truth and God's people.

"The fact is that WL not only covered up the sins of his son in LSM, but he distorted the truth about formerly beloved leading ones, bearing false witness concerning them. His book the Fermentation of the Present Rebellion is a huge lie and misrepresents not only these leaders, but God Himself, whose thought is contrary to what is set forth in that book. This book is the "official" statement regarding the late 80s turmoil and those responsible for inducing a turmoil and we are reminded perennially of the "rebellious ones" and the division they supposedly caused. My son hears these lies; his son will hear these lies, and the churches go on in a lie, never dealing with their hidden sins and the truth. And, leaders wonder why there is "no fruit" and so little spread of the churches.

"If we care for the church, we will want all these unrighteous matters to be addressed and dealt with, for the Lord's name and for His purpose. I have not been directed to be stopped by the example of David either. But both Brother Lee and the blending brothers like to use these examples and this stops brothers and sisters from speaking the truth. In this way, the hidden things are kept hidden; the churches are kept in a measure of darkness and Satan’s hold; Witness Lee and son remain innocent in the eyes of the saints; the image of WL shines bright; and God has no testimony.

"I think it is more fitting to remember Hezekiah, than to remember David and Ham. Hezekiah did something about the unrighteous matters and for God’s testimony. In the attachment is a fellowship that took place between an elder from Chicago and me a few years ago that points to both sides you and I are discussing."

Steve I.
2010

The Truth has been Recorded (Deviating from the Path, pp 42-44)

Bill’s experience in the church paralleled John So’s in Europe and John Ingalls’ in Southern California, as these brothers also got nowhere in fellowship with Brother Lee about their desperate concerns. All three brothers were subsequently condemned in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by Witness Lee and their former fellow co-workers in a one-sided account of what had occurred in the previous four years; and, they were “quarantined” in the recovery with no accounts given of their sufferings with Witness Lee and his Living Stream representatives. Their reaction to the interferences, manipulations, and usurpations of LSM became known as “the rebellion”. They themselves became known as “the rebellious ones” and “ring leaders of a conspiracy”. The truthfulness of the “rebellion”, however, cannot be found in official LSM publications on local church history, for it is not in the interests of LSM or according to their agenda to print the truth.

Yet, it has been adequately and faithfully recorded by others. Praise the Lord for this!

LSM Agenda Causing Division

While these three quarantined brothers experienced a lack of response from Brother Lee to their local needs, LSM objectives were fully tended to and broadening onto local grounds. This was certainly the case in the Southeast and in Europe; it was also graphically portrayed in Rosemead (Appendix 12). The LSM went about crashing into their localities, and either effectively or intentionally displaced elders, and fueled the disaccord Dan Towle refers to in Fermentation (p. 102, FPR).

The LSM’s occupying agenda inspired John So to speak out and explain by analogy the occupation of the church ground by Witness Lee and his ministry. John likened the forceful movement of the LSM into various localities to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines in WWII (p. 73, FPR). The concern of LSM was not for the local ground and the keeping of the oneness with the elders and the churches, as they moved into localities to set up shop (See Francis in Rosemead, Appendix 13). Their concern was for their “big plans”.

Their interference in the Southeast caused Bill Mallon to remove himself from the work and to ask Brother Lee the question many wanted to know: Was the “one accord” that was being promoted by the office the one accord of fellowship or the one accord of lining up with the office?

Upon hearing reports and the questions about LSM’s divisive activity, Brother Lee ignored the reports and the questions and defended LSM workers. (Appendices 1, 3) He behaved this way until he was forced to deal with the damage and loss in the churches in a pivotal elders’ conference where he smoothed things over (Appendix 4). He later condemned in his Fermentation book all the reporters of Living Stream’s divisive activity, urging church leaders “not to make an issue” of anything. By so doing, the church leaders have kept their kind of “one accord”. They have also kept to this day the shroud about them, created during those days of turmoil in the local churches.

Conclusion

The official version of events and concerns of 1985-1989 was given by the leaders in the recovery and presented to the churches in 1990 in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Yet, that record is not the truthful story of “rebellion” in the local churches, and thus it misleads the saints. Our leadership should deal with that book and with our sin of bearing false witness against the former leading ones.

LSM’s divisive activities in the churches and the sins of its manager, Philip Lee, in the office of Living Stream should be made public; enough so, that the saints can understand that the turmoil was not caused by the “rebellious ones”, rather its source was the Living Stream publishing entity, overstepping its bounds morally in the office, and spiritually in the churches. Judgment of the sins of immorality, divisive activity, and bearing false witness is the basis of our oneness and our genuine accord, as Watchman Nee faithfully declares to church elders and co-workers, recorded in the book, Love One Another.

The Judgment of Sin is the Basis of Oneness
Love One Another,W. Nee, (pp. 148-151)

"Finally, let brothers and sisters remember one thing: the oneness of the Body is not only a oneness of Christians but it is also a oneness with God. In the Old Testament, we can see that each time God is present there will be judgment. If he were not present, judgment would not be brought in. But to keep the oneness of Christians, we must keep the presence of God. God’s presence brings in law and judgment. Without God’s judgment, everything can be tolerated; with God’s presence, no sin can be left unjudged. If a church tolerates sin, it can never keep the oneness.

May brothers and sisters see what the basis of oneness is. It is very elementary: oneness is based on the forsaking of sin. Where there is sin and evil, there is bound to be separation. It is a fundamental mistake to assume that patience or forbearance is the basis of oneness. No, the Bible never advocates either patience or forbearance as the basis of oneness. It rather affirms that oneness is based on the forsaking of sin.

If anyone wishes to fellowship with God, he needs to walk in the light. If we walk in the light as God is in the light, we have fellowship with one another (1 John 1:7). So we may say that fellowship is the basis of oneness, and fellowship is based on dealing with and forsaking sin. If we are all in God’s light, we have fellowship one with another; otherwise, we have no way to fellowship.

…So, the basis of oneness is not in tolerating sin but in judging sin. There is no possibility of oneness between those who judge and those who do not judge. If anyone desires to seek oneness with God’s children, he must judge sin with all the children of God. If some judge sin and others do not, can there be oneness? But it is right to judge sin. He who judges sin is one with all who judge sin. May God be merciful to him who does not judge sin that he too may rise up and judge." (Nee, Love One Another, pp 148-151)

Instead of judging others as we have done over the last fifteen years, may righteous men rise up among us to judge the sin that has prevailed over us during this time period. Could we say with the apostle Paul, “make room for us; we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one”? If not, then we need a full repentance in the churches, beginning with the leadership. The oneness that we teach and preach can only be realized if we have the basis of oneness, the forsaking of sin, and a return to the unique ground of oneness for receiving believers in a city. _ Steve Isitt

Freedom · 09-25-2015, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

The official version of events and concerns of 1985-1989 was given by the leaders in the recovery and presented to the churches in 1990 in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Yet, that record is not the truthful story of “rebellion” in the local churches, and thus it misleads the saints. Our leadership should deal with that book and with our sin of bearing false witness against the former leading ones.

In the situation of the late 80's, all of those who were close to Lee, who had any amount of influence in the local churches, had a big decision to make. They all knew very well that there were two sides to the issues at hand. More important than the actual issues at hand, is understanding the implications of taking a certain side. This is what John Ingalls quotes Dan and Godfred as saying:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Ingalls

Dan responded by saying that if you touch the FTTT, you touch Brother Lee himself, and according to his observation of Brother Lee’s practice, Brother Lee will consider you if you become in his eyes a problem, and then he will proceed to carry out his burden without you. Godfred confirmed this by saying that he had the same realization, that Brother Lee considers anyone who criticizes him a troublemaker and will consider whether or not that one is expendable. This was indeed a most serious consideration concerning Brother Lee. But we did not care to maintain any position or standing for ourselves. We felt that for the Lord’s sake and for the sake of all the brothers and sisters, we must open our hearts to Brother Lee, no matter what it cost us.

So it is clear that at least one current blended brother knew the consequences of taking a stand against the ministry office and Philip Lee. It is shameful that "saving face" would have to be a consideration for those like Dan who ultimately sided with Lee. The only thing that those like John Ingalls didn't do was to play politics like the rest of the brothers. Yes, there was a price to pay for that, and yes it resulted in slanderous accusations against him and others.

With that in mind, for all the blendeds who think that the late 80's "turmoil" is distant history or a fully resolved matter, then please come here and explain how is it that your siding with Lee was not a matter of saving face. We know very well that was a consideration. It doesn't take a genius to realize that with the departure of some of Lee's closest coworkers, there were vacant "positions" to be filled. Who were the ones who were next in line? Again, if siding with Lee wasn't about getting a good position as one of Lee's "Cardinals", then what was it about? Philip Lee and the office were issues to even those who have stayed such as Dan Towle. For those who stayed, when did these matters stop being an issue, or what was the "resolution"? I've never heard that and I think if there were such a resolution, we deserve to know. Given the information available, I think it's fair to say that to all those who were aware of such matters and chose to stay in the LC, these matters were never "resolved", rather they were swept under the rug in an effort to keep W. Lee happy. In such a case, as I mentioned in my last post, the late 80's turmoil is anything but resolved.

TLFisher · 09-25-2015, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Similar to what Lee was quoted as saying, the attitude with Chris is the same – certain matters were resolve years ago, end of story. Why do such brothers think they get the final word? The only reason that LC members might think these matters are “resolved” is because Lee controlled the flow of information. How many have actually read John Ingall’s book? How many know both sides of the story? Unless everyone in the LC can provide an affirmative answer to both those questions, then I would label such matters as among the biggest unresolved matters within the LC.

Brother, Chris was just the messenger. In my honest opinion had Chris not had good fellowship with Steve previously, I doubt he would go as far as he did on Steve's behalf.
Many of the coworkers consider the matter resolved. Certainly they were there. Especially ones from Orange County localities. From John's book, Speaking the Truth In Love, John indicated Minoru repented publicly to the Church in Anaheim. John also discussed going to Texas with (late) Ken Unger for the purpose of having fellowship with Benson and Ray, These brothers were not open.
I consider maybe some of the brothers who were elders in Orange County localities in the late 1980's do not want this particular turmoil reexamined because of their conscience. Some may feel conflicted to this day for not standing with the brothers who eventually left. As for others to have the other side of the story come out would cause a real loss to them in their personal life.
I have believed for many years elders around the country outside Southern California accepted what was reported by the ministry as being accurate. No question. No doubt.

Ohio · 09-25-2015, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I have believed for many years elders around the country outside Southern California accepted what was reported by the ministry as being accurate. No question. No doubt.

The only reason I heard anything here in Ohio-Land was because one of Phillip Lee's victims was a sister from Willoughby, OH.

Indiana · 09-25-2015, 11:09 PM

Miscellaneous Accusations
in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Reasonably Addressed

“Fermentation” from Hong Kong

Witness Lee begins The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by saying,

"The present rebellion began to ferment first in Hong Kong as early as 1985 by Joseph Fung. I use the word ferment purposely because leaven existed there (1 Cor. 5:6-8; Matt. 13:33), and this leaven, this corruption, began to ferment from Hong Kong."

If there was some sort of fermentation in Hong Kong, it was not without conflict with the LSM office in Anaheim, as other churches were to later experience. A consistent factor in the so-called fermentation of rebellion was conflict with the office. Brother Lee reports, “Joseph Fung came to Anaheim and he had a confrontation with my ministry office. That caused much hardship between my office and the church in Hong Kong because of him”
(p. 10, FPR).

There is no mention of the possibility that the person at the helm of Living Stream Ministry, Philip Lee, could have been at fault in any way. We are to just take Brother Lee’s word that it was Joseph who “caused much hardship”.

If an honest rendering of all the hardship Philip Lee caused the churches over the years was given, when he exercised authority and control over others, more sober minds would prevail concerning the important role he had in the so-called “rebellion”.

