Is it Possible to Have Genuine Fellowship with an Absolute Brother?

[HERn]

The reason I ask is that my brother in law who is absolute for LSM as an elder is coming to visit. I believe he is deceived because of his “ands”. Christ and the church, the Bible and LSM publications, Christ and the seven-fold intensified spirit, the apostle Paul and Witness Lee. Should I confront him about his being deceived or just find things we can agree about?

[Covert]

If he is an elder, he is definitely a top level goon of witness lee that wont budge a bit when it comes to anyone criticizing of lees ministry. Even if you have the biblical support for your side of view and you just pull out verse after verse, it will just end up in vain of someone like an Elder of the lords recovery. Its hard enough trying to convince an ordinary member but an elder........

I suggest simply trying to get a long and avoid deprogramming him (if you value the relationship and communication between you and your brother in law). I am not saying its impossible but I feel all the blockades of witness lee teaching that basically shuts off any dissenters or criticisms that aims to expose his ministry. I feel at best you can do what you can and God is going to have to soften his heart to realize the truth. God will have to make that man realize that a false doctrine/ministry that relies on deceiving gullible college kids to preserve its lies, is in fact not the truth and one of the many fringe sects/cults that survives on harvesting lost sheep that don't know any better.

[OBW]

Tough call. Might be best to avoid any kind of typical LC fellowship. If there is to be a prayer at a meal, don't just defer to having the "elder" in the room do it. If topics that are peculiarly LC come along, be disinterested. The LC was the elephant in the room when we were with my family from 1987 until 2005/2006. It just wasn't mentioned. Then we had a significant discussion with them at a birthday dinner in early 2006 that put the whole Philip Lee / LSM issue in front of them. But after that it returned to silence. Then when my mother died in late 2007, the topic sort of came up when we privately expressed our displeasure at the inappropriate take-over of the funeral (not held at the meeting hall) by the popcorn testimonies, then the calling of songs at the gravesite afterwards. But during the time the family was together then I asked a question about a particularly popular LC passage by giving it its full context which refuses the thrust Lee pushed on it for which there never was any answer or attempt to "get back with me" after looking at it. Then a year or so later, after being asked (presumptively) whether I agreed with "Bro Lee" concerning some particular issue or point of teaching, I thought about it for a moment, and answered bluntly and truthfully "No, I do not agree." It never came back up.

I do not suggest that you try to be like me, or look for opportunities to point out their errors, or to simply tell them to drop it. But also don't just allow them to overrun your space. They are coming to visit you and should be civil and accomodating to you. You are not going to their house and insisting that they act differently for you. But at the same time, if you start getting those "elder groans" if you have a more typical prayer before a meal or anything else like that, kindly request that he/they cease from that. If there is to be any real fellowship, it needs to be on common ground, not the uncommon ground of the church.

Be positive toward any direct verse references/quotes, but don't just suffer under Leeisms surrounding them. That doesn't mean be antagonistic. If you are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually up to it, you could challenge a Leeism, but it could just be an opportunity for them to take control. Maybe you should early on request that all "fellowship" revolve around the Word, and not interpretations or meanings. After all, it was written that we should let the word of Christ dwell in us richly. Not "let the interpretations of the Word by (whoever) dwell in you richly." Stick to what is common. Christ is the unifying bond. All the "ands" divide — or at least provide opportunity for division.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by HERn

The reason I ask is that my brother in law who is absolute for LSM as an elder is coming to visit. I believe he is deceived because of his “ands”. Christ and the church, the Bible and LSM publications, Christ and the seven-fold intensified spirit, the apostle Paul and Witness Lee. Should I confront him about his being deceived or just find things we can agree about?

It’s possible that your BnL is contemplating the same question about you! Pray for an opening to speak. Even the smallest truth will not return void. Confronting deception is confronting the powers of darkness. Bind the darkness. Use the Word. Speak in love. Love him. Then trust and obey the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Piece a’ cake, huh? And...Covert is not wrong.

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

It’s possible that your BnL is contemplating the same question about you! Pray for an opening to speak. Even the smallest truth will not return void. Confronting deception is confronting the powers of darkness. Bind the darkness. Use the Word. Speak in love. Love him. Then trust and obey the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Piece a’ cake, huh? And...Covert is not wrong.

