Angel of Light Ministers in the LC

Truth · 08-14-2012, 03:35 PM

I don't think Penn State had a choice. The whole nation now knows. And those who were involved by being silent are now being investigated.

Everything is still hush hush in the LC. Criminal charges need to be pressed before all this can be public and images are torn down.

That is the difference.

Ohio · 08-14-2012, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

Everything is still hush hush in the LC. Criminal charges need to be pressed before all this can be public and images are torn down.

I struggle with Paul's word to Corinth about not going to law (I Cor. 6.1-8) because in the hands of abusive leaders it can become a license for them to continue without outside intervention, especially when the "wisest" brother around, who was considered by many to be their "spiritual father," was the one under discussion.

Truth · 08-14-2012, 07:34 PM

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history. However, the person who caused the problem, WL, has passed away. Also, the last group of people (the current BB) who witnessed some of the horrible things that happened in the LCs will also pass away. It is sad that no one will take responsibility for what happened. Yet the Lord will judge. We are not the judge. He is the judge.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

There is another thread that says "What about the present?" Maybe I should post there. Slowly, the part of WL's ministry where he condemns Christianity will fade away. The LCs will no longer use that part of the ministry. It is just impossible to gain and keep new members with that kind of condemnation. I'm already seeing it right now, even with the "kosher" radio program that LSM produces (yes, I know some of you think it is hypocrisy...still this indicates that there is already a shift). Also we rarely speak of these items in WL's ministry in our meetings anymore (only in big conferences that LSM hosts). Believe it or not, many of the current (younger) LCs are no longer as exclusive as many of you think (at least relatively to their past).

Indiana · 08-14-2012, 08:52 PM

The Claim that it was said the Manager of LSM Should Be Fired

On page 51, FPR, John Ingalls is charged with suggesting that the manager of Living Stream should be fired, as if this was an attack and not a legitimate suggestion. The LSM manager was responsible for immoral behavior and for division in the churches, which Brother Lee was well aware of before he released The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Yet he indicts John Ingalls for suggesting that his son, Philip Lee, should be fired! As was shared earlier, Paul Kerr, a promising younger brother in Anaheim during the turmoil, wrote: “In the real business world, where I operate, Philip Lee would have been fired, legally charged by the abused plaintiff, forced to settle for millions of dollars and he and the LSM would have been reported to the California labor board”.

Brothers like John Ingalls and Paul Kerr should be commended for their integrity when there was none in the political handling of Philip Lee by others during the late eighties turmoil.

Ohio · 08-15-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history. However, the person who caused the problem, WL, has passed away. Also, the last group of people (the current BB) who witnessed some of the horrible things that happened in the LCs will also pass away. It is sad that no one will take responsibility for what happened. Yet the Lord will judge. We are not the judge. He is the judge.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

There is another thread that says "What about the present?" Maybe I should post there. Slowly, the part of WL's ministry where he condemns Christianity will fade away. The LCs will no longer use that part of the ministry. It is just impossible to gain and keep new members with that kind of condemnation. I'm already seeing it right now, even with the "kosher" radio program that LSM produces (yes, I know some of you think it is hypocrisy...still this indicates that there is already a shift). Also we rarely speak of these items in WL's ministry in our meetings anymore (only in big conferences that LSM hosts). Believe it or not, many of the current (younger) LCs are no longer as exclusive as many of you think (at least relatively to their past).

Thanks Truth, I'm not sure if anyone has yet to express this view of the Recovery.

Looking back on our history, it just seems impossible to separate exclusivism from hypocrisy. Once the unending claims were made that the Recovery was God's Move on Earth, that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age, and that the rest of the body of Christ was hopelessly and pitifully degraded, then the entire leadership was forced to play the hypocrite to maintain some false image to the rank and file.

If today's generation has dropped those exclusive claims, then they can be liberated from the many entanglements of the current leadership, including lawsuits and quarantines, and that's good news! It's so much better just to be who you are in Christ, and not be forced to maintain some old pretension.

Truth · 08-15-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If today's generation has dropped those exclusive claims, then they can be liberated from the many entanglements of the current leadership, including lawsuits and quarantines, and that's good news! It's so much better just to be who you are in Christ, and not be forced to maintain some old pretension.