Alleged Ambition
In FPR, page 10, the alleged ambition and the temper of Joseph Fung was mentioned. The word ambition was used many times by Brother Lee in the new way transition to describe the character of some brothers who didn’t line up squarely with him. Not only Joseph, but others “must want something for themselves” if they did things or spoke things not in accord with Brother Lee. This was purportedly their ambition.

Temper of Philip Lee
Joseph Fung had spiritual measure, experience, and significance. Philip Lee did not. Many wondered if he was even saved. Neither his temper nor his lust was harnessed around the saints: “almost starting a fight in an ugly scene in the restaurant”, “rolling down the stairs from the tape room in a fight with a brother”, “reading his father the riot act in front of a brother, who was dumbfounded that Witness Lee just stood and took it from him”. A young brother who was helping Living Stream over a period of weeks reported that Philip Lee would lose his temper and the young brother and others were instructed by Benson Philips just to take it. Philip was known to frequently unleash his temper around elders and co-workers and the LSM staff. People must have felt they were walking on egg shells around him, including bookroom managers of many churches. Nothing is mentioned in FPR about Philip’s temper that had far more damaging effect than that of Joseph Fung’s.

awareness · 09-26-2015, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Alleged Ambition
In FPR, page 10, the alleged ambition and the temper of Joseph Fung was mentioned. The word ambition was used many times by Brother Lee in the new way transition to describe the character of some brothers who didn’t line up squarely with him. Not only Joseph, but others “must want something for themselves” if they did things or spoke things not in accord with Brother Lee. This was purportedly their ambition.

I'm no Shrink but what I see when I read this is a sociopath narcissistic. Who can't accept people who differ from him. Add some megalomania and voila: Witness Lee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Temper of Philip Lee
Joseph Fung had spiritual measure, experience, and significance. Philip Lee did not. Many wondered if he was even saved.

What I see here is what I see when I look back on my father. He was an alcoholic. It was ugly. And I see my mother. She was a staunch Southern Baptist. It was ugly too. So, I developed a resolve to be neither.

Philip wouldn't do as his father because he saw that what his father really was was ugly. Timothy too saw it. So they slept with members of their father's movement. And took money from it/them(the members). So it's more than likely that, WL could do nothing about them because they had the truth about their father hanging over his head.

Freedom · 09-26-2015, 08:28 AM

Quote:

With the new hall ready for use, it needed many supplementary facilities, such as a sound system, an audio system, a video system, and so forth. All of these systems were carried out by Brother Lee’s son, Brother Lee Men-tze (Philip Lee), with the assistance of two or three electrician brothers. They worked day and night every day with very minimal sleep in the night... This successful evidence had gained Brother Lee’s recognition and trust with regard to Philip Lee’s faithfulness and his ability to execute. This was one unique reason that Brother Lee continued hiring him to take charge of the LSM Leviticus services. Because the work kept him up late in the night— working on the video/ audio systems and the arrangement of the interior rooms— and he felt mounting excessive pressures upon him, Philip Lee’s physical and mental conditions were affected enormously, and his physiological condition changed abruptly. As a result, he became easily irritable, and inadvertently offended people easily. Thus, he offended a few people who did not know anything about him except that he was Brother Lee’s son, and they initially resented Brother Lee’s LSM station. Eventually it turned into opposition to Brother Lee and his ministry in the wiles of God’s enemy Satan. It was a great pity!

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 3851-3862). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

If there was any fermentation, it started with Philip Lee's attitude and demeanor. I posted to the above quote to show that even a current LC member admits that Philip Lee had mental issues going on that affected others. Why was this never addressed? If Philip Lee was offending others, why couldn't his father step in and handle the situation?

It is dishonest to dismiss the damage caused by Philip Lee as a non-issue. Notice how Philip Lin is ultimately trying to say that some used Philip Lee as an excuse to oppose brother Lee. That is quite a spin to put on what really happened. Never is there any admission that Philip Lee was the real problem.

Indiana · 09-26-2015, 12:39 PM

The Claim that the two Fermentations Merged

Brother Lee continues, showing his belief that “the fermentation in Hong Kong had spread to Europe, specifically to John So in Stuttgart, Germany”. He says,

At the same time that Joseph Fung was working in Hong Kong and John So was working in Europe, the two began to have contacts with various saints in the United States in 1987. Joseph Fung made trips to the West Coast of the U. S. A. and contacted disgruntled or innocent saints here and there….On the other hand, John So began to have contact with some saints in the Southeast of the U. S. A. and to exert a negative influence upon them”. At one time he spoke with a brother from four to six hours over the telephone, expressing to him the matters he was bothered with. He also began to communicate with John Ingalls and others in Southern California through the telephone. By all this it is evident that the fermentation that was taking place in Hong Kong and Europe began to work in the United States (p. 42, FPR).

After speaking in this way, Brother Lee alludes to his assumption that a “conspiracy” must have been taking place, saying, “During that entire period of time they kept these communications from me. I did not know then that they were working actively behind my back”. In relation to his assumption, Brother Lee once shared with the elders: “It is when we are impure that we become suspicious. We become detectives to spy out the meaning behind what others say. If we are pure in our motive, we do not have such a thought. We are on another globe, taking others’ words in a simple way.” - W. Lee (Practical Talks to the Elders, pp. 26-28, 1982)

On the claim “the fermentation in Hong Kong had spread to Europe, specifically to John So in Stuttgart, Germany”, we have to ask, how was this so? No information is given by Brother Lee to substantiate his claim. He simply makes an assertion, it seems, based on suspicion and imagination and begins to build his conspiracy theory, without proof.

Of course, whatever Brother Lee would say, people receive as the truth, regardless, as if he was all-knowing. What may not be the truth becomes “truth” to people simply because he spoke it. Albeit, whatever he spoke and people believed, his conspiracy theory began without proof and without a solid foundation to build upon.

On the claim “John So began to have contact with some saints in the Southeast of the U. S. A. and to exert a negative influence upon them”, what was the negative influence? According to whose evaluation did John exert a negative influence upon the saints?

Brother Lee gives no details about this and leaves no impression that he knew the saints personally and what they could testify of John’s visit and influence.

He also gave the reader no hint about what was going on in the recovery to bestir two long-time co-workers to rise up and come to the U. S. to minister to others. Such information is kept from the reader. Neither did Brother Lee give any word in his book to establish that John and Joseph worked together, or prove that they were somehow conspiring or had any other motive in coming to the United States than to care for the saints and the recovery, according to the Lord’s leading and the burden they had in their heart. Why would Brother Lee act suspicious?

The Claim that 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 – On page 117, 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 – On page 103, 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 - On page 93, 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 any more. 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.

Freedom · 09-26-2015, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

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.

It is clear that Lee had ample opportunity to deal with the issues brought to his attention. He had no intention to address the issues, and that was the catalyst for brothers to speak out against him publicly. If Lee didn't like what happened afterwards, that was his own fault.

As long as there is no room within the LC to address issues of concern, they are going to have reoccurring, highly public "turmoils". The solution is simple, deal with problems while they are small. Until they learn this principle, history will continue to repeat itself.

Indiana · 09-26-2015, 10:31 PM

Giving a True Account of Our History
Brother Lee said he presented his book, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, for “the preservation of the uninformed ones, for the recovery of the deceived ones, for the establishing of the wavering and bothered ones, and for history” (p. 75, FPR)

I agree that uninformed ones should be properly informed; deceived ones should be recovered to know the true cause of division; wavering and bothered ones should be established by learning facts; and a true account of our history should be given to the saints. Neither Witness Lee nor the blending co-workers ever accomplished this; the saints in the churches still do not know our true history.

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

John Ingalls – in the conclusion of his book, Speaking the Truth in Love.

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. (see Moses’ Wrong Spirit, p. 24).

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” (p. 93).

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 (p. 11-12).

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 (p. 82).

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 workers, who circumvented fellowship with him, and other elders, in order to establish LSM influence in the Southeast churches. Bill's reaction to their usurpations and control in these churches was considered rebellion (p. 109).

Freedom · 09-27-2015, 02:18 PM

Witness Lee speaking on excommunication:

Quote:

We must see, however, that to make a public announcement of a kind of excommunication involves a person’s name, position, and status in today’s society. This is serious and very risky. This involves families and human relationships. In this matter we have been under the influence of the tradition of Christianity, but in my experiences over the past fifty years I have surely learned that to make a public announcement, especially in a matter concerning immorality, is not so safe and profitable. If we announce a certain person’s being excommunicated in a public meeting, he could appeal to a court of law and say that we are spoiling his name. He would claim that since you said he committed immorality, you must provide the evidence in a court of law. This would cause much trouble. This one may have committed that sin, but according to law you must present the evidence. This sinning one may not have that much growth in the Lord, but he may bold a high position in society. He would vindicate himself by bringing this case to the law court to clear up his name. This shows us the turmoil that such a public announcement could cause…

According to our present knowledge of the New Testament, I do not believe there is the need of making a public announcement…

Witness Lee, Elders’ Training, Book 4, Ch 7

As is evident in the above excerpt, it seems that brother Lee understood the implications of excommunication, and especially the possibility that an unsubstantiated case against a brother or sister could be considered as defamation. Ironically, when Lee instigated quarantines against his fellow brothers, he didn’t have any proof of sin or immorality. The only “wrong” these brothers had done was to disagree with Lee, thus there was nothing worthy of excommunication. So what did Lee do? He called their excommunication something different – a quarantine. That required no proof of anything, his own kangaroo court would be sufficient. Lee’s own son, on the other hand, was a subject of an excommunication, and I think it could be said that action would never have been taken had there not been sufficient proof of immorality.

In his effective excommunication of certain brothers, Lee didn’t want to call it an excommunication, even though it's clear that's exactly what it was. If he really had such a strong case against them, why would he be concerned with a lack of evidence? Excommunications take place in various groups, yet none of these groups are concerned about legal repercussions. Why? Most likely because there is a strong case against someone or sufficient proof to support the excommunication. This is exactly what Lee didn’t have.

TLFisher · 09-27-2015, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

As is evident in the above excerpt, it seems that brother Lee understood the implications of excommunication, and especially the possibility that an unsubstantiated case against a brother or sister could be considered as defamation. Ironically, when Lee instigated quarantines against his fellow brothers, he didn’t have any proof of sin or immorality. The only “wrong” these brothers had done was to disagree with Lee, thus there was nothing worthy of excommunication. So what did Lee do? He called their excommunication something different – a quarantine. That required no proof of anything, his own kangaroo court would be sufficient. Lee’s own son, on the other hand, was a subject of an excommunication, and I think it could be said that action would never have been taken had there not been sufficient proof of immorality.

In his effective excommunication of certain brothers, Lee didn’t want to call it an excommunication, even though it's clear that's exactly what it was. If he really had such a strong case against them, why would he be concerned with a lack of evidence? Excommunications take place in various groups, yet none of these groups are concerned about legal repercussions. Why? Most likely because there is a strong case against someone or sufficient proof to support the excommunication. This is exactly what Lee didn’t have.

Call it a quarantine, but treat it as an excommunication. Very deceptive. If it's a quarantine you would think there would be several brothers going to check up and see how the quarantined brothers are doing.
Not once in 25 years. How can you call that a quarantine?

TLFisher · 09-28-2015, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

John Ingalls – in the conclusion of his book, Speaking the Truth in Love.

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. (see Moses’ Wrong Spirit, p. 24).

Some may say John was ambitious, seeking a following, etc
A consideration we should have for all former elders like John, is they are slaves to God. Just as I had bolded and underlined;

"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."

As slaves they cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). In their service as God's slaves, all they can do is minister Christ, teach God's Word, etc.