Nell

I would 2nd what Nell said here - be simple in the Lord, and He will direct you what to say . . . or what not to say. In Him is freedom. Good observations by Mike & Covert too.

[UntoHim]

HERn,

I think it may help to remember just exactly what your brother in law is absolute for. We all know that when a Local Churcher says that one is "absolute", they mean absolute for the person and work of Witness Lee. Of course it is couched in much more spiritual and palatable terms..."absolute for Christ and the church" and "absolute for the ministry".

My advise, for what it's worth, would be to be absolute for the Gospel. Be absolute for God's Word. Be absolute for the Truth as given to us in the Word and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Let me assure you that if you do this your brother in law, and anyone else listening, will see the contrast. There will be a sharp contrast - an absoluteness for a man-made religion and all of it's proprietary accoutrements, versus an absoluteness for the genuine thing. It will literally be Christ versus religion. The Word of God versus the words of man. Light versus darkness.

Try to keep in mind that is NOT you versus him. It is NOT the Local Church versus Christianity. He may very well try to put your interactions within this realm. Try to resist this. Have some human compassion. Let the Lord Jesus be your example. When he was confronted by those entrapped within false religion he did not simply condemn them, but he had compassion. Many times he simply confronted them with a contrast - the words of men contrasted with the Word of God.
-

[aron]

One could always talk about God's economy... for example, How could Paul tell Timothy to stay in Ephesus to teach intensification, if the book of Revelation hadn't yet been written? If Paul in the NT hadn't clearly presented sevenfold intensification as part of God's economy, then how could he possibly ask Timothy to do so? I'd be interested to know what the answer is.

Then, if he can't explain that, and instead hems and haws, then one could ask him, How did WL teach such obviously flawed theology for so long, to so many otherwise intelligent people, and no one called it out?

[HERn]

Thanks very much everyone for your comments and prayer! We've had two nights and two days with my brother in law and the social interaction (fellowship) has been normal and fun. My wife and I led the prayers at meals and they avoided talk of LSM ministry and LC doctrine. We did talk about the Lord and the way our families have been blessed and cared for. There are a couple of things that might be good to talk about such as his previous (6 years ago) attempt to divide my wife and I when I was discussing leaving the LC, and another LC family issue. I've been praying that the evil one would be bound and that the Lord would allow them to see what He wants them to see. Praying that their hearts would be soft and open to the truth.

[UntoHim]

Thanks for the encouraging report! I would advise you to stay away from pressing your brother-in-law too much. Of course if he brings the subject up, I would not hesitate to let him know how much you and your wife were hurt by his attempt to divide you over Witness Lee and his ministry.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My advise, for what it's worth, would be to be absolute for the Gospel. Be absolute for God's Word. Be absolute for the Truth as given to us in the Word and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Let me assure you that if you do this your brother in law, and anyone else listening, will see the contrast. There will be a sharp contrast - an absoluteness for a man-made religion and all of it's proprietary accoutrements, versus an absoluteness for the genuine thing. It will literally be Christ versus religion. The Word of God versus the words of man. Light versus darkness.

-

[NaturalLog]

Originally Posted by Covert

If he is an elder, he is definitely a top level goon of witness lee that wont budge a bit when it comes to anyone criticizing of lees ministry.

My first post here.

I think this is an unfair mischaracterization of the elders in the LCs. Certainly not all are "top level" - some elders may be have more contact with the co-workers but that widely depends on the locality and the then present focus of the "work".

From my experience in the LCs, you will find a range of opinion on LSM/WLee from warm to zealously hot. (Certainly, it is most likely impossible to find elders who are cold).

We all expect the elders to be at their best all the time; but they are also fallen human beings. So I would say elders who are known to have a gentle and temperamental disposition, you can freely fellowship with almost anything. Otherwise..., be careful and exercise some discernment.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for the encouraging report! I would advise you to stay away from pressing your brother-in-law too much. Of course if he brings the subject up, I would not hesitate to let him know how much you and your wife were hurt by his attempt to divide you over Witness Lee and his ministry.