This is exactly what I'm hoping...that the next generation will have a new start. I don't sense that the younger are judgmental at all. And many who are deeply involved with the LCs, though they don't criticize Witness Lee's condemning part of his ministry, don't really emphasize either, if at all. They seem to just ignore that part. If this trend continue, it is a positive thing, even if the LCs still only use WL's ministry (at least it is the good part of his ministry).

OBW · 08-15-2012, 03:15 PM

If the LRC drops its exclusivity, what is left? The only things that are not mired in exclusivism are the common faith.

The ground separates. It is the core of the exclusiveness of the LRC. It is heralded as the means by which all can be one. Yet it stands as the means by which they become, as Ohio called it, the ministry of condemnation. And not condemnation of sin, but of churches and Christians. This is just another in a long line of remnant theology sects. And rather than somehow being in the center of anything, they become the most marginal.

The special lexicon isolates. It creates a false elevation of self-worth. How does claiming to know about the so-called sevenfold intensified Spirit give you an upper hand on anything. Either the Spirit is sevenfold and intensified or He is not. Doesn't really matter if you know it — or think you know it. Making declarations about God, Christ, the Spirit, and the church in a manner that involves multiples of modifiers does not change the reality of anything. If it is strictly for the purpose of worship, how is this different from trying to engineer a bigger and better sacrifice (something that is secondary to obedience)?

Nee's origins were a combination of Brethren teachings and inner-life theology. The Brethren may have brought about a more focused view of the end times, but they were also, in part, another exclusivist group. And there are many inner-life ministries that have similar lop-sided views of spirituality. Views that replace practical obedience with lofty-sounding faux spirituality. I do not simply say that they entirely dismiss practical righteousness and obedience, but they do tend to downplay it.

No matter how much they read from the gospels, the strongest portions of their theology is Paul. And it isn't even the "whole Paul." It is just the lofty declarations about "life," crucifixion, the church, etc., and not the practical issues that were being addressed when Paul said those things.

What is left to gather around?

Now I do not suggest that they ignore the fact that they have gathered together for years and just disband. But what is left will not be the thing that has the peculiar marks of Nee and/or Lee on it. Surely it will be different from other Evangelical groups. But so are those other Evangelical groups in some ways different from each other.

So maybe they can actually gather around Christ like so many other groups do. Groups that their leaders have declared don't gather around Christ, but something else. Say what you want about differences in doctrine. The reason that some are with certain groups may be to avoid doctrinal controversy. But the gathering is not about the doctrine, but Christ. They sing to and about Christ, not the doctrinal differences. They declare Christ, not doctrines. They participate in the Lord's table, communion, the eucharist, or whatever you want to call it, not in the doctrine. Just like the LRC, they practice in certain ways that they believe to be reasonably sound, or that are relevant, meaningful, and not contrary to their understanding.

What more can you want? Take away the rotten core of leadership and the exclusivist mentality, and the LRC is no more or less different from any other group than those groups are of each other.

The problem is in separating the group from the rotten core of leadership and exclusivist mentality.

Ohio · 08-15-2012, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

This is exactly what I'm hoping...that the next generation will have a new start. I don't sense that the younger are judgmental at all. And many who are deeply involved with the LCs, though they don't criticize Witness Lee's condemning part of his ministry, don't really emphasize either, if at all. They seem to just ignore that part. If this trend continue, it is a positive thing, even if the LCs still only use WL's ministry (at least it is the good part of his ministry).

It's nice to hear about "new starts," but honestly what kind of new start would it be? Yes, they may be innocent of past crimes, and freed from the "ministry of condemnation," but how can they emerge from all the other hindrances? They for sure have heard about the young people in Ohio being contaminated by contemporary Christian music. They were informed that the incestuous offspring of Lot were a type of mainstream Christians today. How could they ever embrace these ones with such an pedigree?

We have also had recent posters on this forum relate how good things were "in the beginning," only to see things deteriorate after they had "seen the vision," and become regular members. NeitherfirstNorLast was one such brother. His story started here ...