Indiana · 09-29-2015, 08:36 AM

Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil can help us understand matters clearly; or it can cause deception as with The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion and the false knowledge given throughout its pages. This book should not be supported by anyone. Even the LSM and DCP do not and will not defend it.

The Claim that the Brothers Were Against the New Way

On page 51 in FPR 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” (p. 116) [1988].

Bill Mallon – Letter to Witness Lee, p. 71 “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.” [1987]

“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?” [1987]

“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” [1987].

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.”

HERn · 09-29-2015, 09:08 AM

"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."

The above is a quote from Bill Malone that Indiana supplied.

This statement should set off bells and whistles and raise many red flags. What man other than our Lord Jesus Christ has a spirit that we should drink from? Is there anywhere in the bible or orthodox Christian tradition where a man is commanded to drink of the spirit of another man? It seems that Bill Malone is saying that the spirit of Lee that he drank of had spiritual authority and the element of the flow of the river that brought in mutual life and love of the local churches. I'm sorry, but this is crazy talk! So, the flow of the river of life is from the triune God through the spirit of the man Witness Lee from whom Bill Malone drank, and from whom all good LCers should drink? This must be evidence of man-worship which must surely be a result of demonic deception. I'm afraid that there is a kernel of satanic inspired man-worship that infects the crazy WL drinking brothers leading the LSM-LC movement.

Indiana · 09-29-2015, 09:19 AM

The Claim that Mallon Convinced Ingalls to Dissent

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. 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” (p. 139).

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.

Freedom · 09-30-2015, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

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. It was the trouble arising in the recovery that stumbled John Ingalls. It wasn’t Bill Mallon.

It's interesting how Lee was so quick to accuse Bill Mallon of "conspiring" against him, but he was not willing to ask the question of why Bill Mallon had "dissenting views". By every account Bill Mallon was a significant figure in the LC up until that time, except that his role had diminished in lieu of Lee selecting younger, ministry-promoting yes-men.

I think the Bill Mallon's words that HERn pointed out: "Brother Lee I have drunk of your spirit, and I absolutely followed spiritual authority..." was Mallon's admission to Lee that he had once also been one of Lee's yes-men. He had done everything that Lee asked of him. After Philip Lee started meddling in matters, I'm sure he sought to distance himself from Lee. It doesn't surprise me at all that he could contact John Ingalls to fellowship about what was going on. How could he go directly to Lee and address the issue of what Philip Lee was doing?

Lee assumed that all this closed doors fellowship was a conspiracy, but considering the way things went down, who could have trusted Lee in the first place? John Ingalls said that he met with Lee 16 times. If he couldn't get through to Lee after meeting with him that many times, then something was seriously wrong on Lee's part.

Indiana · 10-02-2015, 06:18 AM

The Claim that John said the Taipei Training Should be Stopped

Brother Lee stated on page 51, FPR, that John Ingalls said the Taipei Training should be shut down. Whether John said so or not, the training had brought much concern to others also, beginning with the problem of Philip Lee being in charge of the trainers. This was not a trivial matter, as he was a person reportedly found drunk several times in Taiwan, and, as the accounts go, the brothers sometimes had to try to get him sobered up when it was time for him to address the trainers or the trainees. In addition to this, his former secretary reported to others that she had to clean up Philip’s office in Taipei from pornographic literature and whiskey bottles. This was the person in charge of the training when Brother Lee was not available, which was most of the time due to Brother Lee’s sickness and his spending of time on the Chinese translation of the New Testament.

John, incidentally, did not feel that he said the training should be shut down. That he, and others, had serious concerns, though, was very true, as well as justifiable.

John Ingalls – “In addition we began to hear reports, see video tapes, and read printed messages published by the Full-time Training in Taipei of some of the things that were being said and done. Now this really alarmed us. Foremost among these was the fact that Philip Lee was the administrator of the training, supposedly only on the business side, but actually exercising supervision in much more than business affairs. He was in daily fellowship with twenty-four of the trainers and leading ones who called and reported to him all activities (failure to do so resulted in an offense). The trainees were even told that Philip was administrating the training. His power and position were growing immeasurably.

Statements made by some of the trainers in Taipei amazed us, as I am sure they did many others. Some examples are as follows:
1) ‘There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.’
2) ‘We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.’
3) ‘Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.’
4) ‘If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.’
5) ‘Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.’
6) ‘To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.’
7) ‘Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT’.

"An account of Brother Lee’s position was given by one of the leading trainers of the FTTT to a group of brothers in Dallas, Texas, in the summer of 1986, in the context of how to be one with the ministry. There are witnesses to confirm it. It goes as follows.

"The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee. A brother asked, “And who is number five?” The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to Brother Lee. I and another trainer do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and have breakfast with him. The way to know what Brother Lee wants us to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do.” The hosting brother asked, “Isn’t this a hierarchy?” The trainer replied, “No!” The brother asked, “How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning?” The trainer answered, “If the elders in a local church would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy; but if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not a hierarchy. (P. Hon)

"When Brother Lee heard through us the above speech of his trainer, he took steps to rebuke and correct him. That such nonsense could be spoken by one chosen by Brother Lee to lead his training after all we have passed through and heard from Brother Lee’s ministry is difficult to understand.

Many aspects of the training bothered us considerably. Elders who attended the training in Taipei were instructed explicitly to carry out the same training in their localities. Pressure was exerted upon the churches and elders to follow, implement, and conform to everything that came out in Taiwan. Failure to do so created problems. The effect on so much emphasis on ways, methods, and practices – all externals – resulted in a wilted wilderness condition among many of the saints.

"Many faithful older saints were rebuked and given the impression that because of their age they were through. All official assertions to the contrary, the full-timers became a special class of people, and the full-time training was exalted above the churches, which were considered to have grown decrepit and were at best “better than nothing” (Andrew Yu, in Voice of the Young Heart). The elders were publicly degraded and blamed for all the ills. And yet the churches with the elders, and especially many of the older saints who were somewhat despised, gave generously and sacrificially to support the training. Their money was gladly accepted. In fact some of the churches were drained financially due to the heavy burden of supporting their full-timers and other projects that were promoted.

"Video tapes of the FTTT convention on Nov. 23, 1986, and the FTTT graduation ceremony on June 1, 1987, surprised us with the mixture of worldly ways and gimmicks that were practiced and hitherto strongly condemned among us…

"I have no relish in mentioning these things. My object is to record and inform the readers of the matters that burdened and concerned us in the fall of 1987” (p. 110).

Brothers Alarmed over Philip's Increasing Involvement

From: William Mallon
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:35 AM
To: Steve Isitt
Subject: Re: Philip, and your experience

Dear Brother Steve,

You will never know how completely astonished, shocked, and unnerved we were when Witness Lee put more and more things under Philip Lee's responsibility. It was incredible and unbelieveable from the get-go! How could such a so-called man of the Spirit (WL) hand over a spiritual work to a man of the flesh (PL)?!?! It was repulsive, let alone depressive. It was once brought to my attention that WL appreciated Philip because this son of his turned Witness Lee's ministry and the LSM into a money-making business. This is the principle of Balaam --- "...ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward," Jude 1:11. Balaam's problem was greed. He was a prophet who had a price (Num. 22). Balaam knew the truth, but he could be bought off with money, though he claimed it would not affect him. Balaam's priority was money. He was more interested in cash than character. His life was characterized by greed, not godliness. When affections are set on the material more than the spiritual, it caused big trouble, which multiplied into disasterous storms in the ensuing years.

Witness Lee first got off-tracked when he deviated from his original principle. He said in the 60's that the churches should not be for the ministry and should not build up the ministry, but that the ministry should be for the churches and build up the churches. This he reversed dramatically in 1974 when he moved to Anaheim for the purpose of centralizing his ministry and decentralizing his focus on the churches. (1) At first his ministry was the center and he expected all the churches to strengthen, support, and give allegiance to it. (2) Later, WL himself became the center, and everyone and all the churches were judged according to their loyalty to the "minister." (3) After this, WL expected everyone to give allegiance and financial support to the LSM bookroom, and whoever failed to acknowledge and support the bookroom fell from his favor and were judged disloyal. (4) Finally, WL's ministry deteriorated to an all-time low, to a hole below the pit, when he gradually installed Philip Lee to be in charge of even the training, expecting all the churches to give their allegiance and loyalty to his son in (and of) the flesh.

These were the heavy, unbearable feelings in our hearts. As time went by, we tried to do something about it. But characteristically, when WL was approached about such matter, he was like a little Chinese man who suddenly bursted into a nine-foot intimidating giant. Eventually, when we saw the unity of the Spirit being broken in the Body of Christ, disrupting the fellowship of the Spirit, we could bear it no longer. Personally, I wrote three letters to try to politely, and yet plainly, bring the troubling issues before him. He would not listen. He was blinded by his own ambitions and programs. These letters forced him to isolate and quarantine me. Of course, he also organized others to quarantine other innocent brothers.

These brief comments, I hope, will help you to understand the excruciating dilemma we went through in those days.

Your brother in Christ,
Bill

Indiana · 10-04-2015, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's interesting how Lee was so quick to accuse Bill Mallon of "conspiring" against him, but he was not willing to ask the question of why Bill Mallon had "dissenting views". By every account Bill Mallon was a significant figure in the LC up until that time.

... After Philip Lee started meddling in matters, I'm sure Bill Mallon sought to distance himself from Lee. It doesn't surprise me at all that he could contact John Ingalls to fellowship about what was going on...

Let us consider these excerpts from the previous post #36.

Bill Mallon
"You will never know how completely astonished, shocked, and unnerved we were when Witness Lee put more and more things under Philip Lee's responsibility. It was incredible and unbelieveable from the get-go! How could such a so-called man of the Spirit (WL) hand over a spiritual work to a man of the flesh (PL)?!?! It was repulsive, let alone depressive."

John Ingalls
"...Now this really alarmed us. Foremost among these was the fact that Philip Lee was the administrator of the training, supposedly only on the business side, but actually exercising supervision in much more than business affairs. He was in daily fellowship with twenty-four of the trainers and leading ones who called and reported to him all activities (failure to do so resulted in an offense). The trainees were even told that Philip was administrating the training. His power and position were growing immeasurably."

_trainers under Philip Lee.
"To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee."

Bill Mallon
"These were the heavy, unbearable feelings in our hearts. As time went by, we tried to do something about it. But characteristically, when WL was approached about such matter, he was like a little Chinese man who suddenly bursted into a nine-foot intimidating giant. Eventually, when we saw the unity of the Spirit being broken in the Body of Christ, disrupting the fellowship of the Spirit, we could bear it no longer."

There is much behind these statements that many other formerly loved and respected leaders could identify with also.

Indiana · 10-06-2015, 06:32 AM

Although Philip Lee was a major factor of turmoil and division, crossing moral boundaries with sisters and spiritual boundaries with brothers, his name is never mentioned in this light publicly, by any leader or by LSM's official rendering of our local church history.

John Ingalls
...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 roll, expressing my alarm and concern.

Discussion Concerning LSM Manager

Godfred had been an elder in the church in Irvine, California for close to ten years, and had recently been appointed as an elder in Anaheim by Brother Witness Lee. Thus we had been put into a position of more intimate fellowship and coordination. I had known Godfred since 1972 and over the years had numerous occasions of fellowship with him. I respected him for his genuineness, wisdom, and devotion to the Lord. Hence, upon returning from Atlanta on Sept. 22, 1987, I made an appointment for dinner with Godfred on September 25, Friday evening.

We sat together in the restaurant, and after some general conversation, I said to him in a serious tone, “Godfred, I would like to ask you a question. Would you please tell me who Philip Lee is? It seems that he is being promoted and is going altogether too far in his involvement in the spiritual side of the work, greatly overstepping his position as a business manager. Have you noticed this? I myself could never agree with this.”