-

Yes, good advice! There is plenty of time for the Holy Spirit to work over the next several months.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by NaturalLog

My first post here.

I think this is an unfair mischaracterization of the elders in the LCs. Certainly not all are "top level" - some elders may be have more contact with the co-workers but that widely depends on the locality and the then present focus of the "work".

From my experience in the LCs, you will find a range of opinion on LSM/WLee from warm to zealously hot. (Certainly, it is most likely impossible to find elders who are cold).

We all expect the elders to be at their best all the time; but they are also fallen human beings. So I would say elders who are known to have a gentle and temperamental disposition, you can freely fellowship with almost anything. Otherwise..., be careful and exercise some discernment.

I think the real problem is with LC elders who are absolute for WL and his LSM ministry before or in addition to being absolute for the Lord Jesus Christ.

[NaturalLog]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think the real problem is with LC elders who are absolute for WL and his LSM ministry before or in addition to being absolute for the Lord Jesus Christ.

No doubt that is a problem. There are some who are like that; there are some who are not. My reply was just to offer a balance to the statement "If a brother is an elder in the LCs, then that brother must be a top-level Witness Lee goon".

[Covert]

I meant an elder is a top goon in regards to the relative LC population. The people higher than elders are coworkers. Elders compared to the general LC population are a small percentage and coworkers much more so. So in my eyes I see them as top level goons relative to the LC population as a whole. You can find many ordinary members who is a witness lee goon and will abide by his ministry from word to word even without having elder-ship. I was just trying to say an elder are a small percentage of men in the lords recovery who are appointed elder-ship because they are witness lee goons.

The only thing I can think of elders being remotely close to "cold" or "lukewarm" to witness lee ministry are elders who joined the local churches before witness lee put fourth his agenda to domineer over all churches starting from the Max Rappaport era. I am assuming these old school elders are dead and or replaced by witness lee obsequious sycophants in the modern day. I have a really hard time believing that contemporary candidates for elder-ship will not even be considered for selection by the coworkers without displaying blind loyalty to witness lee ministry. I know the co-workers are afraid of storms so they don't want brothers taking leadership positions who seem to have the slightest concerning amount of hesitation and dissension of witness lee ministry.

I am sure gonna take your words that you meet some elders who are not so extreme to witness lee ministry, but In my experience and many others, elders are elders because of loyalty to witness lee. It is why witness lee replaced all the elders in Detroit in the 1970s and perhaps many other places because he wanted elders "appointed and approved by him" and not elders who he was afraid wont abide by his every word.

Elders= small percentage of brothers in the lords recovery relative to the whole LC population, who are then selected for elder-ship by the coworkers (as goon as it gets) based on their utmost loyalty to witness lee ministry.

This is why I refereed to elders as "top level goons". The term top level goons is not exclusive to leading elders who are very close to co-workers. Just a term to describe a group of men who hold a leadership position that is held relatively few as a whole in this cult, simply because of their demonstration of loyalty towards witness lee.

Apologize if I felt like I repeated my self lots of times, I just wanted to get my point across.

[NaturalLog]

I don't know why you must use the term "goon". If you must then, my response is that that term is unfairly denigrating. I think everyone is trying to arrive closer to "truth", but you are resorting to jr high level name calling.

BTW, there is no swearing in loyalty to WLee/LSM in order to become an elder of an LC. Elders are appointed largely based on their perceived character, functioning in the meetings and faithfulness/steadiness in service. There's much more to the function of eldership besides ministering the word. It's a largely managerial and people oriented position. But of course, to arrive at this perceived level in the LCs you'd have to have demonstrated an ability to speak and teach using the ministry of LSM/WLee; and to do that you'd have to be pretty favorable towards it.

[Covert]

I mean I think goon is quite the nice fit to describe a lot of elders I have seen and most definitely coworkers (100%). In the meantime will this term be of preferred use to you- obsequious sycophant?

But of course, to arrive at this perceived level in the LCs you'd have to have demonstrated an ability to speak and teach using the ministry of LSM/WLee; and to do that you'd have to be pretty favorable towards it"-

(Sugar coated way in saying Obsequious Sycophant).