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...33&postcount=1

How can they follow the Lord in fresh new directions? They still have to go back to WL's writings for guidance. Just the other day I listened to a recent clip concerning the Boston Training center. The speaker cited WL's "fellowship" 35 years ago about Boston being the springboard to Europe. It seems none of the rank and file will listen or respond to fellowship unless WL's name is attached to it.

What concerns me most is that they have to overcome history. They have followed all the exclusive ways that the Darby Brethren have gone, and then somehow we hope that they will not end up exactly as they did. As they say, "hope for the best, but expect the worst."

Truth · 08-16-2012, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's nice to hear about "new starts," but honestly what kind of new start would it be? Yes, they may be innocent of past crimes, and freed from the "ministry of condemnation," but how can they emerge from all the other hindrances? They for sure have heard about the young people in Ohio being contaminated by contemporary Christian music. They were informed that the incestuous offspring of Lot were a type of mainstream Christians today. How could they ever embrace these ones with such an pedigree?

We have also had recent posters on this forum relate how good things were "in the beginning," only to see things deteriorate after they had "seen the vision," and become regular members. NeitherfirstNorLast was one such brother. His story started here ...

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...33&postcount=1

How can they follow the Lord in fresh new directions? They still have to go back to WL's writings for guidance. Just the other day I listened to a recent clip concerning the Boston Training center. The speaker cited WL's "fellowship" 35 years ago about Boston being the springboard to Europe. It seems none of the rank and file will listen or respond to fellowship unless WL's name is attached to it.

What concerns me most is that they have to overcome history. They have followed all the exclusive ways that the Darby Brethren have gone, and then somehow we hope that they will not end up exactly as they did. As they say, "hope for the best, but expect the worst."

Yes, the new generation will go to WL's writing for guidance, but it doesn't mean they have to follow every thing WL's says to the teeth. I read WL's writing a lot, but I don't agree with everything he says (especially his ministry of condemnation and exclusivity).

Regarding using worldly music in the meetings, I'm not sure if the young people today agree with this interpretation of Lot. From the some I've spoken to, they have a hard time receiving this kind of word. They love music. Music draws us closer to the Lord in many ways. Whether a particular type of music is too worldly for the church life is very subjective. For example, if you look at our hymnal and some of the young people's song book, there are a few songs that came from the Beatles. Now we know the LCs sang those songs in the 70s. The Beatles were still pretty popular then. Yet LSM didn't consider that worldly. I think the BB just used this whole worldly music as another "weapon" to carry out their fight against Titus. Just another reason they used to get rid of him. But I don't think the young people today buy it. They may be silent because they are not in the lead. But it doesn't mean they agree with everything that goes on in the Recovery. The young today are much smarter than we are when we were young. They are not stupid. With the internet, they will figure out everything very soon. We don't live in China where information is censored. Also they know what abusive authoritarianism is. Once they are in the position of leadership, they will have to make a decision on how to lead the Recovery on. The current BB will be in the grave by then. If all this doesn't happen as I predict, then the Recovery will only get smaller and smaller and suffer the same fate as the Brethren.

alwayslearning · 08-15-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

Ignorance of their history does not change it which is a fundamental flaw of your argument. The younger generation of leaders have to squarely face the history of their church and take measures so it is not repeated when the next Witness Lee comes along. (And there's at least one in every crowd!)

As OBW as indicated a couple of other things would be necessary: a dismal of the ground of locality doctrine and a lexicon that makes sense to average people.

I would add the following:

1. The removal of LSM as having any special place or status above other publishers as far the LC system is concerned i.e. the LCs not a captured audience for LSM. (No we don't have to buy your books, no we don't have to announce your events, no we don't have to sell your books, no we don't have to attend your events, no we don't have to use your material. And if you don't like it too bad - we don't care what you think about us not doing it.)
2. The disbanding of the Anaheim Politburo.
3. "The work" being put in it's proper place without any influence or control of the LCs.

These are structural changes that reach into the core of how the LC really operates. If that doesn't change nothing substantial ever will. IMHO relying on the ignorance of the next generation is a poor substitute for real change.

