[Indiana]

Although Brother Lee spoke of generality and acceptance, such as not bothering anyone who abides by the New Testament constitution, there are too many examples that he himself did not do so.

So, if we are interested in truth and not mere rhetoric, we have to examine history This is so that we may learn. In the following excerpt from Deviating from the Path, some representative examples of deviation are used - and there are far more than these.

I wanted to present this section because it does appear in a book, although a part of it I have shared already on this forum.

Let us consider honestly if Brother Lee was on a path of deviation or not.


Appendix 3

For two years before the new way began in the churches, Brother Lee did not attend meetings of the church in Anaheim. He was “disappointed with the church”. He spoke of going to another locality to build up that church, not Anaheim, as a model for others to follow. He considered Seattle and other places. Yet, he was in the church in Anaheim and not attending meetings. During that time away, at any rate, he considered a new way for the churches to take. He was nearly eighty years old and concerned for his ministry and the future.

In October of 1984 a new way was taken, with strong emphasis on his ministry and on himself as the unique leader in the recovery. It is that strong emphasis that became such a problem and cause for consideration that the church ground had changed, as serious local needs were ignored, while LSM prospered in gaining their objectives in localities.

The entity called Living Stream Ministry still looms large today. It surely is not limited to what Brother Lee stated were its limitations in Elders’ Training Book 9. He said it was “a little business office to serve my ministry for two things: to publish the messages in book form and to distribute these messages in both video and audio tapes. That is all the ministry office should do and nothing else.” He continued with a misleading word: “I did not have much time to check on everything related to the office in the past, but the ministry office has always had this specific function and no other function” (p. 61, ET Book 9). He had both the time and the knowledge of what his “little office” was doing in different localities and regions, because of contacts he had with such brothers as Bill Mallon and John So in the Southeast and in Europe, but he chose to ignore their pleas for his help in the midst of serious problems they were having with LSM. He also had the opportunity to understand more about what was happening in other localities had he been willing to listen. LSM was on the move into various localities according to plan.

Examples of Ignoring Local Needs

1. Ignoring LSM Sister’s Report (see appendix 1, third point)

As a sister working in the office of the Living Stream Ministry, a former elder’s wife wrote an eleven-page letter to Brother Lee expressing her concerns of the ill-treatment of the saints in different places at the hands of the LSM. She and her husband, in fact, went to Brother Lee to read him the letter, and as she began to read Brother Lee cut her off soon after she started, and he took over and dominated the time, sharing his own burden about “the Lord’s move.” The same thing took place in a subsequent visit when Brother Lee stopped her before she could get through half a page. He, then, dominated the remainder of the time with his own burden concerning the progress of “the Lord’s move” on the earth, not showing interest in her fellowship. The sister had become quite disillusioned about the church and now about Brother Lee, and withdrew herself from the church and LSM permanently.

It was not that Brother Lee didn’t know what his representatives were doing in many places. He either knew or chose not to know. He knew that the function of his “little office” had grown enormously and that LSM was way beyond its bounds in their activities and disturbances in the churches in order to satisfy their objectives, and his. LSM had become far more than a publisher and distributor of books and tapes.

2. Ignoring the needs of Churches in Europe

Attempts at fellowship with Brother Lee failed in Europe as Brother Lee ignored letters and word from the brothers there, while advising them “not to make an issue” of the chaos caused by LSM in the churches in England and Germany. Bill Kirkham wrote a letter to Brother Lee and told John So, “I’m enclosing a copy of the letter which I have just sent to Brother Lee. These matters have been troubling me so much that I felt I had no alternative but to write to our brother. I hope that Brother Lee may have time to write to help clear up this situation. I strongly pray that nothing will come between the churches in Europe to cause damage to the Lord’s testimony. Your brother in Christ, Bill Kirkham”.

Bill Kirkham wrote five pages to Brother Lee, sharing about 1) the trouble caused by the brother who was set up as the head of the LSM operation in England. 2) the lies spread against John So, against the church in Stuttgart, and about the German publishers. 3) the fact that “In all the years of the Lord’s recovery in Europe, we have never had any shadow of division between here and Germany, but now we are hearing things that will cause such a division.”

In Brother Lee’s response to such a grave letter, he said, “it would be wise and profitable not to make an issue of anything”, then mentioned the good news that a little branch office was to be set up in London, for the distribution of both the video and audio tapes in the UK.

As John So shares, “What would you think if you received such a letter? In the meantime, the whole church in Blackpool was destroyed to the ground. Destroyed to the ground! [reference to trouble that had been caused by LSM]. One sister wept continuously for eight to nine months. Nothing was done to rectify any situation and meanwhile they were still boasting about continuing at that time for the furtherance of the Lord’s move. And am I rebelling? Conspiring? Are we rebelling in Stuttgart? Only the Lord knows who is really conspiring.”


3. Ignoring the issues raised by the churches in the Southeast

Bill Mallon articulated the concerns in the Southeast in a letter to Brother Lee a month before he sent his 8-page letter to Brother Lee. Those concerns were:

1) The discrediting attitudes by those returning from Taipei, undermining my ability to serve, in spite of my demonstrating a positive turn for the new way of practice for all the churches to follow 2) The fabrications and rumors about my exercising control, holding on to a territory 3) While I never insisted or resisted fellowship, fellowship was nevertheless circumvented from me about crucial matters in the Southeast, the area where I served for 12 years 4) The false allegations that the migrations from Atlanta to Nashville, Knoxville, Greensboro, and Charlotte were instigated independently without fellowship with Witness Lee and other churches 5) The insistence of [Philip Lee’s] will upon others through intimidation 6) the promotion of blind accountability to the Taipei training and the office without due consideration for the Lord, the truth, and the saints in the local churches.