It seemed that my question took him by surprise. We had never discussed these matters before. He hesitated a few moments. Then, in a very grave tone, he replied, “John, the situation is very serious.” If he was surprised by my question, I was somewhat taken aback by his answer. Godfred continued, “I have seen and heard many things in the Living Stream Office in recent months. I cannot go into detail, but I can tell you there is much that is very serious and very wrong.” Then I began to be more alarmed and concerned. Godfred fully agreed that Philip Lee’s involvement in the work was way out of line, but he indicated that there were more serious things than that.

Two days later, on Sept. 27, the Lord’s Day, as we met in the Elders’ Room before the morning meeting on Ball Road, Godfred had a few moments alone with me, and he said, “John, it is very timely that you opened up to me the other night. Let me tell you that the whole situation is sick and corrupt. I have seen and heard too much.” Then I knew that we were really in trouble, though he did not mention any details or any names.

UntoHim · 10-06-2015, 12:47 PM

Steve,
Please do not repeat quotes from a post immediately preceding your current post. I think most of us already have read and re-read Speaking the Truth in Love by John Ingalls. Simply regurgitating quotes from this book over and over again is adding nothing to our forum. You have often said "let us consider"...then you add virtually nothing of your own thoughts.

It's now 2015, soon to be 2016. The events of this book took place 25-30 years ago. Many of the main characters involved are dead and gone. Many of the others have nothing to do with the Local Church of Witness Lee and never will again. The Blended brothers are NOT going to apologize or repent of anything, and simply quoting from this book or anything written by those "concerned brothers" all those decades ago is not going to help the Blended brothers or any other longtime LC member.

From my understanding you are now in fellowship with a church/ministry associated with Stephan Kaung. What is your experience of this church/ministry? Since Kaung was an associate of Watchman Nee this would be totally relevant to our forum, and I think many of us would love to hear from you regarding Kaungs ministry here in America over the years.

Indiana · 10-06-2015, 03:03 PM

UntoHim,

Do you know that others are reading these posts for the first time? Breaking down the points is an advantage for them, as ones like Freedom - a current local church member - can add valuable response, and others can also, before I move on to the next point

The record of our church history bears repeating, for others if not for you; and I have plenty of commentary coming up, as the posts I am making are from my book, Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery.

A sister who stumbled onto this forum, recently, has had questions for me by email and has made statements on the forum I want to address. I do both publicly for the sake of others also.

Your message, however, given publicly is dismissive of me and what I choose to address. This comes a day after I called Ron Kangas for the third time, a man who has also dismissed me publicly and claims we are all "lawless" and "on a fast lane to outer darkness". He is not "dead and gone" and either is Ingalls, Benson, Mallon, Taylor, Knoch, Towle, Hardy, John So, Minoru and many more! And brother Lee is alive also in that he speaks and influences daily in the churches. But in one book he should not speak - and that is the book I am addressing point by point on localchurchdiscussions.com

I invited Ron once again to come together and we could talk about his claims and also about how we can diminish the negative speaking on the internet. So I offer him the way of fellowship. Do you dismiss my offer to him? I am right to offer. Whether he will cooperate or not. It might not be the direction you want to take, but it is the direction I would like to take on this forum open for discussion from current and former local church members.

Steve I.

Ohio · 10-06-2015, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Steve,
Please do not repeat quotes from a post immediately preceding your current post. I think most of us already have read and re-read Speaking the Truth in Love by John Ingalls. Simply regurgitating quotes from this book over and over again is adding nothing to our forum. You have often said "let us consider"...then you ad virtually nothing of your own thoughts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

UntoHim,
Do you know that others are reading these posts for the first time? Breaking down the points is an advantage for them, as ones like Freedom - a current local church member - can add valuable response, and others can also, before I move on to the next point.

I think it is helpful to the passing reader to see Steve cut and paste other's documents, constantly bringing them to the top of the forum, highlighting pertinent topics from time to time.

Just my opinion.

UntoHim · 10-06-2015, 04:48 PM

My brother Steve,
You are one of only a few people for which I have created a whole sub-forum:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...play.php?f=116
If that is being dismissive you have a really crazy notion of dismissive. Unlike you, my friend, as the administrator of this forum, I have to take into consideration many things , and one of the foremost concerns is the "readability" of this forum in general. This is a DISCUSSION forum, hence the title "Local Church Discussions". In general, just posting quotes from others works without any significant commentary or input from the poster is not necessarily commensurate with the overall purpose of this forum. I understand you have formed a number of websites for just such a purpose. While I fully support you in such efforts, and you are welcomed to post the links to these web pages (which you have done quite a bit), it is not in the best interest of the readers and lurkers of the forum for you to simply use LCD as a bulletin board. You rarely interact with other posters, and when you do, most of the time it is simply to air your perceived offenses as you have just done with me in your last post.

Yes, I understand you do have legitimate grievances with current LC/LSM leadership. Over the years I have given you more than ample time and place to air these grievances here on LCD. But enough is enough brother. You have an entire sub-forum filled with the written record of many of your concerns and grievances, and it will remain here on LCD for as long as you want, and you can add to as much as you want, so long as the posts are not simply a plethora of quotes from others. There has to be some more significant input from you other than just “consider this”.

I brought up the issue of where you currently fellowship for a very good reason. IT IS CURRENT! Discussions forums should not deal simply with the past. The Bible does not simply deal with the past because God is not simply concerned with the past. In fact, he is much more concerned with the present and the future. This is what the Gospel and the New Testament are all about. This is what the Church, the Body of Christ is all about - the present and the future. “Until we all arrive at the fullness”! My dear brother Steve, pay attention to these words: “Until We All Arrive”. We are ALL on a journey. Looking backwards is going to slow us down! Let the Blended brothers look back, let the scoffers and the doubters look back, let the world look back....WE NEED TO LOOK FORWARD! One day He WILL make ALL THINGS NEW. New Heaven. New Earth. New Jerusalem. NEW! NEW! NEW!

As for our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church movement, they need to see that God has moved on. Even if the Local Church of Witness Lee was ever a legitimate move of God (a very dubious notion in my current estimation), it is painfully obvious that He has indeed moved on long ago. Knowledge, or even ignorance, of Daystar, LINKO, Tennis Rackets, chairs, the Max Rapoport debacle, the various “rebellions” and concerns of various brothers throughout the years, the sordid escapades of Witness Lee's sons, or even whether or not Watchman Nee took nude pictures of sisters in China 60 or 70 years ago....IT IS ALL THINGS OF THE PAST THAT WE CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT TODAY. Nor is it of any benefit to press these things upon any Local Church member who doesn't want to hear about them.

So, let us move on... “let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1,2)

TLFisher · 10-07-2015, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think it is helpful to the passing reader to see Steve cut and paste other's documents, constantly bringing them to the top of the forum, highlighting pertinent topics from time to time.

Just my opinion.

I agree with you Ohio. Sure, most members on this forum rehashing the late 80's is

Still there is value to keeping the content alive more for the benefit of lurkers and potential forum participants. It helps in following Steve's posts the content is kept short and to the point. Many brothers mentioned in the writings are still alive.
How many older brothers and sisters who were meeting in the local churches 60's, 70's, and early 80's, have made the following comment;
'I wonder what happened to John Ingalls?"
Before my late uncle's passing in April 2014, that's what he asked me when my sons and I were visiting in August 2013.

It has been over 25 years since the quarantine edict. Much like one administration wants to suppress what happened in Benghazi 2012, LSM is another one that wants to suppress the events of the 80's turmoil.

Let's take Freedom for example, his conscience may have been affected by Hear the Cases article which is nearly 10 years old itself. Sure the blended brothers may want to have suppressed what the Sandoval's endured in Ontario. If Steve didn't write the article, it could be unlikely we'd be benefiting from Freedom's participation on this forum.

aron · 10-07-2015, 04:09 PM

I think Indiana should continually re-post these items, until the LSM operatives begin to address them. Until then, give him this forum. Is it too much to begrudge a brother a few electrons of band-width?

When LSM satisfactorily addresses his posts, and we can refer readers to their clear and thoughtful reply, we'll change our tune, but until then he not only has the right but the obligation to keep them up front and in plain view.

Kudos to him for so doing.

Freedom · 10-07-2015, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I think Indiana should continually re-post these items, until the LSM operatives begin to address them. Until then, give him this forum. Is it too much to begrudge a brother a few electrons of band-width?

When LSM satisfactorily addresses his posts, and we can refer readers to their clear and thoughtful reply, we'll change our tune, but until then he not only has the right but the obligation to keep them up front and in plain view.

Kudos to him for so doing.

He deserves some kind of response from leaders. The silence on their part is in poor taste.

UntoHim · 10-07-2015, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

and I have plenty of commentary coming up, as the posts I am making are from my book, Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery.

Ok Steve. Bring on the commentary. And if you are going to quote any source, you must name the source and the particular work (cf: Speaking the Truth in Love). But please do not quote multiple paragraphs with the simple "commentary" of "consider this". Not good enough brother. LocalChurchDiscussions is not going to be a simple bulletin board for you to post quotes from others works. We want to here from YOU! What do YOU think of what is happening RIGHT NOW, not 25 years ago. Today. Right now. This forum has Speaking the Truth in Love in it's entirety. Also there are all the various papers that you have written over the years on your very own sub-forum. It's there for anyone who wants to see them.

Please, for your sake and anyone reading the forum: Tell us what is going on in you heart and mind TODAY. Right Now. Surely you have something to say from what you have experienced of the Lord Jesus in the recent past. Right? Let's here it brother. This is what LocalChurchDiscussions is all about!

aron · 10-08-2015, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Please, for your sake and anyone reading the forum: Tell us what is going on in you heart and mind TODAY. Right Now.

Maybe what Indiana is doing today is going over history. A history that: 1) the LSM wants to pretend doesn't exist; or 2) they have written bowdlerized versions of, to give out to all the newbies looking for God.

(Miriam Webster: Full Definition of BOWDLERIZE transitive verb

1: to expurgate (as a book) by omitting or modifying parts considered vulgar

2: to modify by abridging, simplifying, or distorting in style or content)

Also, didn't Luke the disciple sit down and write a history, after having carefully collected what he had obtained? Did Luke tell us how his day was going, as he composed? No - he was telling a story. So he focused on the story he was telling, not on what he was doing today. That's okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 1

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Indiana is working on a "careful and orderly account"... thank God someone is doing that today. I don't have time nor patience. But I'm glad someone does.

Also, consider this: there are 47 posts here, and currently 1,235 views, judging by the little counter thing. So that's 26 views per post. Discount you & me & awareness & terry & freedom & Indiana, that still leaves a lot of readers out there... maybe some of them are getting enlightened. Who knows?

aron · 10-08-2015, 09:29 AM

UntoHim,

I have been treated kindly by you since I began posting here. And I can understand your impatience and annoyance at Indiana being a sort of broken record. At the same time, the narrative of history is important to understanding the present, and maybe his 'fixation' with a few events in the timeline serves some higher purpose. So forgive me if I butt in here, and kind of play advocate. Perhaps I am just being quarrelsome, or interjecting my own narrative where it doesn't belong; if so please pay no mind.

Let me give an example of the singular fixation upon a point of history paying eventual dividends in the present. I found myself repeatedly coming back to the mystery of the genesis and growth of Nee's Little Flock. All we had from LSM was "God raised up WN" and thus the recovery of truth advanced a signal step forward. Recovery of the fabled 'ground of the church', etc.

But what really happened? For me, it was coming back again and again, to consider the deep resentment in China of the "barbarians" and their imperialism, as a social substrate to the rising up of an indigenous Christian expression, notably in WN's Little Flock. The "ground of the church" idea became the way out, for Chinese Christians; subsequently tens of thousands voted with their feet, and went out. Which of course validated WN's idea that he had found some higher, deeper truth. And the fact that "local" churches soon led to consolidation, and handing over, and the exported LC of Lee was less local than a McDonald's franchise, proved my point (to me, anyway) that the "ground of the church" was merely an expedient to reject foreign control.

