Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Turmoil and Concerns of the late 1980s > John Ingall's Quarantine

Thread: John Ingall's Quarantine Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Random Question
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
06-16-2013 04:22 PM
Terry
Elders Book #8

Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnson View Post
In the late 80's with the publishing of his elders meeting sermons Lee made a political move: he became a demagogue appealing directly to members for their loyalty.
Especially with training book #8, there's speaking that is contradicting. Especially in chapter 10 section 4.
1. RECOGNIZING, RESPECTING, AND REGARDING A CHURCH EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT ACCEPT THE PRESENT NEW WAY
2. NOT FORMING PARTIES
08-29-2008 07:52 PM
Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post

The matter of deputy authority, really only defines the one at the top, who in turn "deputizes" others. This is not some teaching in a book, but how it works in practice. Those who "voice concerns" then are "de-deputized" and have their "badges revoked" as was the case of JI and TC.
Ohio, thanks for your input. Based on what you're saying, being a deputy authority is not a constant based on Christ. Rather being a deputy authority is a variable and subject to change at any given moment.
My understanding of the teaching was based on a brother's capacity and not on which ministry he's plugged into.
Since last weekend I had been considering the teaching of deputy & spirtual authority.
As I see the Old Testament type of a deputy authority as Kings while the Old Testament type of spiritual authority are prophets.
The New Testament reality is accomplished through Christ. If that is so, wouldn't all brothers and sisters be deputy authorities?

In 2 Corinthians 10:8 and 13:10 are references of authority being for building up and not for overthrowing. Nor do these verses reference who the authority is except the word our in 2 Corinthians 10:8.

Perhaps someone can speak a word to provide more light on the subject of authority?

Terry
08-29-2008 07:37 PM
blessD I remember during the time of inception of 'home meetings' some in Anaheim began to get close - close enough to really talk about what was going on in their homes and lives. I was told John began to regularly visit the same in their homes and help them. How impressed I was that he was so kind to do this! I never forgot it. So with this picture in my mind, I would be doubtful if someone told me he was ambitious.
08-29-2008 04:13 PM
djohnson Ohio oic that's the big thing huh? I thought people could figure it out for themselves but apparently you need a disclaimer footnote. OK how's this: from what I have heard and read behind the scenes the LCS is a cesspool of politics and I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg however this does not mean that every single thing that happens behind the scenes is a cesspool of politics.
08-29-2008 03:55 PM
Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnson View Post
Ohio when you bold something to make a point you should bold the whole statement: behind the scenes the LCS is a cesspool of politics..
I quoted the whole thing, why do I have to bold the whole thing?!?

How can you make comments like that about the "Local Church System" which you have no direct experience with, by your own admission.

The books you quoted above have to do with certain leaders at LSM, which is a far cry from condemning each and every LC in the "LCS" which has a "cesspool of politics behind the scenes."
08-29-2008 11:14 AM
djohnson Ohio when you bold something to make a point you should bold the whole statement: behind the scenes the LCS is a cesspool of politics. As many rank and file former LCS members have noted on this and the other forum they had no idea how political the situation was in the LCS among the coworkers and elders. Hope's testimony, Ingalls book, Mallon letters, Chu's treatment of fellow workers, the Rosemead scenario, etc. all give us quite a view of what went on behind the scenes and I suspect it's the tip of the iceberg. Thankfully the internet is a vehicle that the LCS can't control so their behind the scenes antics can be viewed by all.

Further I think you should reread the book of Titus so you understand the context before "expounding" and misapplying it.
08-29-2008 04:22 AM
Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
Ohio, according to the teaching of deputy authority John would be considered to be a deputy authority. What about those insubordination to John and his fellow elders? Wouldn't they be the rebellious ones? For they were opposing the deputy authority? Question for consideration, what is the basis for rebellion?
John was an elder, so his role had rapidly deteriorating authority in the mid to late 80's, which is his standing during those infamous Anaheim meetings.

The matter of deputy authority, really only defines the one at the top, who in turn "deputizes" others. This is not some teaching in a book, but how it works in practice. Those who "voice concerns" then are "de-deputized" and have their "badges revoked" as was the case of JI and TC.
08-29-2008 04:13 AM
Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnson View Post
As FPO mentioned Ingalls also addressed the issue of the behavior of Lee's son towards women in his church. Obviously that was a huge political misjudgment. If nothing else behind the scenes the LCS is a cesspool of politics.
For an outsider hearing stories from a few friends, this last statement is pretty pathetic.

When Paul the apostle heard generalizations such as this, he wrote to Titus, "their mouths must be stopped," for making sweeping judgments like, "all Cretans are liars, evil beasts."

With what judgments you judge, you will be judged.
08-28-2008 11:19 PM
Terry
Rebellion

I was looking through a life study to see what WL's teaching on deputy authority might be in the Life Studies of 1 & 2 Samuel. Here's an interesting quote from Message 14:

"When Ahimelech's supplying of David was reported to Saul, he killed Ahimelech and his family. This shows that Saul was utterly rebellious toward God. He had no subordination to God, nor did he take God as his King and Head. He was constituted with rebellion, which equals the worship of idols. Every case of rebellion is a matter of presumption, a matter of daring to do things without God."