Cal · 08-15-2012, 09:50 PM

Truth, I would say as long as you are afraid to confront LSM about their abuses of God's children, there is something unhealthy about your relationship with them. Even you should admit that.

Truth · 08-15-2012, 09:53 PM

Izgy, why would I want to confront them? They haven't done anything to me personally. I have nothing to do with them. I use their material - that's all, just like I read other publishers' as well. I don't agree with every word they say, neither do I agree to 100% with any other publishers. But this doesn't prompt me to confront all the publishers I disagree with. However, I'm not afraid to confront LSM if I have a reason to. If I was abused or if I know of someone I am close to abused by them, I am definitely not afraid to confront.

I cannot confront LSM and judge them for what happened in the 80's. I wasn't even there. Don't get me wrong, I believe in John Ingalls' story. But I cannot fight for him. I wasn't there. I can only believe his story and be sympathetic for John. But I cannot confront LSM based on some material I read on the internet. Before the Lord, I don't feel that this is my responsibility. However, if some of you feel strongly that you need to confront LSM for what happened in the 80's because the Lord has called you to do so, go ahead. I am not stopping you.

Cal · 08-16-2012, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

Izgy, why would I want to confront them? They haven't done anything to me personally. I have nothing to do with them. I use their material - that's all, just like I read other publishers' as well. I don't agree with every word they say, neither do I agree to 100% with any other publishers. But this doesn't prompt me to confront all the publishers I disagree with. However, I'm not afraid to confront LSM if I have a reason to. If I was abused or if I know of someone I am close to abused by them, I am definitely not afraid to confront.

I cannot confront LSM and judge them for what happened in the 80's. I wasn't even there. Don't get me wrong, I believe in John Ingalls' story. But I cannot fight for him. I wasn't there. I can only believe his story and be sympathetic for John. But I cannot confront LSM based on some material I read on the internet. Before the Lord, I don't feel that this is my responsibility. However, if some of you feel strongly that you need to confront LSM for what happened in the 80's because the Lord has called you to do so, go ahead. I am not stopping you.

In the first place, they are more than just publishers. They are leaders of the movement you identify with.

In the second place, it isn't just about what went on in the 80s. It's what has gone on this decade and is still going on. I'm not talking about a little doctrinal error or attitudinal problem. I'm talking about seriously damaging lives.

As long as you identify with the movement that LSM and the BBs lead, your silence is consent. Now, you might say you have no other way. But that doesn't change the fact that your are implicitly giving consent. It's just a fact your are going to have to deal with. Right now it just seems you are compartmentalizing it.

I sympathize. I'm not trying to condemn you. But I wouldn't be honest if I didn't tell you there is some inconsistency there.

Ohio · 08-16-2012, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Truth, I would say as long as you are afraid to confront LSM about their abuses of God's children, there is something unhealthy about your relationship with them. Even you should admit that.

It's hard for me to agree with this requirement for good health.

That would be like me requesting my Catholic family members in Cleveland to go to the Vatican and confront them about abuses which occurred in Philadelphia.

OBW · 08-16-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's hard for me to agree with this requirement for good health.

That would be like me requesting my Catholic family members in Cleveland to go to the Vatican and confront them about abuses which occurred in Philadelphia.

Actually a very good point. And it is not the position of the RCC leadership in Cleveland to make declarative statements about the events, facts, etc., of other places. They are responsible for what happens in Cleveland.

In this regard, I do not think that every LRC assembly that continues to follow the LSM is complicit in what went down in Anaheim many years ago or in Cleveland, Toronto, etc., in more recent years.

The thing that does bother me, though, is that to the extent that they know of the duplicity in other ways — insistence that certain amounts of LSM materials be purchased, and that the churches abandon some of their meetings in favor of "ministry station meetings" in which everything about it is not local, but externally directed, etc., — and yet remain silent.

I suspect that the average LRC member has no idea about these things. They accept that if it is what is done, then it must be OK. They don't hear about that much of the GLA fiasco. The truth about John Ingalls. They actually believe that they are incapable of resisting the poison of those internet sites.