Oh btw isn't the primary source for selecting someone for eldership is wait for it........ Witness lee numerous books on the path to elder-ship and elder-ship management? Seems to be cycle of witness lee in everything huh............

[NaturalLog]

Originally Posted by Covert

I mean I think goon is quite the nice fit to describe a lot of elders I have seen and most definitely coworkers (100%). In the meantime will this term be of preferred use to you- obsequious sycophant?

ok whatever. my mistake for ever taking you seriously.

[Covert]

Natural Log, its called having an opinion my fellow poster. Welcome to the forums!!!!!!

I really hope we engage in future discussions on here, I am sorry if I am jumping the gun here but are you potentially an evangelical 2.0? Its been a while since we had someone like that on these forums. You might spice things up a bit in here. Dont feel discouraged by other peoples perceptions/opinions. In fact use it as fuel to engage in more dialogue (if you wish). Of course sometimes one wishes not to engage in something for one reason or another. Regardless, I hope you stay and participate in more threads on here.

Welcome to the LC forums, the forum where we (for the most part) have discussions based on topics centering around the practices, teachings, and events/situations of the local churches. I believe I will take the honor in giving you a welcoming and I think we will get along quite well with enough effort .

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

I think the real problem is with LC elders who are absolute for WL and his LSM ministry before or in addition to being absolute for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not just elders, but brothers and sisters who are not in official responsibility functions. Ones who come into the local churches as young adults or those raised in the local churches have very little exposure to non-LSM/LC fellowship.
There's tendency to value "the ministry" higher than "the pure Word".
Yes they can be absolute for this type of fellowship that's all they've ever known. Because of it are unwilling to fellowship anywhere else.
I've known Southern Baptists and Lutherans who were raised in their denominations. That's all they know and are unwilling to fellowship apart from it. Local churches aren't any different from Southern Baptists or Lutherans. Denomination just the same.
A bigger problem is what happens when being absolute for a man's ministry is in conflict what the Word of God says?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by NaturalLog

We all expect the elders to be at their best all the time; but they are also fallen human beings. So I would say elders who are known to have a gentle and temperamental disposition, you can freely fellowship with almost anything. Otherwise..., be careful and exercise some discernment.

My experience with absolute brothers actively going on in their localities any fellowship is relative. There's "an elephant in the room" you just don't venture to. It will only result in sharp words and offenses. Choose your words wisely.

Something I considered for many years. Let's just use the word Responsible brother to capture the term of Co-worker, elder, or deacon. Being fallen, like any brother or sister are not immune from peer pressures, fear of man, etc. No one especially in their function as a responsible brother wants to be labeled as "not being absolute enough". By that point they're more likely have invested a decade or more in the local churches. To be ostracized would affect them socially since a large sphere of their social life is centered in "the church-life". So, I always wondered what do "Responsible brothers" really think? No way could they be "absolute" every waking moment.
Though I haven't posted on it for several years, an uncle of mine served as a responsible brother in several Washington state localities. In his later years in retirement he and my aunt were geographically removed from the local churches. The year prior to his passing, my uncle was not the absolute "Responsible" brother he had been in prior years. Instead there was reminiscing of ones who had left such as John Ingalls. Verbally asking "I wonder what happened to John Ingalls". (This was back in 2013). I was guarded and didn't know quite how to react or respond to the conversation we were having other than to listen.

[NaturalLog]

Originally Posted by Covert

Natural Log, its called having an opinion my fellow poster. Welcome to the forums!!!!!!

Thanks Covert! It's all good. I guess I haven't interacted you enough to know your sense of (half) joking humor? I couldn't tell if you were serious or not.

I've read some of Evangelical's posts, and I don't think I can be his successor. I'm in the LC's, and am pretty happy here actually; but also conflicted about a few things. That's why I'm here, to learn, and when I can offer some balance.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Covert

. . . its called having an opinion my fellow poster.

You are both somewhat correct. And you are both entitled to your opinion. But if that is all that it is, then why keep pushing back at each other?