Terry
08-28-2008 01:19 PM
djohnson Terry you bring up an interesting point: the supplanting of the local elders by Lee, his son and their extra local puppets. In the late 80's with the publishing of his elders meeting sermons Lee made a political move: he became a demagogue appealing directly to members for their loyalty.
08-28-2008 01:01 PM
Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
John Ingall's had a number of "problems." One was that he was a shepherd, placing people before programs. That's bad. Next, he had a conscience that bothered him about things happening around him. Another bad. He also should have trusted "the ministry," instead of reading the Bible directly. Doubly bad. He also was a well respected brother, who had ministered to many. He began to place truths as answers to places where the saints only had questions. People began to listen to him. Bad, bad, triple bad.

He needed to be silenced. That is what quarantine is all about. Silencing critiques. It must also be coupled with slanders or else it will not be effective. Call him "ambitious." That sounds pretty bad. Call him "rebellious." Throw in some Bible stories about Ham and Korah. That will spook the saints for sure.
Ohio, according to the teaching of deputy authority John would be considered to be a deputy authority. What about those insubordination to John and his fellow elders? Wouldn't they be the rebellious ones? For they were opposing the deputy authority? Question for consideration, what is the basis for rebellion?

Please follow Samuel's word to Saul in 1 Samuel.

I Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as inequity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath rejected thee from being king.

Terry
08-28-2008 12:58 PM
djohnson Good one Terry!
08-28-2008 12:52 PM
Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnson View Post
If nothing else behind the scenes the LCS is a cesspool of politics.
djohnson, there's no politics in the churchlife.

Terry
08-28-2008 09:13 AM
djohnson As FPO mentioned Ingalls also addressed the issue of the behavior of Lee's son towards women in his church. Obviously that was a huge political misjudgment. If nothing else behind the scenes the LCS is a cesspool of politics.

BTW, I think this is something that confuses people i.e. the platform performance of Lee and his puppets is one thing. That's the public persona the general populace gets to see. If this is all one knows of Lee then overall it might seem at least acceptable. To get a looksie at the real situation take a peek behind the curtain. But don't look too long you might get nauseated.

I think it was Bob Dylan who said: "The real show is what goes on backstage."
08-28-2008 05:19 AM
Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
What was John Ingall's quarantine really? Product of ambition or product based on the ministry? Is there a track record of ambition? Not that I'm aware of.

My suggestion is it was John's indifference towards the office and Living Stream Ministry that spelled out q-u-a-r-a-n-t-i-n-e.
John Ingall's had a number of "problems." One was that he was a shepherd, placing people before programs. That's bad. Next, he had a conscience that bothered him about things happening around him. Another bad. He also should have trusted "the ministry," instead of reading the Bible directly. Doubly bad. He also was a well respected brother, who had ministered to many. He began to place truths as answers to places where the saints only had questions. People began to listen to him. Bad, bad, triple bad.

He needed to be silenced. That is what quarantine is all about. Silencing critiques. It must also be coupled with slanders or else it will not be effective. Call him "ambitious." That sounds pretty bad. Call him "rebellious." Throw in some Bible stories about Ham and Korah. That will spook the saints for sure.
08-22-2008 10:43 PM
finallyprettyokay Terry:

You ask good questions.

The central issue with both Max and John was Phillip Lee, his unrepentant immorality, and his father's refusal to keep the LSM clean of such sin.

Being 'ambitious' is the smoke screen the LC always throws out to defame a person's character, his walk before the Lord and honesty. It's a cheap accusation that has no real meaning. I saw that label used against brothers who really just wanted to serve the Lord and His people. If for some reason that brother was not liked by the leadership, he was labeled ambitious. This seldom happened to sisters, because there was no real 'advancement' for them, anyway. Unless they married into the upper echelon.

The Local Church is the ONLY group, Christian or not, that I have ever seen punish someone who wants to work, wants to contribute.

John and Max were both ousted because WL allowed his son to remain in charge at LSM while he was living a life of complete immorality, and even bringing it right into the LSM office.

No way to paint this pretty.

finallyprettyokay
08-22-2008 08:56 PM
Terry
John Ingall's Quarantine

What was John Ingall's quarantine really?
Product of ambition or product based on the ministry?
Growing up in Southern California, I saw John Ingalls at many conferences. I have a face to go to a name. Though the reported reasons for his quarantine was a possibility, it was improbable. I don't know John Ingalls. All I know is my conscience is convicted John Ingalls was not ambitious. All one needs to do is study John's history.
Is there a track record of ambition? Not that I'm aware of.
Prior to the local church being raised in LA (circa 1962), John Ingalls was at Westmoreland Chapel and he was part of the fellowship that invited Witness Lee.
From 1962-1989 John Ingalls was part of the fellowship of local churches. Allegedly John's association with this fellowship ended because he was ambition to be the leader. Hope, {if you're reading} wasn't this the case with Max? No, more likely John's fellowship ended because of his concern about the ministry.
Post 1989-If John Ingalls was so ambitious where's the fruit of his ministry?
All I know is
he was one of many brothers who contributed the Rivers publication.
He's a senior brother at Westminster Assembly.
Sometimes invited to speak in various places.
What ministry he does have is just to minister Christ

This is taken from a post of Matt's from the One Accord letter of 1986.

"We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches"

As I read Speaking the Truth in Love, John was indifferent towards the ministry office and the ministry. He wasn't the only one. Brothers that were coincidentally indifferent or expressed their concerns, are probably all out of the recovery.
My suggestion is it was John's indifference towards the office and Living Stream Ministry that spelled out q-u-a-r-a-n-t-i-n-e.
On this day in 2008, I speculate how many current elders in the local churches ever knew John Ingalls personally?
Or are they taking someone else's word he's a quarantined brother and not to be contacted?

Terry

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:14 AM.


3.8.9