An initial letter was also written by Bill in June of the same year, 1987, and he had fellowship with Brother Lee by phone during this 6-month period of time, in which he wrote three letters to Brother Lee, the third one being written in December. Since Brother Lee did not show interest in the Southeast problems, and took no action, Bill wrote this third letter, of eight pages. The following are quotes from Bill Mallon from that letter to Brother Lee concerning the problems the churches in the Southeast encountered with LSM (p. 20):

“I can understand why you [Brother Lee] urged me several times to "forget," but this letter should indicate that the problem is not trivial, but seriously reaching to an acute condition and a critical stage.”

“The tendency is to procrastinate, hoping the problem will go away; or, to ignore it, pretending it does not exist. But this is not responsible action.”

“As someone said, ‘If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.’ In order to confront the problem and accept my responsibility, I wrote you a letter, and I cannot now forget about it and leave it alone until it is resolved. If our body is sick, we do not forget about it, but seek a diagnosis and a treatment.”

“I appreciate the word that I should forget the circumstances and stand with the basic. This is a good word. But the circumstantial things were mentioned so as to point out to you the symptoms of a very serious root. I wrote the letter to give out signals that are symptomatic of a very fundamental problem.”

Bill’s fellowship of concern about the Southeast churches was not only ignored by Brother Lee; it was unjustifiably condemned by him in his book, Fermentation.

4. Ignoring problems experienced by the churches in Southern California

When the elders in Southern California came together and opened to one another about the real situation in their churches, Brother Lee showed little interest that serious problems were taking a toll on the members and on the elders. He did show much concern though for the progress of LSM and fully expected elders to submit to objectives, without showing regard for their feeling.

John Ingalls –

On the evening of Monday, December 14, 1987, Brother Lee called a meeting of the elders of Southern California. There was a fair number there representing most of the churches in the area. After prayer, Brother Lee opened the fellowship by giving a long word concerning the new way and its great success in Taiwan. Then he asked for fellowship from the brothers, desiring especially to know how successful the new way had been in their locality.

Dick Taylor, an elder in Long Beach, started with a lively, full-of enjoyment kind of testimony, such as Dick is well-known for, thanking the Lord for the door-knocking and the Gospel preaching in Long Beach, but ending with an honest word about the depression and the discouragement among some of the saints. This was unusual for Dick but he was telling it like it was. Other brothers followed who also spoke very honestly about dissensions concerning the new way and discouragement among the saints in their localities, for which they were very concerned. In some places divisions had arisen over the new way. John Smith, an elder in San Diego, ended the time of sharing with an honest account of his concerns for the saints in his church, mentioning how he feared that with the overemphasis on methods, numbers, and increase the saints would become activity-centered instead of Christ-centered.

What was extraordinary was the elders speaking up in such an honest and forthright way, knowing that such reports were not what Brother Lee liked or wanted to hear. We were not accustomed to doing this due partly to a sense of intimidation. To my knowledge this was the first time that had been done. This was encouraging. But Brother Lee was visibly bothered, and later reacted strongly to the brothers’ speaking, saying of one brother’s sharing (John Smith’s) that it was like pouring iced water on him.

We were not the only ones who went to Brother Lee with our concerns during these days. We heard that Dan Towle, individually, and Frank Scavo together with Dick Taylor also went to see Brother Lee to express to him their concerns about the present situation. (p. 103)

Witness Lee commented on the same meeting:

Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.” (p. 59, FPR).

This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls.

Contrary to official assertions, John Ingalls had both legitimate and genuine concerns that he presented to other brothers for fellowship. If the concerns did not exist in the recovery, there would have been no need for John to make special contact with the brothers. What was interpreted as a “poisoning” was simply the elders responding to concerns for the saints, as morale began to sink and divisions began to develop. John Ingalls was not responsible for this. Throughout the recovery, brothers shared many of the same concerns. John Ingalls was faithful to address those concerns. Let the responsibility for the troubles in Rosemead, San Diego, and so forth lie with its source in Anaheim and in Irving, with the tandem leadership of W. Lee and son, Philip, and LSM.


Appendix 4

In the following crucial fellowship with the elders, Witness Lee had the opportunity to repent and bring brothers together in Christ and take care of the oneness that was damaged by LSM in the recovery. Bill Mallon was already stumbled by LSM in the Southeast, and John So was well on his way down in Europe. But Brother Lee chose not to admit in a clear way to any wrong-doing on the part of LSM. As the head of LSM he should have taken responsibility for their divisive activities among the churches and for the sins of the manager in the office. Instead, he covered these sins, as if they didn’t exist. In such a pivotal elders’ meeting, that could have recovered the oneness through his repentance, Brother Lee did not humble himself and instead went on to speak of the “rumors and lies” spread by others. This sealed up the sin that festers in the Body to this day.


Pivotal Elders’ Training Fellowship
During the Summer Training in Anaheim in July 1988
John Ingalls
In his second message of the elders’ meetings, Brother Lee spoke concerning our going on. After all our sessions and hours of fellowship with Brother Lee, we had hoped that he would take steps to clear up a number of things publicly....