Seems that even if you don't agree with each other, the correct way to go about things on a discussion forum (and this is a discussion forum, not simply an opinion forum) is to give a reason for your opinion. Just having it is not a basis for further discussion. It is simply something to state and step back.

Having known several that were elders back during my time in the LC (it is more than 33 years since I left there) I can assert that there are some that were chosen before whatever Lee eventually published on the subject. And even so, there was one that I was pretty sure you might call "from Lee" (think "from James"). But not all were. And while none of them were openly rocking the boat during my tenure, they were not all in lock-step behind the latest flow from the West Coast.

And I'm not sure that any in my first location could be called goons, although I might be wrong about one. In the end, one was eventually run off (in another city) for financial (and other) reasons, one got the message and began to toe the line better, and one left after moving with some to another city. Others that came along later in my tenure there I have less insight into.

My point is that just like using the word "cult," or likening anyone to anything even remotely about Hitler (and a few other extreme things), it is counter-productive to throw around terms like "goon," especially when referring to the rank-and-file or even many local elders. Maybe there is more to say generally about the "full-timer" that is sent from/by Anaheim. But even that is not a sure thing. Speak to specifics. Or try to make statements less all-encompassing.

Best to make substantiative points rather than generalities. Possibly even for the group that calls itself the BBs, though they may deserve it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by NaturalLog

I've read some of Evangelical's posts, and I don't think I can be his successor. I'm in the LC's, and am pretty happy here actually; but also conflicted about a few things. That's why I'm here, to learn, and when I can offer some balance.

NaturalLog,

Just so you know..."offering some balance" goes both ways.

We have been "balanced" right out of the Local Church. Further, "balance" is something the LC leadership, and most members, do not receive from anyone, especially former members. They do not receive balance, they only give their version of "balance", which includes having their finger on the scale.

So, we don't get to "offer some balance" to LC members or especially LC leadership. If we try, we are called names like "negative", "rebellious", and "opposers" to name a few.

Most of all, we have learned that before you can "add some balance" you must first BE balanced yourself.

So the question: "Is it Possible to Have Genuine Fellowship with an Absolute Brother?" remains.

Before this topic strays further, please review the original post with me, and be grateful for HERn's good news.

Nell

[NaturalLog]

Originally Posted by Nell

NaturalLog,
So, we don't get to "offer some balance" to LC members or especially LC leadership. If we try, we are called names like "negative", "rebellious", and "opposers" to name a few. LC's idea of balance includes having their finger on the scale.

No doubt. I totally agree with you on this. It's only with much courage and difficulty can one really speak up. My experience is it helps if you've developed some clout within the group. I wish that wasn't so. If I were running things I would go out of the way to invite genuine responses from bros/sis even if things would seem to err on too much opinion. But I don't run much of anything.

Originally Posted by Nell

So the question: "Is it Possible to Have Genuine Fellowship with an Absolute Brother?" remains.

With an "elder", yes. I personally have. I have raised objections and I received surprising responses. I believe they were genuine fellowship.

With an "absolute brother" - that's a really loaded term. But if a person can't see past the end of his/her nose, then, likely probably not.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by NaturalLog

Thanks Covert! It's all good. I guess I haven't interacted you enough to know your sense of (half) joking humor? I couldn't tell if you were serious or not.

I've read some of Evangelical's posts, and I don't think I can be his successor. I'm in the LC's, and am pretty happy here actually; but also conflicted about a few things. That's why I'm here, to learn, and when I can offer some balance.

Welcome, NaturalLog! (a math term.....IIRC, right?)

I understand the desire to offer balance. I did that more when I first started posting on the forum, because accurate representation of the truth matters and is important......plus we had some very, very opposing views being represented. I don't think discussions based on hyperbole or exaggeration do anyone any good. If memory serves I think one of the things I tried to weigh out were claims about not being able to speak anything other than the HWMR in the meetings. I know situations vary locality by locality, but my recollection from decades of meetings was that there was much more nuance than that blanket claim allowed for. So I tried to detail the nuance. And I found help in having to take the time to parse out the nuance, because it forced me to really think about what was or wasn't going on in the LC.

