I said previously that 1) John So’s message in Rosemead 2) the publication and
distribution of it 3) and the corresponding decision to meet separately for the Lord’s
table were the deciding factors for Witness Lee to begin to denounce former leaders as
“rebellious ones”. And I shared that Witness Lee told the elders that in the church
“composed of so many different persons with their different realizations and views,
problems are sometimes unavoidable”. (FPR, 74)
Yes, due to certain realizations of men of conscience, “problems were unavoidable”.
During these elders’ meetings I sat next to an elder who had spoken with me
a few times previously and was very sympathetic with our concerns, having
much the same concerns himself. We agreed to meet together for some
fellowship that evening over dinner. This we did, and as we ate we conversed
about Brother Lee’s messages that day and their impact on the situation in
general. The brother felt happy and said to me, "John, I think this is the best
we can expect from Brother Lee. Be thankful." I tried to be; I tried to take his
view. But in the depths of my being there was a nagging disappointment.
Nothing had been dealt with. No wrongs had been righted. The root was not
touched. The question loomed before us, What shall we do now? I knew I
had to be true to my conscience and the truth I had seen. ___John Ingalls
Lee shared that “such problems should be properly taken care of in the divine love by
genuine and thorough fellowship in the Spirit, with constant forgiveness, all-caring
forbearance, self-depreciating humility, merciful sympathy, and gracious help in
mutuality.” (FPR, p. 74)
Although his speaking sounded so “spiritual”, it was disingenuous and deceiving.
After that meeting we again felt that it was absolutely useless to have any more
times of fellowship. And so it was. That was the last time we sat down with
Brother Lee for face to face communication. It was the sixteenth time that I had
met with him either individually or with other brothers, since December 12, 1987,
nine months prior to that time, to discuss the present situation and open our
hearts regarding our concerns. We had spent many hours and long sessions
together concerning these matters. __John Ingalls
Bill Mallon in the Southeast and John So in Europe experienced the same frustration
as John Ingalls in not making progress with Witness Lee over serious concerns
brought to his attention. Thus, John So’s letter of disassociation spoke for them all in
summing up their concerns of 1) Being disturbed over the moral misconduct of
Philip Lee at LSM 2) Being grieved over the toleration of this by Lee and his coworkers who covered it up, and who were at the same time exalting and promoting
Philip as “the office” for others to be in one accord with 3) and being grieved further
over the promoting of him to the extent that he was able to interfere with churches
around the world, causing havoc, and division. (Other LSM principals included)
At the root of these factors of division was the core factor - the inordinate lifting up of
a man and a ministry. This was the underlying factor of division.
Yet, when these three men began to speak out and also to write about their concerns,
and start separate meetings, these were considered as the “deciding factors” to judge
them publicly - and the misrepresentations of these men began.
1