(This is actually quite funny when you think about it. A people imbued with the ministry of the age that provides a guaranteed blessing from God greater than any others have ever received are so mentally weak that they must put on blinders, ear plugs, and make strange, loud noises so that they cannot hear or see anything that might contradict what they have been told.)

I know this is not what Ohio meant in his comment, but to take Igzy at full value, then we would have a world of people reading their Bibles, finding whatever they think they see in it, and arguing with everyone that their interpretation is correct. We would surely see the end of the mega-churches. Small home groups would have trouble staying together in that environment.

Don't misunderstand me, but it is interesting that until Gutenberg, scripture was not generally in the hands of everyone. It was found in scrolls, then handwritten books, in libraries and churches. It was opened and proclaimed in a way in which the one proclaiming it gave it meaning and interpretation. Yes, scholars, monks, etc., did pour over it and discuss. But that was generally done with a view of finding consensus. We had the Protestant reformation because someone working within that framework would not be taken seriously. And after that, more and more got into the act and wouldn't take each other seriously, with the result that we splintered into a number of major schisms. Now we are virtually all educated, and Bibles are printed in almost every language. And they are cheap. So we have all become experts (not!).

At some level, giving ultimate interpretation back to the group is important. But the group does need to address dissent or question in a manner other than excommunication and censure. And at this point, it would seem that the LRC has done more of this than anyone else — to their detriment. They gave up private thought and questioning and gave control to a despot of sorts. The balance is (or should be) that there is authority, but that it is not above question.

Truth · 08-15-2012, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Ignorance of their history does not change it which is a fundamental flaw of your argument.

I'm not suggesting ignorance of history changes history. But I am suggesting that if you are pure and innocent and you become the leader then there is a good chance for change.

Corruption, not wrong teaching (I'm not saying WL doesn't have wrong teaching), was what brought down the recovery in the 80's. This is very obvious to me. This was what caused the LCs to lose its blessings. Once corruption is gone, then the blessing will come again.

By the way, I don't consider it corrupt to follow a ministry exclusively. But I do consider it wrong to force others to do the same.

From the other point of view: just as it is wrong to condemn someone who does not follow WL's ministry, it is just as wrong to condemn someone who does (even if they do it exclusively). We have the freedom in Christ to follow the ministry/ministries that helps us the most. Please do not tell me which ministry I should read or not read. You may make suggestions but not condemnations. You must be fair on both sides. I understand some of you are against WL's ministry because you find that it doesn't help you. I respect that. But please also respect those who are helped by WL's ministry.

Lastly, I don't know if any of you still participate as an active member in the LCs. I am still one. From my observation, regardless of what you all say, I have not seen the kind of corruption in the young people that you describe with the BB. I don't doubt that what some of you say about the BB is true. However it is unfair to say that the young ones are just the same. Again this is just my observation. True enough, I have not observed EVERY young person in the LCs. But I have observed enough to make a fair statement.

We don't know the future. Only time will tell. But as of right now, I have not observed the exclusivity in the newer generation as I have observed in the old. This is just my observation of all the young people I've seen. I feel it is unfair to say today's new generation is guilty of their predecessors' past. However, if the new generation become corrupt, then we will not see the changes in the LCs that I hope for in the future.

Indiana · 08-16-2012, 04:43 AM

The Claim that Mallon Convinced Ingalls to Dissent

Listen to the logic in the angel of light ministry. And compare it to the common sense reasoning of brothers desiring truth.

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 about it. 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”.

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.

alwayslearning · 08-16-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

By the way, I don't consider it corrupt to follow a ministry exclusively. But I do consider it wrong to force others to do the same.

From the other point of view: just as it is wrong to condemn someone who does not follow WL's ministry, it is just as wrong to condemn someone who does (even if they do it exclusively). We have the freedom in Christ to follow the ministry/ministries that helps us the most. Please do not tell me which ministry I should read or not read. You may make suggestions but not condemnations. You must be fair on both sides.

We don't know the future. Only time will tell. But as of right now, I have not observed the exclusivity in the newer generation as I have observed in the old.

This brings us the suggestion that you made previously (perhaps in another thread): that for the sake of honesty and clarity the LCs should call themselves the LSM churches. I agree with this. And by definition that is exclusivity.