I will admit I am always interested in what people are conflicted about in the LC, partially because there is a general atmosphere of not being able to express true discontent and concern, and actually being able to get my hands dirty sorting out those concerns is refreshing. If you ever get the desire to talk about your concerns or things you've seen/noticed that give you pause, please know you're welcome to post them here.

Many things in the LC have caused lasting damage to people, and for church kids, have completely upended their mental, emotional, social, and spiritual lives as they realize many things they were taught and the many ways they were controlled were wildly unbiblical, and so there may be some tensions present in any discussion here. It's not always easy, but hopefully you can be one of many posters who have had the grace to deal with all us other posters, and get the nuggets of value that can be found among the push/pulling.

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by HERn

The reason I ask is that my brother in law who is absolute for LSM as an elder is coming to visit. I believe he is deceived because of his “ands”. Christ and the church, the Bible and LSM publications, Christ and the seven-fold intensified spirit, the apostle Paul and Witness Lee. Should I confront him about his being deceived or just find things we can agree about?

Like NaturalLog touched a bit on in post #25, I think it ends up coming down to the specific "absolute brother" as well as their specific relationship with whoever they are talking to.

I know AB's who, when with co-workers, would put their head down and say what they knew they needed to say to remain in good standing. And that same AB, when given enough time to trust another person, would admit inconvenient truths about things he saw that he would never ever let a co-worker know about.

I know AB's who you would never guess were anything but AB's, once they got behind closed doors with someone they trusted, would turn around and call the very other AB's he had just mindlessly shouted "Lord Jesus!" and pumped his fists with....."Lee-bots".

Also, I have found that the tone and....for lack of a better word....."naive genuineness" present in questions or discussions makes a difference too. If you present concerns or discuss problems combatively or angrily you may get a different response than if you come scratching your head acting confused at things that just don't match up and you make it seem like you are sure you are missing something......even if you really know you aren't. I say that because I did that one time unintentionally and much to my surprise I got the genuine answer needed that allowed me to start questioning everything.

That example is more of someone still in the LC talking to a higher up about their concern. HERn's question is from a different angle - someone outside the LC speaking about their concerns and experience to someone inside. My comment about the specific brother and the specific relationship still holds. I don't know how to describe this over a textual forum, but the best I can describe it is that sometimes taking a "defeated" tone is a good way to disarm the other person. Not disarm in a manipulative way, but disarm for the purpose of genuine discussion rather than contentious one. By defeated I mean like, "I didn't know what else to do"....."I had read the Bible and I had read the ministry and try as I might I just couldn't square them up and struggled for some time about it". Kind of a guarded dropping of your guard, if you will. Let them in on your emotional struggle so you are just two human beings talking about fumbling your way through life's journey.

Anyway, I say that having almost zero insight into the people involved, so take my feeble input for whatever it's worth.

Trapped

[OBW]

Everyone needs to remember that John Ingalls was once an absolute brother, along with the others that left around the same time. And there is a book published by the ones that we have learned were truly absolute. And most of those were not simply local elders. They mostly had some standing beyond the local level or with the LSM.

[Covert]

Would you categorize John Ingalls as absolute? I mean yes he did abide to witness lee ministry for quite some time but I wouldnt categorize him as absolute. He had a strong threshold to his ministry for many decades but when push came to shove he had to break away along with many other elders who sided with him. Steve Isitt is sort of like John Ingalls in similarity of tolerance and acceptance of lee ministry. I still think Steve wants and thinks he is still in the LC. He just had a burden to not suppress the truth in history. Same thing with John Ingalls, he had a high threshold but enough is enough with the 18 point of concern he had for the local churches, it was clear to me that John Ingalls was not "absolute" for the change in nature of the lords recovery. Even if Philip Lee was not a thing, those 18 points was till disturbing him. Also just John Ingalls, I really dont think he was obstinate/ absolute at all. The lords recovery would really benefit from a man like Ingalls rather than the BB goons who just use fear, manipulation, and authoritative control to get their way.