Now, how did this affect my present? Well, for one it made me feel good. I solved a puzzle. I felt that my brain could at least still function, after years of being pickled with various nasty brines, not the least of which was exclusivist, sectarion religion. So I was happy - it "made my day", so to speak.

So I would ask Indiana, as a way to bridge the gap here, "Have you learned anything in the last 5 years or so, of studying this subject of hidden history in the Local Church? And, how is it affecting your spiritual journey today?" Something like that. Trying to be provocative here, but mildly so. Not offensive, but stimulating thought, and conversation.

Freedom · 10-08-2015, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Indiana is working on a "careful and orderly account"... thank God someone is doing that today. I don't have time nor patience. But I'm glad someone does.

Also, consider this: there are 47 posts here, and currently 1,235 views, judging by the little counter thing. So that's 26 views per post. Discount you & me & awareness & terry & freedom & Indiana, that still leaves a lot of readers out there... maybe some of them are getting enlightened. Who knows?

I think that lurkers will find the information here to be helpful. I once was a lurker, and I did not find this site by accident. I was in search of answers. I think it's safe to assume that if lurkers are reading this site, it is because they too want answers. Judging by the view count, maybe it's more than we realize.

It's really tough to come to terms with what the LC is at heart. Thus, it might take a bit of time for lurking LC members to come to terms with what they've read. Many of the events Indiana has written about offer a window into what really goes inside the LC. Maybe some of it is beating a dead horse, but for members who are immersed in the LC environment, there may not always be enough in their current environment to set off the alarm bells. If they are anything like I was, there might just be that little feeling that something isn't quite right. Sometimes it requires developing an understanding of other events that have happened or how their leaders have behaved themselves.

For example, all through high school and college, I attended the LSM semi-annual training diligently. I viewed it as a positive way to spend my time (and money), and I viewed the blendeds as "mature" brothers. Imagine my surprise when I eventually learned that one of the top blendeds - Ron Kangas, publicly called Steve Isitt a "man of death". I might have expected to hear that petty name-calling from kindergartners or politicians, but not someone who was supposedly leading us in the "ministry of the age". It's things like that that really gave me some insight into the LC, not so much the environment that I was a part of.

Ohio · 10-08-2015, 10:11 AM

Indiana (and Thankful Jane) are unique on this forum as ex-members desiring to confront LSM/DCP face-to-face according to the instructions from the Lord in Matthew 18. Both have invested huge amounts of time writing their stories, networking with other relevant former members, and making their stories known to the church. Both attempted personal and private contacts first, and then went public on this forum only after the other parties refused to come to the reconciliation table.

Both members were completely vested in their LC's and the Recovery movement. Both displayed their commitments via uprooting and migrating to startup new LC's. Neither were ever half-hearted attendees blaming the church for personal problems in their lives. Both have suffered the shame of public humiliation without justification, with the accompanying psychological trauma which nominal church-goers could never understand.

I don't know why these ones have chosen this pathway. Many other ex-members have just walked away silently. The Lord has not orchestrated identical paths for each of us.

Personally ... I have been told not to write about those in the GLA who have been hurt by public abuses. Especially during the quarantines, many felt the timing was altogether wrong since the Blendeds could use this information to further attack TC. Their suggestion was to wait until everything calmed down, and then it would be the right time. I disagreed, and time has proven my decision to be correct. The "right time" never came. Yes, when the pressure was on from the Blendeds, TC began to act respectfully towards others in the GLA, but soon that positive trend reversed itself. Today, nearly all those dear brothers have left the work in the GLA.

I hope one day that the abusive and exclusive ways supposedly passed down from Barber to Nee to Lee to Chu and the Blendeds and so many others will one day come to an end.

HERn · 10-08-2015, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

UntoHim,

I have been treated kindly by you since I began posting here. And I can understand your impatience and annoyance at Indiana being a sort of broken record. At the same time, the narrative of history is important to understanding the present, and maybe his 'fixation' with a few events in the timeline serves some higher purpose. So forgive me if I butt in here, and kind of play advocate. Perhaps I am just being quarrelsome, or interjecting my own narrative where it doesn't belong; if so please pay no mind.

Let me give an example of the singular fixation upon a point of history paying eventual dividends in the present. I found myself repeatedly coming back to the mystery of the genesis and growth of Nee's Little Flock. All we had from LSM was "God raised up WN" and thus the recovery of truth advanced a signal step forward. Recovery of the fabled 'ground of the church', etc.

But what really happened? For me, it was coming back again and again, to consider the deep resentment in China of the "barbarians" and their imperialism, as a social substrate to the rising up of an indigenous Christian expression, notably in WN's Little Flock. The "ground of the church" idea became the way out, for Chinese Christians; subsequently tens of thousands voted with their feet, and went out. Which of course validated WN's idea that he had found some higher, deeper truth. And the fact that "local" churches soon led to consolidation, and handing over, and the exported LC of Lee was less local than a McDonald's franchise, proved my point (to me, anyway) that the "ground of the church" was merely an expedient to reject foreign control.

Now, how did this affect my present? Well, for one it made me feel good. I solved a puzzle. I felt that my brain could at least still function, after years of being pickled with various nasty brines, not the least of which was exclusivist, sectarion religion. So I was happy - it "made my day", so to speak.

So I would ask Indiana, as a way to bridge the gap here, "Have you learned anything in the last 5 years or so, of studying this subject of hidden history in the Local Church? And, how is it affecting your spiritual journey today?" Something like that. Trying to be provocative here, but mildly so. Not offensive, but stimulating thought, and conversation.

It's none of my business, but I wonder what Indiana feels in his heart towards the ministry and whether he would return to meeting with the LSM LC. From what I can divine he's basically in agreement with the whole LSM shebang including that WL was God's oracle, the "wise master builder", the last Apostle, there is only one true church meeting on the proper ground, etc. If that's true, then I wonder if he's kind of using this forum to force the blendeds to give up and give him a hearing and receive him back with "hugs and kisses". If so, he can't afford to criticize WL's doctrine and practice too much. So which is it Indiana? Do you remain a WL acolyte in agreement with the doctrine and practices of the LSM LC and hope to force the blendeds to accept you again, or have you seen something that would prevent you from rejoining the LSM LC even if they received you back with a spider's embrace and a Judas kiss?

UntoHim · 10-08-2015, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

So I would ask Indiana, as a way to bridge the gap here, "Have you learned anything in the last 5 years or so, of studying this subject of hidden history in the Local Church? And, how is it affecting your spiritual journey today?" Something like that. Trying to be provocative here, but mildly so. Not offensive, but stimulating thought, and conversation.

I couldn't have said it better! Thanks aron.

I do appreciate all the input here. I also appreciate Steve's efforts to reconcile brothers over the years - this is a very noble and biblical task. So I would point my brother Steve and all concerned to the biblical passage in Matthew 18 that applies - the Words of our Lord:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (vrs 15-17)

As far as I know, Steve has followed this pathway of reconciliation to a tee. As a matter of fact, I think he has gone "the extra mile" and then some. He has given his shirt, then his coat and finally his shoes and socks as well! He tried to go to the brothers in question in a private manner. No results. He then took the next step of involving others. No results. He then took the final step of "telling it to the church" - I believe this is what he has done over the years by posting his concerns on LocalChurchDiscussions. At what point does the offended brother give up? I don't know the answer to this question, and I wouldn't pretend for a second that I or anyone else on this forum would be the final arbiter. At the end of the day, there is One who will Arbitrate all people and all things.

In the meantime, brothers and sisters, we all have a certain “place” we are in. For many years I always imagined that we could all come to the same place, and we and our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church would be the better for it, and most importantly, God would be glorified and the Name of Christ exalted. I have always hoped and prayed that LocalChurchDicussions could be a place where this all happens. Yet I have come to realize that we are all in different places - some of us in very, very different places. When we were in the Local Church the differences among us were lessened, and even quashed, because we were like soldiers in the same army, wearing the same uniform and speaking the same lingo. We now know that this arranged, sometimes forced, “oneness” was artificial, and it really wasn't the “oneness of the Spirit”.

Ok, I'm wandering here. Let me just finish up with this. I am as interested in past history of the Local Church as anyone else. I am a firm subscriber to the old adage “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”, and also “you can't know where you're going unless you know where you've been”. But I think there is a limit, in terms of time and space, that our forum members should dedicate to the task of delving into the past, especially events that took place 25 or 30 years ago and beyond. Just as this is not healthy for us as individuals, I believe that the same thing applies to a group of people, such as those on a public forum.

Finally, as I noted, we are all in different places. The key would be IN different places. We all know the place we were in while we were in the Local Church, yet we are all now in a different place. I think it is far more beneficial for us to discuss and even encourage each other with the place we are currently in right now. There will be the good, the bad and the ugly, but at least it will be the good, the bad and the ugly of TODAY, not of a bygone day years or decades ago.

Your brother who is unto Him

Indiana · 10-09-2015, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I think Indiana should continually re-post these items, until the LSM operatives begin to address them. Until then, give him this forum. Is it too much to begrudge a brother a few electrons of band-width?

When LSM satisfactorily addresses his posts, and we can refer readers to their clear and thoughtful reply, we'll change our tune, but until then he not only has the right but the obligation to keep them up front and in plain view.

Aron's word here is how I feel. A couple of his other posts resonate also, as do some posts from others.

What I have gained in becoming immersed in understanding our true local church history is an enlarged heart for both current and former members- something I would not have now if confined only to local church environs.

Time finds us all out, even leaders, who, under God's sovereignty have manifested weakness and error; yet we, whether small or "great" are all members of one Body and should comfort and build up one another, but this cannot happen fully if we are not open.

Being open to learn our true church history, unfiltered, gives us perspective needed to understand, forgive, and to receive other members - all members God has received. "That they all might be one." John 17

09-21-2015, 09:18 AM	#1
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	My Experience in the Local Churches http://www.lordsrecovery.us/MyExperi...alChurches.pdf "O home in the church, where we ended our search, with the brothers rejoicing all day, where Christ is our life and we're though with all strife, now we're home, hallelujah, to stay! Till strife came, and would not abate. "God's home is the church....." Steve Isitt 2015

09-21-2015, 01:25 PM	#4
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: Letter from John Ingalls 2001 This letter was written in response to issues in "the local churches" that I addressed. Dear Brother Steve, Thank you for your letters. I especially appreciated reading the letter you wrote to Joel. I want to commend you for your forthrightness, honesty, boldness, uprightness, maintaining a right spirit. I felt that the way you addressed all the issues with Joel hit the mark. Their consciences should be touched; if not, there is something seriously wrong. We have been praying for you and also for the brothers you are confronting. We have prayed the Lord would have mercy on them. I want to encourage you, brother, to pursue the burden the Lord has placed upon you. There is no way at the present time for brothers like Bill Mallon and myself to do anything directly to reach out to these brothers. Perhaps the Lord will use you to open the door or create a breach in the wall. May His will be done. There is a fortified stronghold built up that is not easy to penetrate. I agree with your perception that it is in one sense not human. That does not mean, of course, that it is divine. To have fellowship with brothers in Christ in the Spirit and in brotherly love is a priceless heritage of ours. It is a pity that this could be obstructed and rendered not only inoperative but impossible to activate. We pray that the Lord will lead you. In His grace, John.