So if the young leaders coming up are more open and less condemning of other Christians what they are really saying is: "We are open for your to come and fellowship with us in our LSM churches. Here you will have a steady diet of Witness Lee materials and LSM sponsored events. If you are not comfortable with that you will eventually not feel welcome. If you speak out against such exclusivity we will send you on your way."

Truth · 08-16-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

This brings us the suggestion that you made previously (perhaps in another thread): that for the sake of honesty and clarity the LCs should call themselves the LSM churches. I agree with this. And by definition that is exclusivity.

So if the young leaders coming up are more open and less condemning of other Christians what they are really saying is: "We are open for your to come and fellowship with us in our LSM churches. Here you will have a steady diet of Witness Lee materials and LSM sponsored events. If you are not comfortable with that you will eventually not feel welcome. If you speak out against such exclusivity we will send you on your way."

Like I have pointed out in another post, this is not the ideal church as presented in the New Testament. However, this is much more honest. You are telling people that this is the main material you will cover - WL/WN's ministry. If someone speak something from another ministry in the meetings, you should not condemn them. They can still be part of the church. But if someone wants to cover other materials in a serious way, that person will need to do it on his/her own time. Otherwise, maybe that person should either start their own church or join another church.

Look, there is nothing wrong with this. I'm just being practical. In every denomination, they have their own material to cover. Try going to a Baptist church and suggest WL's material. They'll throw you out! Does that mean they are bad and exclusive? Of course not!

Idealy, it is best to be non-denominational and not be *for* a particular ministry. But it is hard to do in practice. I'm not saying it is not possible, but difficult. It will require a very special group of leadership. I have not seen such a church yet. Everyone has their opinions. Let's say we do form such a church. Well, who gets to say what material we should use? Everyone will have a different opinion. We try to be non-divisive by being non-denominational. But sometimes this kind of hard-trying brings us deeper into division as we have seen with the LCs. It is better to admit that we are a particular denomination. At least we are honest with ourselves, with the Lord, with one another, and with outsiders.

08-14-2012, 03:35 PM	#1
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC I don't think Penn State had a choice. The whole nation now knows. And those who were involved by being silent are now being investigated. Everything is still hush hush in the LC. Criminal charges need to be pressed before all this can be public and images are torn down. That is the difference.

08-14-2012, 07:34 PM	#3
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history. However, the person who caused the problem, WL, has passed away. Also, the last group of people (the current BB) who witnessed some of the horrible things that happened in the LCs will also pass away. It is sad that no one will take responsibility for what happened. Yet the Lord will judge. We are not the judge. He is the judge. The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past. There is another thread that says "What about the present?" Maybe I should post there. Slowly, the part of WL's ministry where he condemns Christianity will fade away. The LCs will no longer use that part of the ministry. It is just impossible to gain and keep new members with that kind of condemnation. I'm already seeing it right now, even with the "kosher" radio program that LSM produces (yes, I know some of you think it is hypocrisy...still this indicates that there is already a shift). Also we rarely speak of these items in WL's ministry in our meetings anymore (only in big conferences that LSM hosts). Believe it or not, many of the current (younger) LCs are no longer as exclusive as many of you think (at least relatively to their past).

08-14-2012, 08:52 PM	#4
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 718	Re: Angel of Light Ministry in FPR The Claim that it was said the Manager of LSM Should Be Fired On page 51, FPR, John Ingalls is charged with suggesting that the manager of Living Stream should be fired, as if this was an attack and not a legitimate suggestion. The LSM manager was responsible for immoral behavior and for division in the churches, which Brother Lee was well aware of before he released The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Yet he indicts John Ingalls for suggesting that his son, Philip Lee, should be fired! As was shared earlier, Paul Kerr, a promising younger brother in Anaheim during the turmoil, wrote: “In the real business world, where I operate, Philip Lee would have been fired, legally charged by the abused plaintiff, forced to settle for millions of dollars and he and the LSM would have been reported to the California labor board”. Brothers like John Ingalls and Paul Kerr should be commended for their integrity when there was none in the political handling of Philip Lee by others during the late eighties turmoil.