The epitome of an "absolute" brother are those very same "blended" who sided with Lee when he threw Ingalls, So, Mallon and many others under the bus. They wanted to remain high up in witness lee ministry and now they have it. Today they are his obsequious sycophants and will crush anyone who are genuinely concern and dissent due to the burden of truth that they have.

John Ingalls seems like a man who joined the local churches on a false promise by witness lee. I say false promise I have heard my fair share of testimonies from old school elders who joined in the early days and talked about why they joined, what witness lee initially described what the LC would be, and after some thought, anyone who is not obstinate realized it was nothing at all what he promised. In fact witness lee had no intentions to grow the "LOCAL" churches. He wanted to grow his own ministry, he wanted to grow the witness "LEE" churches and his ministry. The local churches meant nothing to him if they did not bow down to his ministry. In the Steve Isitt thread regarding leaders of the lords recovery in post 219, you clearly see how even senior co workers from Taiwan had this genuine concern of witness lee domineering over the local churches with his ministry. He couldn't deny it to the senior coworkers face because he knew darn well it was the truth but couldn't admit to it possibly cause of shame or admittance of wrong (which witness lee hated doing).

If someone here knows John Ingalls quite well then please feel free to expand on John Ingalls character/mentality towards lee ministry. From my experience, the perpetuation of evil was a breaking point. He was not "absolute" just a man with a threshold that was bound to break due to the severe consequences of living under witness lee ministry.

Question for Terry- Did your uncle mean, "what happened to John Ingalls", as like where did he go and do after being excommunicated from the local churches? Or did your uncle not even know that John was excommunicated due to a turmoil started by Philip Lee crimes? It seems sad man, it must be terrible to be absolutely powerless to help a man like Ingalls who gave so much to the recovery and only ended up being demonized, while the piece of trash Philip Lee gets a nice little burial "loving father and husband", exaltation of Witness lee "Closes" coworker and no accountability of crimes like that of Philip lee.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by HERn

The reason I ask is that my brother in law who is absolute for LSM as an elder is coming to visit. I believe he is deceived because of his “ands”. Christ and the church, the Bible and LSM publications, Christ and the seven-fold intensified spirit, the apostle Paul and Witness Lee. Should I confront him about his being deceived or just find things we can agree about?

Lot's of good responses here. To me the short answer to whether there can be genuine fellowship with an "absolute" brother is yes. Of course, simply stated fellowship can happen between any two born-again people. For you, the challenge would be to just abide in Him as you speak with this brother, and take your leading from Him on how to patiently respond. But the bigger issue is probably how tightly he is clinging to the whole LSM agenda, which can certainly be a big barrier to fellowship.

But we never know how the Lord will use us if we just remain close to Him and his leading. As the song goes (changed slightly from "nothing" to "no one"), "No one, no one, absolutely (as in an absolute brother) no one - no one is too difficult for Thee!"

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Covert

The epitome of an "absolute" brother are those very same "blended" who sided with Lee when he threw Ingalls, So, Mallon and many others under the bus. They wanted to remain high up in witness lee ministry and now they have it. Today they are his obsequious sycophants and will crush anyone who are genuinely concern and dissent due to the burden of truth that they have.

John Ingalls seems like a man who joined the local churches on a false promise by witness lee. I say false promise I have heard my fair share of testimonies from old school elders who joined in the early days and talked about why they joined, what witness lee initially described what the LC would be, and after some thought, anyone who is not obstinate realized it was nothing at all what he promised. In fact witness lee had no intentions to grow the "LOCAL" churches. He wanted to grow his own ministry, he wanted to grow the witness "LEE" churches and his ministry. The local churches meant nothing to him if they did not bow down to his ministry. In the Steve Isitt thread regarding leaders of the lords recovery in post 219, you clearly see how even senior co workers from Taiwan had this genuine concern of witness lee domineering over the local churches with his ministry. He couldn't deny it to the senior coworkers face because he knew darn well it was the truth but couldn't admit to it possibly cause of shame or admittance of wrong (which witness lee hated doing).

If someone here knows John Ingalls quite well then please feel free to expand on John Ingalls character/mentality towards lee ministry. From my experience, the perpetuation of evil was a breaking point. He was not "absolute" just a man with a threshold that was bound to break due to the severe consequences of living under witness lee ministry.