09-23-2015, 06:33 PM	#11
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: Brother Lee Claims a Clarifying and Concluding Word The Most Outrageous Claim Witness Lee "The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but its content was edited afterward by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes. In addition to an account of the beginning and development of the whole period of the rebellion, the content of that book includes personal testimonies from over thirty brothers. Therefore, concerning this storm, I have spoken the clarifying and concluding word that I needed to speak. I have absolutely no more interest in talking about this matter. This matter now stops here." (from The Mysteries of God's New Testament Economy) That doesn't work for me. That book throughout its pages is a disgrace. Deviations From the Path (from Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery, pp 18-19) One morning as I was enjoying The Holy Word for Morning Revival on the oneness, I had different impressions: the first is the incredibly rich life-supply in this ministry that I have been receiving for over thirty years. The second is the clear and wonderful word on the oneness that is presented in the local churches. The third impression is that we still mislead the saints regarding the “rebellious ones” without any conscience about the facts that led to their so-called “rebellion”. The fourth impression is the willingness among elders to condemn their brothers based on limited and one-sided information about them. A fifth impression is the unwillingness of our leaders to learn our actual history, based on facts available to them, and a sixth impression is an unwilling attitude in our leaders to publicly admit and correct mistakes we have made. Among us in the local churches over the last fifteen years, there has been much speaking about the “rebellious ones”. However, the formerly beloved leading ones who were collared with the rebel tag have not been given a place in our writings to speak for themselves, to tell the other side of the story of the “rebellion” they purportedly started. A transparent, unbiased recording of our history has not been made available to the churches, which precludes the receiving of proper understanding in the churches on this great matter. In this way, though, a purpose has been served—to protect leaders and their reputations, and to maintain a “one accord”. An American Heritage article called Hiding History describes in principle our experience in the Lord’s recovery. The author states: "I have been plowing through presidential history for fifteen years and I think I have some insight into the thinking of those with power over this kind of information. They do not subscribe to the idea that what people don’t know can indeed hurt them." The article went on to say, Since Eisenhower, American Presidents have copied Winston Churchill whose credo was: “Make the history and then write it yourself before anyone else can….” No matter what archival system is used, families and former aides will try to protect Presidents and their reputations. They will try to create and write their own history and block outsiders from challenging the official version. The Protection of Reputations The official version of events and concerns of 1985-1989 was given by the leaders in the recovery in 1990 and printed in a book called, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Their word was readily accepted in the churches as true and reliable, beyond need for analysis. However, upon analysis, and upon “plowing through” documents and findings and interviews, the real history is uncovered. We have surely created and written our own history, protected leaders and reputations, and blocked outsiders from challenging the official version. We have done so at the expense of others’ reputation and genuine one accord. The Real Source of Problems The true source of the turmoil that occurred in the churches was embodied in Living Stream Ministry, a business entity that grew in stature and function beyond its bounds. While those who represented LSM have had their names protected for many years regarding their major roles in the division, blame has been displaced onto others. This sin is shared by nearly all the churches against former leading brothers, especially John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So, who were “quarantined” in the local churches in 1990. Overcoming Our Sin In order to overcome this sin we first must gain an understanding of it. I will present in this account numerous misrepresentations of former leading ones that exist in our writings and that are prevalent in our speakings, both publicly and privately. Our concepts must change to match the truth about these former leading ones, while abandoning our tradition of condemning them. Steve Isitt

09-24-2015, 06:56 AM	#13
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches Witness Lee was the "judge, jury and executioner" in the Local Church. This is a big reason why the Movement has been known by many outsiders as "The Local Church of Witness Lee". Now the LC members have nothing more (or less) than the "Paper Pope" of Lee's teachings and established practices. In essence, the Blended Brothers are nothing more than a "College of Cardinals", who function mainly as a corporate rubber stamp for the person and work of Witness Lee. All that the Blendeds are missing are those impressive red vestments. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

09-25-2015, 11:09 PM	#23
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: Misc Accusations Reasonably Addressed Miscellaneous Accusations in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion Reasonably Addressed “Fermentation” from Hong Kong Witness Lee begins The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by saying, "The present rebellion began to ferment first in Hong Kong as early as 1985 by Joseph Fung. I use the word ferment purposely because leaven existed there (1 Cor. 5:6-8; Matt. 13:33), and this leaven, this corruption, began to ferment from Hong Kong." If there was some sort of fermentation in Hong Kong, it was not without conflict with the LSM office in Anaheim, as other churches were to later experience. A consistent factor in the so-called fermentation of rebellion was conflict with the office. Brother Lee reports, “Joseph Fung came to Anaheim and he had a confrontation with my ministry office. That caused much hardship between my office and the church in Hong Kong because of him” (p. 10, FPR). There is no mention of the possibility that the person at the helm of Living Stream Ministry, Philip Lee, could have been at fault in any way. We are to just take Brother Lee’s word that it was Joseph who “caused much hardship”. If an honest rendering of all the hardship Philip Lee caused the churches over the years was given, when he exercised authority and control over others, more sober minds would prevail concerning the important role he had in the so-called “rebellion”. Alleged Ambition In FPR, page 10, the alleged ambition and the temper of Joseph Fung was mentioned. The word ambition was used many times by Brother Lee in the new way transition to describe the character of some brothers who didn’t line up squarely with him. Not only Joseph, but others “must want something for themselves” if they did things or spoke things not in accord with Brother Lee. This was purportedly their ambition. Temper of Philip Lee Joseph Fung had spiritual measure, experience, and significance. Philip Lee did not. Many wondered if he was even saved. Neither his temper nor his lust was harnessed around the saints: “almost starting a fight in an ugly scene in the restaurant”, “rolling down the stairs from the tape room in a fight with a brother”, “reading his father the riot act in front of a brother, who was dumbfounded that Witness Lee just stood and took it from him”. A young brother who was helping Living Stream over a period of weeks reported that Philip Lee would lose his temper and the young brother and others were instructed by Benson Philips just to take it. Philip was known to frequently unleash his temper around elders and co-workers and the LSM staff. People must have felt they were walking on egg shells around him, including bookroom managers of many churches. Nothing is mentioned in FPR about Philip’s temper that had far more damaging effect than that of Joseph Fung’s.

09-21-2015, 12:28 PM	#2
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re Letter to Chris Wilde 2003 Dear saints, I thought relationship problems with a brother could certainly be resolved in the church life by directly communicating with the offending person, as was talked about recently on another thread. In the following letter I explain to a co-worker in Anaheim what happened to me when I did that; my life and my church life got turned upside down, and my concepts certainly were to change. This development eventually catapulted me onto a path of addressing leading ones further, and then coming to a forum to begin to share in earnest my experiences, observations, and also my serious concerns . Chris Wilde worked closely with Dan Towle and Francis Ball at the time of this writing. Dear Chris, (Aug 11, 2003) I want to let you know in this letter what I have in mind to do. In my own experience I once went to a brother, an elder, according to Matthew 18 to settle a problem I had with him. I thought it would be a simple matter of explaining to him his offenses and there would be repentance by him and all would be well. The brother, though, ignored the first letter, and a second, and a third. I was quite surprised and very puzzled, as well as very unhappy with him. I would have even settled for his coming together with me and honestly denying that he had wronged me. We could have then prayed for our going on in oneness with each other and in the Body. I would have considered that somewhat honorable. But when he ignored me over a several month period and when other brothers didn’t respond to my letters to them for their assistance, I was really perplexed and quite concerned. My only desire was for a proper resolving of offenses that had occurred, and for our relationship to be right in the Body of Christ. I was very bothered. The brothers I asked to assist me either ignored me too or said I was “being negative”, that I was “attacking”, that I should just “bear the cross”, that I should be as Watchman Nee when he was “misunderstood”. I thought, “what is this?” No one wants to be accountable or bring someone to accountability. Then a brother went to the elders six times on my behalf, becoming thoroughly frustrated with them for not responding to my letters and for not being accountable. The elder who had committed the alleged offenses told this brother that he, the elder did not have to “respond to Steve ever”, that Steve is “sending letters out to everyone”, and that “we shouldn’t have problems with persons, matters, or things”, quoting Ron Kangas and a Corinthians footnote. I was completely amazed and became distraught over what I was experiencing. If a brother offends you, you should be able to go to him and in a spirit of love have the relationship with him restored. He wouldn’t do this and I was forced to just forgive him without a proper dealing between us. This was the beginning of what you may now hear to be “Steve’s divisiveness”. I would have been glad to just let this ordeal go with the wondering, though, of just what the problem was in communicating with me and responding according to the word of God. But word went out that “Steve has a problem with the brothers”. And, “Steve has to get through with the brothers”. I thought, “what in the world are they talking about”? I had gone to the elder according to Matthew 18; he didn’t respond; I decided to write another letter and perhaps I said something wrong or had the wrong tone, but there was still no response. My attempts to have others assist me were taken as an “attack on the elder”. I just had no way to get through with this brother. He had protectors in front of him and all around him, and I was kept away from him and from restoring a relationship. The brothers not only broke Scripture in their complete bias toward the elder, they exhibited a cruel spirit. One of them later repented, saying, “it was cruel of me not to respond to your letter and to your situation, I was just not sensitive to you”. He attempted then to bring up my situation with other elders, which fell on deaf ears. (He had only made such an apology to me after he, his wife, and their daughter had severe encounters with the same elder over a situation, the daughter leaving the sister's house and the church.) This experience with these people served, just naturally, to distance me from them and led to a disillusioned state. It affected my home life and church life. This word that “Steve has to get right with the brothers bothered me greatly”. The main reason it bothered me is that others heard this and thought that I was not right with the brothers, rather than the other way around. Such speaking about me caused me to have an ongoing problem with the brothers, for I couldn’t be with others without them possibly having this misunderstanding that I was "not right with the elders", especially one. This is the background to where I am today. From January 1996 to August 2000, I was greatly hampered by this non-relationship with the elders and their attitude toward me, and by what the saints were believing about me. On the 4th of that August I sat down and began to write, not only according to the experience I described but according to other experiences of mine, and others, in the church life. By this time, I was forced also to consider what happened to those who left the recovery by the scores in the late eighties. And, I found out; therefore, the writing I began to engage in was full of feeling for the saints and their experiences of disillusionment in the church life. I sought to explain the facts and the factors that drove many of them away and that had disheartened many of them that remained. A “book” was the result of my writing, which I presented to Dan Towle “for fellowship”. It was called In the Wake of the New Way. That “book” was honest and from my heart and with a deep burden for the oneness that was broken in the new way, and I was for building a bridge of communication to those brothers and sisters who were lost in the wake of the new way in the recovery. I was completely shocked when that “book”, written in all sincerity and presented first to an elder and leader in the recovery, Dan Towle who encouraged the elders in my locality to set me aside in the church life and be disciplined. Then, with other superficial and bogus “information” coming to the fore about me being a "divisive one", the disciplining hand from the brothers became even stronger against me. During this time of discipline, beginning in February 2001, I sovereignly received quite an education as to what the other side of the story was in the division that occurred among us in the late 1980s. It is a strong, very compelling, and spiritually and morally convicting side of the story. A story which I am poised to tell. Any attempts I’ve made for fellowship, restoration, and participation over the last three years have been blocked, the concept being that I am negative, divisive, etc. This is a complete falsehood when looking at the facts of my history and experience. The brothers have indeed made a mountain out of a mole hill. …I have given you this brief amount of information to let you know that I myself have been misrepresented. Not only have I been mishandled and negatively treated, former leading ones have been outrageously treated and even lied about among us. And, it is time these unrighteous matters of miscommunications, false representations, and ill-advised evil speakings stop. Righteousness among us should prevail. Toward that end I have a website ready that will certainly tell the story of our own case of defamation and libel. We have been defaming others for years, and we should turn our time, energy, and interest to this matter and indeed find a way to drop the other. I am stirred, I admit, over abuses in the church that have gone unchecked for many years, causing much suffering among the saints and much damage to the Lord’s testimony and to the oneness of the Body of Christ. Men should become accountable for the abuses, so before the Lord, and with much exercise over the last three years, I want to give us that opportunity. If my need and situation cannot be addressed soon, I will begin to speak about the local church in quite another way, according to the truth of its history…The abuse and misunderstandings are enough now. It is time to speak the truth! Your brother in Christ, Steve I.