08-15-2012, 03:15 PM	#7
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC If the LRC drops its exclusivity, what is left? The only things that are not mired in exclusivism are the common faith. The ground separates. It is the core of the exclusiveness of the LRC. It is heralded as the means by which all can be one. Yet it stands as the means by which they become, as Ohio called it, the ministry of condemnation. And not condemnation of sin, but of churches and Christians. This is just another in a long line of remnant theology sects. And rather than somehow being in the center of anything, they become the most marginal. The special lexicon isolates. It creates a false elevation of self-worth. How does claiming to know about the so-called sevenfold intensified Spirit give you an upper hand on anything. Either the Spirit is sevenfold and intensified or He is not. Doesn't really matter if you know it — or think you know it. Making declarations about God, Christ, the Spirit, and the church in a manner that involves multiples of modifiers does not change the reality of anything. If it is strictly for the purpose of worship, how is this different from trying to engineer a bigger and better sacrifice (something that is secondary to obedience)? Nee's origins were a combination of Brethren teachings and inner-life theology. The Brethren may have brought about a more focused view of the end times, but they were also, in part, another exclusivist group. And there are many inner-life ministries that have similar lop-sided views of spirituality. Views that replace practical obedience with lofty-sounding faux spirituality. I do not simply say that they entirely dismiss practical righteousness and obedience, but they do tend to downplay it. No matter how much they read from the gospels, the strongest portions of their theology is Paul. And it isn't even the "whole Paul." It is just the lofty declarations about "life," crucifixion, the church, etc., and not the practical issues that were being addressed when Paul said those things. What is left to gather around? Now I do not suggest that they ignore the fact that they have gathered together for years and just disband. But what is left will not be the thing that has the peculiar marks of Nee and/or Lee on it. Surely it will be different from other Evangelical groups. But so are those other Evangelical groups in some ways different from each other. So maybe they can actually gather around Christ like so many other groups do. Groups that their leaders have declared don't gather around Christ, but something else. Say what you want about differences in doctrine. The reason that some are with certain groups may be to avoid doctrinal controversy. But the gathering is not about the doctrine, but Christ. They sing to and about Christ, not the doctrinal differences. They declare Christ, not doctrines. They participate in the Lord's table, communion, the eucharist, or whatever you want to call it, not in the doctrine. Just like the LRC, they practice in certain ways that they believe to be reasonably sound, or that are relevant, meaningful, and not contrary to their understanding. What more can you want? Take away the rotten core of leadership and the exclusivist mentality, and the LRC is no more or less different from any other group than those groups are of each other. The problem is in separating the group from the rotten core of leadership and exclusivist mentality. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

08-15-2012, 09:50 PM	#11
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Truth, I would say as long as you are afraid to confront LSM about their abuses of God's children, there is something unhealthy about your relationship with them. Even you should admit that.

08-15-2012, 09:53 PM	#12
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Izgy, why would I want to confront them? They haven't done anything to me personally. I have nothing to do with them. I use their material - that's all, just like I read other publishers' as well. I don't agree with every word they say, neither do I agree to 100% with any other publishers. But this doesn't prompt me to confront all the publishers I disagree with. However, I'm not afraid to confront LSM if I have a reason to. If I was abused or if I know of someone I am close to abused by them, I am definitely not afraid to confront. I cannot confront LSM and judge them for what happened in the 80's. I wasn't even there. Don't get me wrong, I believe in John Ingalls' story. But I cannot fight for him. I wasn't there. I can only believe his story and be sympathetic for John. But I cannot confront LSM based on some material I read on the internet. Before the Lord, I don't feel that this is my responsibility. However, if some of you feel strongly that you need to confront LSM for what happened in the 80's because the Lord has called you to do so, go ahead. I am not stopping you.

08-16-2012, 04:43 AM	#17
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 718	Re: Angel of Light Ministry, continued The Claim that Mallon Convinced Ingalls to Dissent Listen to the logic in the angel of light ministry. And compare it to the common sense reasoning of brothers desiring truth. 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 about it. 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”. 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.