[Nell]

Originally Posted by Davis

Hi all, I'm a longtime lurker and former church kid (I'll try to write an introduction at some point). I've been reading Speaking the Truth in Love and wanted to share some of my questions and thoughts.

First, I want to say that while I am critical of Ingalls, I can't entirely blame him. Being so close to Witness Lee for all those years obviously affected him, so my critiques are mainly aimed at the actions, not the man.

Hi Davis--

When I first read STTIL, I wondered about that too. When I consider who John was as a person, I believe his writing style was totally in character. I heard him speak in person many times. A few times John would come through Texas at the invitation of local saints. I was invited to join the fellowship. John was a true gentleman. He was exceedingly dignified and respectful. Having been put in a position to write STTIL at all was likely very distasteful to him.

I believe Ephesians 5:3 was heavy in his heart as he wrote: 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

From reading this forum, I understand that Philip Lee sexually assaulted women who worked in the LSM office; however, Ingalls never says that explicitly.

John likely wrote STTIL, as he did, on advice of counsel. Openly accusing someone of sexual assault opens the door for civil lawsuits for libel and slander. He didn't personally witness Phillip's behavior but was a 2nd party witness to the complaints of the women who came forward. Accusing the son of a litigious public figure could have opened a can of worms that we can only imagine.

Personally, I think that hiding the reality in vague descriptions protects the perpetrator far more than the victim. Regardless, he must have known the grittier details of the matter, and his lack of action is terrible.

I don't think it was John's intention to hide facts of the matter or protect the perpetrator. Had he exposed Phillip, and if a lawsuit was filed against him, the first thing the Lee's would require is that John publicly name the sister/s who were victimized. John would never expose these sisters without their permission. They might be OK with that, but I know that one of the sisters, her husband and family, moved out of state.

He emphasizes the fact that he never demanded that Philip Lee be removed, but that's exactly what he should have done. Simply accepting Witness Lee's inability to do nothing for months meant that a sexual predator remained in contact with members of the church and in control of the ministry.

We don't know what John actually did in private. We only know what public steps he took.

John was an elder in the Church in Anaheim. I don't know that he was a board member, or some such in the "family business."

I think John did as much as he could morally and legally do. As it was, STTIL pretty much blew the lid off of Phillip's criminal behavior. No one had any doubts that sexual impropriety was what John was talking about.

I've gotten to the point where the church in Anaheim found out about the allegations and it exemplifies why it is a terrible idea to tuck these things under the rug. Hiding it only protected Philip and Witness Lee, who seemed completely fine with letting it go. If they immediately removed Philip and apologized to the church for ever allowing him to serve in that capacity, I think most would respect that, but when people discovered that they kept it secret and kept Philip in his position for months, they were rightfully angry.

But that didn't happen.

When John and Godfred went to Lee and exposed his son's crime, Lee was the one who did the hiding. It was up to Lee to clean up his son's mess. Lee hung the elders in Anaheim, John, out to dry.

It's been awhile since I read the book, but I don't think the situation was as simple as it may seem. Phillip was serving in "the office", not the Church in Anaheim. John couldn't remove Phillip from the Lee family business.

I'll read through the book again to refresh my memory on it, but this is my first thoughts on your post.

Nell