Question for Terry- Did your uncle mean, "what happened to John Ingalls", as like where did he go and do after being excommunicated from the local churches? Or did your uncle not even know that John was excommunicated due to a turmoil started by Philip Lee crimes? It seems sad man, it must be terrible to be absolutely powerless to help a man like Ingalls who gave so much to the recovery and only ended up being demonized, while the piece of trash Philip Lee gets a nice little burial "loving father and husband", exaltation of Witness lee "Closes" coworker and no accountability of crimes like that of Philip lee.

I see the epitome of an absolute brother is one whose Christian fellowship has Witness Lee's ministry as their foundation. There is no Christian fellowship apart from "the ministry". It's not a matter if someone was helped, appreciates or doesn't appreciate Witness Lee's ministry. Brothers like a John Ingalls or a Steve Isitt did appreciate Witness Lee's ministry, but their Christian fellowship was not based on it.

There is something to be said of local churches that parted ways with Living Stream and the pledge of allegiance to Witness Lee. Once a local church ceased LSM affiliation that also caused them to no longer be received as a local church. It's as if LSM affiliation makes a church a bona fide local church. Moses Lake cut off ties in 1986. In mid-1990's I asked a Bellevue elder about Moses Lake. he told me "they're a rebel church". What does that say? Meeting on the ground of locality means nothing and being in communication with LSM means everything.

I had a lunch with John Ingalls in 2010. He spoke favorably of Witness Lee's ministry. As anyone can deduce from reading Speaking the Truth in Love, the direction LSM was taking affected his conscience. He and other brothers present at the lunch agreed as much. I think one has to understand where John Ingalls came from and where he went to before and after. A good decade before meeting Witness Lee, John met Stephen Kaung in 1952. I don't know anything about John's fellowship with Stephen during John's time in the local churches, but post local churches, the fellowship was rekindled. How I phrase John's leaving the local churches, one chapter ended and another chapter began.

Being an absolute brother, while my uncle was in close fellowship in the local churches, I'm quite positive what was released in ITERO's was all he needed to know. He knew of the quarantine/excommunication. Though I see Phillip Lee being a minor role of the turmoil.
We all heard at one time or another John was trying to gain a following as misleading as the statement is, but no one bothering to find out what did happen? That's how I interpreted my uncle's question.
Let's put it in this context, how Donald Trump was demonized by non-conservatives, that's what happened to John Ingalls by the local churches since 1989. Yes, even today it is still going on. If a local church brother has Speaking the Truth in Love on his bookshelf or on a website, he is certain to lose fellowship with any local church.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Terry

Once a local church ceased LSM affiliation that also caused them to no longer be received as a local church. It's as if LSM affiliation makes a church a bona fide local church. Moses Lake cut off ties in 1986. In mid-1990's I asked a Bellevue elder about Moses Lake. he told me "they're a rebel church". What does that say? Meeting on the ground of locality means nothing and being in communication with LSM means everything.

That states it very well, doesn't it!?! No one can be a genuine "local church" unless they are all part of the LSM orbit. I've heard, secondhand, that there's substantial animosity in the LC leadership towards these spinoffs, because they have left the one true orbit to be autonomous and not participate in the exclusivity. What does that say?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That states it very well, doesn't it!?! No one can be a genuine "local church" unless they are all part of the LSM orbit. I've heard, secondhand, that there's substantial animosity in the LC leadership towards these spinoffs, because they have left the one true orbit to be autonomous and not participate in the exclusivity. What does that say?

I'm sure they will embrace those that leave a spinoff back into their orbit. Former leaders/elders, certainly not. What animosity there is towards spinoffs, is magnified against former elders.
I recall an email I had years ago, a former LC member encouraged certain co-workers to go visit Bill Mallon in the hospital (2001-ish) recovering from heart surgery in nearby Buena Park. Not one would visit.
At Francis Ball's memorial service 2007, Max attended. Per eyewitness attendee Co-workers kept their distance (6 feet or more I don't know).

Then you have shepherding words with their narrative:

https://shepherdingwords.com/were-ma...ls-forced-out/