09-21-2015, 12:56 PM	#3
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,654	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches Brother Steve, You have cited Matthew 18 repeatedly in your attempts to reconcile with other brothers in the LC's. Unfortunately these instructions from the Lord himself in scripture can only operate when the Head of every man is Christ. (I Cor 11.3) Once brothers in Christ (especially church leaders) take other fallen men as their "head," then these scriptures concerning reconciliation become altogether meaningless. This is exactly what has happened to many leaders in the Recovery. They no longer allow their conscience, indwelt by the Spirit of God, to be ruled by the peace of Christ. Instead they have allowed themselves to be brought under subjection by those at LSM, much the same way as the Galatian believers were brought under subjection by the Judaizers. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

09-26-2015, 12:39 PM	#26
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: Claim that Brothers were in a Conspiracy The Claim that the two Fermentations Merged Brother Lee continues, showing his belief that “the fermentation in Hong Kong had spread to Europe, specifically to John So in Stuttgart, Germany”. He says, At the same time that Joseph Fung was working in Hong Kong and John So was working in Europe, the two began to have contacts with various saints in the United States in 1987. Joseph Fung made trips to the West Coast of the U. S. A. and contacted disgruntled or innocent saints here and there….On the other hand, John So began to have contact with some saints in the Southeast of the U. S. A. and to exert a negative influence upon them”. At one time he spoke with a brother from four to six hours over the telephone, expressing to him the matters he was bothered with. He also began to communicate with John Ingalls and others in Southern California through the telephone. By all this it is evident that the fermentation that was taking place in Hong Kong and Europe began to work in the United States (p. 42, FPR). After speaking in this way, Brother Lee alludes to his assumption that a “conspiracy” must have been taking place, saying, “During that entire period of time they kept these communications from me. I did not know then that they were working actively behind my back”. In relation to his assumption, Brother Lee once shared with the elders: “It is when we are impure that we become suspicious. We become detectives to spy out the meaning behind what others say. If we are pure in our motive, we do not have such a thought. We are on another globe, taking others’ words in a simple way.” - W. Lee (Practical Talks to the Elders, pp. 26-28, 1982) On the claim “the fermentation in Hong Kong had spread to Europe, specifically to John So in Stuttgart, Germany”, we have to ask, how was this so? No information is given by Brother Lee to substantiate his claim. He simply makes an assertion, it seems, based on suspicion and imagination and begins to build his conspiracy theory, without proof. Of course, whatever Brother Lee would say, people receive as the truth, regardless, as if he was all-knowing. What may not be the truth becomes “truth” to people simply because he spoke it. Albeit, whatever he spoke and people believed, his conspiracy theory began without proof and without a solid foundation to build upon. On the claim “John So began to have contact with some saints in the Southeast of the U. S. A. and to exert a negative influence upon them”, what was the negative influence? According to whose evaluation did John exert a negative influence upon the saints? Brother Lee gives no details about this and leaves no impression that he knew the saints personally and what they could testify of John’s visit and influence. He also gave the reader no hint about what was going on in the recovery to bestir two long-time co-workers to rise up and come to the U. S. to minister to others. Such information is kept from the reader. Neither did Brother Lee give any word in his book to establish that John and Joseph worked together, or prove that they were somehow conspiring or had any other motive in coming to the United States than to care for the saints and the recovery, according to the Lord’s leading and the burden they had in their heart. Why would Brother Lee act suspicious? The Claim that 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 – On page 117, 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 – On page 103, 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 - On page 93, 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 any more. 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.

09-26-2015, 10:31 PM	#28
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: Claim that Brothers were Rebellious Giving a True Account of Our History Brother Lee said he presented his book, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, for “the preservation of the uninformed ones, for the recovery of the deceived ones, for the establishing of the wavering and bothered ones, and for history” (p. 75, FPR) I agree that uninformed ones should be properly informed; deceived ones should be recovered to know the true cause of division; wavering and bothered ones should be established by learning facts; and a true account of our history should be given to the saints. Neither Witness Lee nor the blending co-workers ever accomplished this; the saints in the churches still do not know our true history. The Claim that the Dissenting Brothers Were Rebellious (p. 74-75, FPR) John Ingalls – in the conclusion of his book, Speaking the Truth in Love. 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. (see Moses’ Wrong Spirit, p. 24). 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” (p. 93). 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 (p. 11-12). 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 (p. 82). 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 workers, who circumvented fellowship with him, and other elders, in order to establish LSM influence in the Southeast churches. Bill's reaction to their usurpations and control in these churches was considered rebellion (p. 109).

09-29-2015, 08:36 AM	#32
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: The Claim that the Brothers Were Against the New Way Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil can help us understand matters clearly; or it can cause deception as with The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion and the false knowledge given throughout its pages. This book should not be supported by anyone. Even the LSM and DCP do not and will not defend it. The Claim that the Brothers Were Against the New Way On page 51 in FPR 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” (p. 116) [1988]. Bill Mallon – Letter to Witness Lee, p. 71 “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.” [1987] “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?” [1987] “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” [1987]. 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.”

09-29-2015, 09:08 AM	#33
HERn Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 960	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches "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." The above is a quote from Bill Malone that Indiana supplied. This statement should set off bells and whistles and raise many red flags. What man other than our Lord Jesus Christ has a spirit that we should drink from? Is there anywhere in the bible or orthodox Christian tradition where a man is commanded to drink of the spirit of another man? It seems that Bill Malone is saying that the spirit of Lee that he drank of had spiritual authority and the element of the flow of the river that brought in mutual life and love of the local churches. I'm sorry, but this is crazy talk! So, the flow of the river of life is from the triune God through the spirit of the man Witness Lee from whom Bill Malone drank, and from whom all good LCers should drink? This must be evidence of man-worship which must surely be a result of demonic deception. I'm afraid that there is a kernel of satanic inspired man-worship that infects the crazy WL drinking brothers leading the LSM-LC movement. __________________ Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." (KJV Version) Look to Jesus not The Ministry.

09-29-2015, 09:19 AM	#34
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: The Claim that Mallon Convinced Ingalls to Dissent The Claim that Mallon Convinced Ingalls to Dissent 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. 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” (p. 139). 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.

10-02-2015, 06:18 AM	#36
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re:The Claim that John said the Taipei Training Should be Stopped The Claim that John said the Taipei Training Should be Stopped Brother Lee stated on page 51, FPR, that John Ingalls said the Taipei Training should be shut down. Whether John said so or not, the training had brought much concern to others also, beginning with the problem of Philip Lee being in charge of the trainers. This was not a trivial matter, as he was a person reportedly found drunk several times in Taiwan, and, as the accounts go, the brothers sometimes had to try to get him sobered up when it was time for him to address the trainers or the trainees. In addition to this, his former secretary reported to others that she had to clean up Philip’s office in Taipei from pornographic literature and whiskey bottles. This was the person in charge of the training when Brother Lee was not available, which was most of the time due to Brother Lee’s sickness and his spending of time on the Chinese translation of the New Testament. John, incidentally, did not feel that he said the training should be shut down. That he, and others, had serious concerns, though, was very true, as well as justifiable. John Ingalls – “In addition we began to hear reports, see video tapes, and read printed messages published by the Full-time Training in Taipei of some of the things that were being said and done. Now this really alarmed us. Foremost among these was the fact that Philip Lee was the administrator of the training, supposedly only on the business side, but actually exercising supervision in much more than business affairs. He was in daily fellowship with twenty-four of the trainers and leading ones who called and reported to him all activities (failure to do so resulted in an offense). The trainees were even told that Philip was administrating the training. His power and position were growing immeasurably. Statements made by some of the trainers in Taipei amazed us, as I am sure they did many others. Some examples are as follows: 1) ‘There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.’ 2) ‘We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.’ 3) ‘Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.’ 4) ‘If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.’ 5) ‘Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.’ 6) ‘To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.’ 7) ‘Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT’. "An account of Brother Lee’s position was given by one of the leading trainers of the FTTT to a group of brothers in Dallas, Texas, in the summer of 1986, in the context of how to be one with the ministry. There are witnesses to confirm it. It goes as follows. "The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee. A brother asked, “And who is number five?” The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to Brother Lee. I and another trainer do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and have breakfast with him. The way to know what Brother Lee wants us to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do.” The hosting brother asked, “Isn’t this a hierarchy?” The trainer replied, “No!” The brother asked, “How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning?” The trainer answered, “If the elders in a local church would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy; but if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not a hierarchy. (P. Hon) "When Brother Lee heard through us the above speech of his trainer, he took steps to rebuke and correct him. That such nonsense could be spoken by one chosen by Brother Lee to lead his training after all we have passed through and heard from Brother Lee’s ministry is difficult to understand. Many aspects of the training bothered us considerably. Elders who attended the training in Taipei were instructed explicitly to carry out the same training in their localities. Pressure was exerted upon the churches and elders to follow, implement, and conform to everything that came out in Taiwan. Failure to do so created problems. The effect on so much emphasis on ways, methods, and practices – all externals – resulted in a wilted wilderness condition among many of the saints. "Many faithful older saints were rebuked and given the impression that because of their age they were through. All official assertions to the contrary, the full-timers became a special class of people, and the full-time training was exalted above the churches, which were considered to have grown decrepit and were at best “better than nothing” (Andrew Yu, in Voice of the Young Heart). The elders were publicly degraded and blamed for all the ills. And yet the churches with the elders, and especially many of the older saints who were somewhat despised, gave generously and sacrificially to support the training. Their money was gladly accepted. In fact some of the churches were drained financially due to the heavy burden of supporting their full-timers and other projects that were promoted. "Video tapes of the FTTT convention on Nov. 23, 1986, and the FTTT graduation ceremony on June 1, 1987, surprised us with the mixture of worldly ways and gimmicks that were practiced and hitherto strongly condemned among us… "I have no relish in mentioning these things. My object is to record and inform the readers of the matters that burdened and concerned us in the fall of 1987” (p. 110). Brothers Alarmed over Philip's Increasing Involvement From: William Mallon Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:35 AM To: Steve Isitt Subject: Re: Philip, and your experience Dear Brother Steve, You will never know how completely astonished, shocked, and unnerved we were when Witness Lee put more and more things under Philip Lee's responsibility. It was incredible and unbelieveable from the get-go! How could such a so-called man of the Spirit (WL) hand over a spiritual work to a man of the flesh (PL)?!?! It was repulsive, let alone depressive. It was once brought to my attention that WL appreciated Philip because this son of his turned Witness Lee's ministry and the LSM into a money-making business. This is the principle of Balaam --- "...ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward," Jude 1:11. Balaam's problem was greed. He was a prophet who had a price (Num. 22). Balaam knew the truth, but he could be bought off with money, though he claimed it would not affect him. Balaam's priority was money. He was more interested in cash than character. His life was characterized by greed, not godliness. When affections are set on the material more than the spiritual, it caused big trouble, which multiplied into disasterous storms in the ensuing years. Witness Lee first got off-tracked when he deviated from his original principle. He said in the 60's that the churches should not be for the ministry and should not build up the ministry, but that the ministry should be for the churches and build up the churches. This he reversed dramatically in 1974 when he moved to Anaheim for the purpose of centralizing his ministry and decentralizing his focus on the churches. (1) At first his ministry was the center and he expected all the churches to strengthen, support, and give allegiance to it. (2) Later, WL himself became the center, and everyone and all the churches were judged according to their loyalty to the "minister." (3) After this, WL expected everyone to give allegiance and financial support to the LSM bookroom, and whoever failed to acknowledge and support the bookroom fell from his favor and were judged disloyal. (4) Finally, WL's ministry deteriorated to an all-time low, to a hole below the pit, when he gradually installed Philip Lee to be in charge of even the training, expecting all the churches to give their allegiance and loyalty to his son in (and of) the flesh. These were the heavy, unbearable feelings in our hearts. As time went by, we tried to do something about it. But characteristically, when WL was approached about such matter, he was like a little Chinese man who suddenly bursted into a nine-foot intimidating giant. Eventually, when we saw the unity of the Spirit being broken in the Body of Christ, disrupting the fellowship of the Spirit, we could bear it no longer. Personally, I wrote three letters to try to politely, and yet plainly, bring the troubling issues before him. He would not listen. He was blinded by his own ambitions and programs. These letters forced him to isolate and quarantine me. Of course, he also organized others to quarantine other innocent brothers. These brief comments, I hope, will help you to understand the excruciating dilemma we went through in those days. Your brother in Christ, Bill

10-06-2015, 06:32 AM	#38
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Philip Lee's History Left out of Official Publications Although Philip Lee was a major factor of turmoil and division, crossing moral boundaries with sisters and spiritual boundaries with brothers, his name is never mentioned in this light publicly, by any leader or by LSM's official rendering of our local church history. John Ingalls ...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 roll, expressing my alarm and concern. Discussion Concerning LSM Manager Godfred had been an elder in the church in Irvine, California for close to ten years, and had recently been appointed as an elder in Anaheim by Brother Witness Lee. Thus we had been put into a position of more intimate fellowship and coordination. I had known Godfred since 1972 and over the years had numerous occasions of fellowship with him. I respected him for his genuineness, wisdom, and devotion to the Lord. Hence, upon returning from Atlanta on Sept. 22, 1987, I made an appointment for dinner with Godfred on September 25, Friday evening. We sat together in the restaurant, and after some general conversation, I said to him in a serious tone, “Godfred, I would like to ask you a question. Would you please tell me who Philip Lee is? It seems that he is being promoted and is going altogether too far in his involvement in the spiritual side of the work, greatly overstepping his position as a business manager. Have you noticed this? I myself could never agree with this.” It seemed that my question took him by surprise. We had never discussed these matters before. He hesitated a few moments. Then, in a very grave tone, he replied, “John, the situation is very serious.” If he was surprised by my question, I was somewhat taken aback by his answer. Godfred continued, “I have seen and heard many things in the Living Stream Office in recent months. I cannot go into detail, but I can tell you there is much that is very serious and very wrong.” Then I began to be more alarmed and concerned. Godfred fully agreed that Philip Lee’s involvement in the work was way out of line, but he indicated that there were more serious things than that. Two days later, on Sept. 27, the Lord’s Day, as we met in the Elders’ Room before the morning meeting on Ball Road, Godfred had a few moments alone with me, and he said, “John, it is very timely that you opened up to me the other night. Let me tell you that the whole situation is sick and corrupt. I have seen and heard too much.” Then I knew that we were really in trouble, though he did not mention any details or any names.

10-06-2015, 12:47 PM	#39
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches Steve, Please do not repeat quotes from a post immediately preceding your current post. I think most of us already have read and re-read *Speaking the Truth in Love* by John Ingalls. Simply regurgitating quotes from this book over and over again is adding nothing to our forum. You have often said "let us consider"...then you add virtually nothing of your own thoughts. It's now 2015, soon to be 2016. The events of this book took place 25-30 years ago. Many of the main characters involved are dead and gone. Many of the others have nothing to do with the Local Church of Witness Lee and never will again. The Blended brothers are NOT going to apologize or repent of anything, and simply quoting from this book or anything written by those "concerned brothers" all those decades ago is not going to help the Blended brothers or any other longtime LC member. From my understanding you are now in fellowship with a church/ministry associated with Stephan Kaung. What is your experience of this church/ministry? Since Kaung was an associate of Watchman Nee this would be totally relevant to our forum, and I think many of us would love to hear from you regarding Kaungs ministry here in America over the years. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

10-06-2015, 03:03 PM	#40
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 707	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches UntoHim, Do you know that others are reading these posts for the first time? Breaking down the points is an advantage for them, as ones like Freedom - a current local church member - can add valuable response, and others can also, before I move on to the next point The record of our church history bears repeating, for others if not for you; and I have plenty of commentary coming up, as the posts I am making are from my book, Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery. A sister who stumbled onto this forum, recently, has had questions for me by email and has made statements on the forum I want to address. I do both publicly for the sake of others also. Your message, however, given publicly is dismissive of me and what I choose to address. This comes a day after I called Ron Kangas for the third time, a man who has also dismissed me publicly and claims we are all "lawless" and "on a fast lane to outer darkness". He is not "dead and gone" and either is Ingalls, Benson, Mallon, Taylor, Knoch, Towle, Hardy, John So, Minoru and many more! And brother Lee is alive also in that he speaks and influences daily in the churches. But in one book he should not speak - and that is the book I am addressing point by point on localchurchdiscussions.com I invited Ron once again to come together and we could talk about his claims and also about how we can diminish the negative speaking on the internet. So I offer him the way of fellowship. Do you dismiss my offer to him? I am right to offer. Whether he will cooperate or not. It might not be the direction you want to take, but it is the direction I would like to take on this forum open for discussion from current and former local church members. Steve I.

10-06-2015, 04:48 PM	#42
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches My brother Steve, You are one of only a few people for which I have created a whole sub-forum: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...play.php?f=116 If that is being dismissive you have a really crazy notion of dismissive. Unlike you, my friend, as the administrator of this forum, I have to take into consideration many things , and one of the foremost concerns is the "readability" of this forum in general. This is a DISCUSSION forum, hence the title "Local Church Discussions". In general, just posting quotes from others works without any significant commentary or input from the poster is not necessarily commensurate with the overall purpose of this forum. I understand you have formed a number of websites for just such a purpose. While I fully support you in such efforts, and you are welcomed to post the links to these web pages (which you have done quite a bit), it is not in the best interest of the readers and lurkers of the forum for you to simply use LCD as a bulletin board. You rarely interact with other posters, and when you do, most of the time it is simply to air your perceived offenses as you have just done with me in your last post. Yes, I understand you do have legitimate grievances with current LC/LSM leadership. Over the years I have given you more than ample time and place to air these grievances here on LCD. But enough is enough brother. You have an entire sub-forum filled with the written record of many of your concerns and grievances, and it will remain here on LCD for as long as you want, and you can add to as much as you want, so long as the posts are not simply a plethora of quotes from others. There has to be some more significant input from you other than just “consider this”. I brought up the issue of where you currently fellowship for a very good reason. IT IS CURRENT! Discussions forums should not deal simply with the past. The Bible does not simply deal with the past because God is not simply concerned with the past. In fact, he is much more concerned with the present and the future. This is what the Gospel and the New Testament are all about. This is what the Church, the Body of Christ is all about - the present and the future. “Until we all arrive at the fullness”! My dear brother Steve, pay attention to these words: “Until We All Arrive”. We are ALL on a journey. Looking backwards is going to slow us down! Let the Blended brothers look back, let the scoffers and the doubters look back, let the world look back....WE NEED TO LOOK FORWARD! One day He WILL make ALL THINGS NEW. New Heaven. New Earth. New Jerusalem. NEW! NEW! NEW! As for our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church movement, they need to see that God has moved on. Even if the Local Church of Witness Lee was ever a legitimate move of God (a very dubious notion in my current estimation), it is painfully obvious that He has indeed moved on long ago. Knowledge, or even ignorance, of Daystar, LINKO, Tennis Rackets, chairs, the Max Rapoport debacle, the various “rebellions” and concerns of various brothers throughout the years, the sordid escapades of Witness Lee's sons, or even whether or not Watchman Nee took nude pictures of sisters in China 60 or 70 years ago....IT IS ALL THINGS OF THE PAST THAT WE CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT TODAY. Nor is it of any benefit to press these things upon any Local Church member who doesn't want to hear about them. So, let us move on... “let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1,2) __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

10-07-2015, 04:09 PM	#44
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,628	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches I think Indiana should continually re-post these items, until the LSM operatives begin to address them. Until then, give him this forum. Is it too much to begrudge a brother a few electrons of band-width? When LSM satisfactorily addresses his posts, and we can refer readers to their clear and thoughtful reply, we'll change our tune, but until then he not only has the right but the obligation to keep them up front and in plain view. Kudos to him for so doing. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

10-08-2015, 09:29 AM	#48
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,628	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches UntoHim, I have been treated kindly by you since I began posting here. And I can understand your impatience and annoyance at Indiana being a sort of broken record. At the same time, the narrative of history is important to understanding the present, and maybe his 'fixation' with a few events in the timeline serves some higher purpose. So forgive me if I butt in here, and kind of play advocate. Perhaps I am just being quarrelsome, or interjecting my own narrative where it doesn't belong; if so please pay no mind. Let me give an example of the singular fixation upon a point of history paying eventual dividends in the present. I found myself repeatedly coming back to the mystery of the genesis and growth of Nee's Little Flock. All we had from LSM was "God raised up WN" and thus the recovery of truth advanced a signal step forward. Recovery of the fabled 'ground of the church', etc. But what really happened? For me, it was coming back again and again, to consider the deep resentment in China of the "barbarians" and their imperialism, as a social substrate to the rising up of an indigenous Christian expression, notably in WN's Little Flock. The "ground of the church" idea became the way out, for Chinese Christians; subsequently tens of thousands voted with their feet, and went out. Which of course validated WN's idea that he had found some higher, deeper truth. And the fact that "local" churches soon led to consolidation, and handing over, and the exported LC of Lee was less local than a McDonald's franchise, proved my point (to me, anyway) that the "ground of the church" was merely an expedient to reject foreign control. Now, how did this affect my present? Well, for one it made me feel good. I solved a puzzle. I felt that my brain could at least still function, after years of being pickled with various nasty brines, not the least of which was exclusivist, sectarion religion. So I was happy - it "made my day", so to speak. So I would ask Indiana, as a way to bridge the gap here, "Have you learned anything in the last 5 years or so, of studying this subject of hidden history in the Local Church? And, how is it affecting your spiritual journey today?" Something like that. Trying to be provocative here, but mildly so. Not offensive, but stimulating thought, and conversation. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

10-08-2015, 10:11 AM	#50
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,654	Re: My Experience in the LocalChurches Indiana (and Thankful Jane) are unique on this forum as ex-members desiring to confront LSM/DCP face-to-face according to the instructions from the Lord in Matthew 18. Both have invested huge amounts of time writing their stories, networking with other relevant former members, and making their stories known to the church. Both attempted personal and private contacts first, and then went public on this forum only after the other parties refused to come to the reconciliation table. Both members were completely vested in their LC's and the Recovery movement. Both displayed their commitments via uprooting and migrating to startup new LC's. Neither were ever half-hearted attendees blaming the church for personal problems in their lives. Both have suffered the shame of public humiliation without justification, with the accompanying psychological trauma which nominal church-goers could never understand. I don't know why these ones have chosen this pathway. Many other ex-members have just walked away silently. The Lord has not orchestrated identical paths for each of us. Personally ... I have been told not to write about those in the GLA who have been hurt by public abuses. Especially during the quarantines, many felt the timing was altogether wrong since the Blendeds could use this information to further attack TC. Their suggestion was to wait until everything calmed down, and then it would be the right time. I disagreed, and time has proven my decision to be correct. The "right time" never came. Yes, when the pressure was on from the Blendeds, TC began to act respectfully towards others in the GLA, but soon that positive trend reversed itself. Today, nearly all those dear brothers have left the work in the GLA. I hope one day that the abusive and exclusive ways supposedly passed down from Barber to Nee to Lee to Chu and the Blendeds and so many others will one day come to an end. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!